Did you read the article and the basis of the study, what they were trying to learn and determine? I suspect you didn't read it at all, just that someone claimed it supports a claim you want it to make, or you cherry picked a particular statement in the conclusion and felt it would support your point.
If that's how you feel....what possible good would it do to tell you I read the article? It covers a wide range of what it considers sexualization....from media to education, including early education.
All you're telling me here is you aren't interested in any evidence that won't support your preconceived conclusions.
This is nothing more than a logical fallacy, an ad hominem.
No that's a fact. He came across some monstrous pedophiles and covered for them....it's possible these people were making up tales of abuse but I don't find that particularly ethical or endearing.
And yes....it would be an ad hominem if the one thing had nothing to do with the other. At a certain threshold though....it seems foolish to ignore the people who make up the members of a group. If there's a large number of pedophiles in a group advocating for free babysitting that they are willing to provide....it's not an ad hominem to point that out. If there's an alarming number of Marxists in your revolutionary political party....it's not an ad hominem to question its goals.
If these things were irrelevant....you'd be correct. The number of Marxists in my baking class is inconsequential.
If you have issues with the study than point out the issues; Kinsey's personal life and what he may or may not have advocated does not invalidate the study.
It throws his conclusions into question.
If you really want to discuss the methodological problems with the Kinsey study though....we can do that too.
I was using the term very broadly -- largely because of how transsexual and transgender fall under the umbrella of LGBT; you are correct, though, I should have been more precise and used a different term.
I'm asking out of genuine confusion.....and a slight suspicion that Matt Walsh is stealing my arguments lol.
I pointed out many couldn't define woman (along with a lot of other terms) about a year before Walsh made his video. I pointed out nobody actually knows the trans youth suicide rate on a thread months ago...and just week or so ago he's testifying in front of a state legislature making the same point.
Walsh if you're reading this....I'm ideologically uncommitted and cheaply bought. You can have all my best arguments, and easiest arguments, exclusively for cheap....for or against nearly anything.....for a year. I'll sign a NDA. PM me.
I don't know how you use transsexual -- though there are many on this forum who do use it in a derogatory manner. Forgive me for any implication against you personally.
I have nothing against trans or gay people. I argued in the past, on this forum, that equality under the law meant marriage under the law....not a civil union....because if the legal aspects were the same, then there was no need in changing the name of the union except for purposes of discrimination.
It's not that I like or dislike gay or trans people....I'm indifferent. I don't like this method of advocacy. I don't like it so much...that even though a state passed a law recently (Tennessee I think) pushing the age of consent for trans medical treatment to 25...something I don't agree with...I wouldn't actually argue against it.
That's because I don't want help a group that uses their tactics.
Thanks, you've let me know you aren't worth the time to waste since you don't wish to have an honest discussion of the topic -- particularly for your false accusation against me.
You don't want to have a discussion. I have an honest concern about harm being done to children. I'm sure you're aware these things have happened in the past....
True...I don't think I'd make such arguments for adults. They can argue for themselves. Children however, require protection. The possibility that they require protection from the state or a doctor is a rare, but very real and unfortunate reality. Scientists don't always get it right.
You may have heard of eugenics before....and it involved the mass sterilization of children in many places based on what was considered the best scientific consensus at the time. This program has a lot of very similar features from relatively weak research....to serious ethical considerations that have been ignored....as well as an influential advocacy group politically driving the agenda.
The fact that you don't actually know what harm this is supposed to prevent....what good is supposed to come of it....but I'm somehow dishonest for expressing concern for the safety of children that are being sexualized in the classroom is bizarre to me.
Sorry no....the harm to children is the main point of contention I have here....even the methods of this advocacy group are secondary to that. I won't just drop it because you doubt my sincerity.
The fact that the same psychologists who are saying that a little boy can decide to start being little girl and consent to irreversible medical treatment procedures....also recommends getting some of his sperm frozen in case he changes his mind about wanting children as an adult should be cause for alarm.
Whenever I bring this up...nobody ever has any explanation for why we're doing this to children. Occasionally, someone admits we're doing it for gay and trans people....because they are groups that large swaths of society either discriminates against or dislikes. I don't see why that justifies indoctrination. There's tons of groups hated or disliked by large numbers of people. Incels are generally disliked....but we don't teach little girls to be nice to them.
Why not? Is this about reducing suicide and bullying and discrimination? Or is it a blatantly self serving political indoctrination that seeks to eliminate political opposition in the least honest and most potentially harmful way?
I am? Where? What have I said and where?
What exactly do you think this is over?
How can you not know what you're advocating for and call me dishonest? Have you seen any if these books? Any curriculum materials? Listened to any experiences of students that parents are upset about?
I don't expect you to have a comprehensive knowledge of everything every school is teaching. I don't know how you can possibly judge this without even glancing at the evidence.....unless you don't care about evidence.
What garbage am I supporting teaching to children? Again, what have I stated. I stopped in to make a couple of corrections to things you stated that weren't really accurate; I tend to avoid these debates entirely because I get too frustrated with both sides treating transsexuals and transgendered as a political football.
I'm sorry....it seemed like you were against these measures taken in Florida to remove certain inappropriate content from K-3rd grade classrooms.
Is that not the case?
Because you really should know what that content is if you want it in classrooms, right? How irresponsible would it be to advocate for children to be exposed to something without knowing anything about it?
Good, now if that could only be said about more here, but I made no accusation about you. Again, I merely stated that it is used as a "scare tactic."
I'm not stating a scare tactic. I'm stating I think this is harmful to children....based on evidence. It definitely seems helpful to people who aren't children in public schools....and that's not a good reason for it. Children in public schools aren't the problem you seem concerned about....so it's hard to imagine how they might be a solution.
Actually, I'm somewhat an expert on the topic. Of course, that is maybe my issue -- I'm used to the clinical terms and discussions based on those terms -- particularly from a decade ago. Of course, now that it has become political, much like "socialism," the terms get redefined to fit political purposes which don't fit with the clinical usage of the terms.
I don't think I'm an expert on the issue. I do have a few things going for me though. I've got a pretty good grasp of psychological science and psychological practice and can differentiate between the two. I've got a strong background on statistical methodology and it's limitations and what it can and cannot show, as well as the apparent rare ability to be able to read research and evaluate its quality (one of the very few practical things I learned in college) I've got a better than average philosophical understanding of logic, sophistry, and multiple topics regarding consciousness and emotion/rationality. I know the very narrow path to truth and how disappointing and limiting can be....and I know how to do research.
What I wouldn't be able to tell you is stuff about football....like who was in the Super Bowl this year or who won (we did have the super bowl already, right?) Yet despite this....I can probably bore anyone to tears going on about anything political from Marxist theory, capitalism, economic models of the past broad scoped world history in such detail as it relates to things like geography or things like coffee and tea.
I'm actually of the opinion that certain topics have no experts....like race. You can certainly know the history of race....but that really just makes you a historian with a very specific and narrow focus. There aren't enough facts about race itself to qualify one as an expert. There's a possibility that sexuality is an area of expertise along biological lines....but along something like gender, it's almost all theory and a handful of facts.
Some topics people are theoreticians on....others they can be experts on. I don't see any problem with this....unless the theorists attempt to claim they are experts.
As for transgendered, it depends on the person and how they express gender in, for lack of a better term here, non-traditional ways. Some are completely normal in daily life, others are maybe like the "stereotypical gay male" with the lisp and seemingly effeminate gestures and posture (though that isn't necessarily transgender), etc.
Again, this is a confusing statement for me as "stereotypical gay person" is not a gender. That falls under sexual orientation and can be of either gender. If I'm wrong though....feel free to explain.
Of course, to be fair, one can seem to be that "stereotypical gay male" and be a heterosexual that isn't transgendered -- though they still often will face abuse because of how they behave or talk.
This is just as confusing a statement as the previous....and it baffles me to think that we could teach this to kindergarteners in a way that makes sense. I find a lot of it blatantly contradictory.
I may be, I was thinking CRT.
CRT is also in the California curriculum multiple times.
Look, if you genuinely don't know what this is about.....if you haven't looked at any source materials in the libraries or classrooms....I can provide examples. I just can't do it here. It's simply too graphic and violates forum rules. If you want to PM me I'll gladly provide examples....directly from what is being banned. I'll just need an email address or moderator permission....then we can discuss if it's appropriate for little children and if they benefit in some way from it.
