-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Michael Knowles demands a retraction, and gets it.
- Thread starter ThatRobGuy
- Start date
Given there's no people identified as having made this particular claim, I can't help but think it is pretty empty and shouldn't be taken all that seriously. Kinda like the attempts to pretend that calls to eradicate transgenderism really had nothing to do with transgendered people, honest.
Upvote
0
How about when someone provides evidence that the attempt to appeal to that difference looks a whole lot like attempting to run away from the implications calling for the "eradication" of those views?
That's the appropirate thing to do with leading questions - point out that they aren't sincerely looking for an answer but are attempting to score cheap rhetorical points.
Like those defensive about calling out racism in some groups of GOP supporters?
Upvote
0
What, that there actually was some level of acceptance of trans people prior to 2015? Seems the "need" for the bathroom bills in question would be the evidence of that.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
His statement there can be "no middle way" on transgenderism, for example. Or the one about there being zero acceptance of trans people prior to 2015. Or that transgenderism is delusional. Or that if one person is trans, everyone must be. Or that leaving trans people alone deprives other people of rights
(see a fun summary of his made up nonsense here : The Daily Wire’s Michael Knowles: “Transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely”)
Lots of false rhetoric from the guy pandering to people one would hope would know better. No suprise it is hard to take his recent claim that he wasn't talking about hurting trans people seriously.
Upvote
0
Uh oh, is there something wrong with capitalism?
No, that's just made up right-wing propaganda, designed to rile up people who should really know better and get them to vote against their actual interests.
I can see they've been successful.
Upvote
0
Not to belabor this too much, but why would a national debate about which bathroom transgender people should use have any bearing on transgenderism? Isn't the whole premise of the thread that there's a hard, clear distinction between the ism and the people? If that distinction actually exists, bringing bills about the actions of transgender people are totally and completely unrelated to anything to do with the totally distinct and separate subject of eradicating transgenderism.
But for some reason this post implies there is a relationship between the two. Wonder how that happened.
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 28,321
- 17,078
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Likely because the bathroom debates and sports debates are an outgrowth of the sentiment of compulsory public accommodation of the "ism". (that sentence was a mouthful and clumsy, I apologize but can't think of a better way to phrase it)
For instance, if there were advocates suggesting that every grocery store and restaurant should have to refrain from selling meat in the name of the comfort and accommodation of the 1% of the potential clientele that may identify with Veganism. And half of country decided to go along with it, and advocates forcefully kept pushing the issue (and gaining ground)... the other half who liked the way things were (where they could order a hamburger at a restaurant, or buy a steak at the grocery store) may be inclined to say something like "We need to eliminate Veganism from public life", and if grilled on that statement, would likely make the similar clarification of "I mean we need to go back to like it was a few years ago where that particular ideological viewpoint wasn't imposed on everyone else and they simply had to seek out the places that agreed with them".
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 28,321
- 17,078
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Made which claim? That people outside of experts shouldn't have opinions on things?
Your statement of
"Or perhaps an area where we let medical experts do their thing and keep random amateurs out of such decisions."
It's the vibe I got from that statement.
That viewpoint is short-sighted for a few reasons. The main reason, it operates on the premise that medical experts are somehow immune from the temptation of using their "expert status" as a means to further their social views when we certainly wouldn't take that sort of blind following approach of "whatever they say, we should go along with" for a variety of experts in other fields.
For instance, I'm sure the legal team for the NRA knows more about law, guns, and gun law than your average gun control advocate, would you want to take a "just leave it to the experts" approach to that issue? Or would you say we should probably allow some outside opinions to be factored in order to make sure countervailing interests are being considered?
Upvote
0
Everything he said was true. You are totally misquoting him. Spreading misinformation about what he said. I think you've been reading too many left wing propaganda rags.
Upvote
0
I think you may be getting it. It was an eradication of views. That's the ism. It's not eradicating people.
Upvote
0
No you won't answer because you really do know the difference. You just don't want to admit it.
That's not what you claimed and not what I responded to. You still haven't backed up the statement you made.
Upvote
0
Except little has been done to address the real issues. The actual research and exploration in regards to long term counseling and drug therapy is sadly lacking.
We known for a fact that trans affirming care came fairly quickly. Even after this care the transgender folks still have very high suicide rates and comorbities. Yet with all that we still want to trans the kids who are not remotely prepared for this decisions. And we want to introduce it to them at younger and younger ages.
Actual treatment of transgenders should not have to affect all of society. Why is it that transgenderism doesn't just stick with treatment? Why is it that transgenderism seeka to alter all of society?
You did not see this kind of push back prior to around 2015 or so. Transgender people existed long before that. I met my first real transgender person back on 1979-1980. It was it Seattle. We talked for quite awhile. He had had some surgeries to make himself a woman.
I felt very sorry for him as I do all the transgender people. It has to be a horrible feeling to think you should be the opposite sex.
The experts right now are the Wahpath people you are transgender ideologists.
Not enough has been done to provide real treatment to these poor people.
And we are also trying to stop the ideology in it's tracks.
Upvote
0
Oh yes when it comes to mutilating and castrating and causing mental and emotional and physical harm to children for money there is.
Upvote
0
ximmix
Newbie
- Feb 14, 2014
- 931
- 498
- Country
- Sweden
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
The only way to eradicate racism is by making racist people not be racist anymore. In order to eradicate transgenderism, do you think we should make transgender people not be transgender anymore?
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 28,321
- 17,078
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
But that wasn't the ask...
The clause specifier "from public life" the speaker used would mean that we're not going to structure society and institutions around a particular viewpoint. In this case, the viewpoint is "a male can become female and vice versa"
We've done the same for various religious viewpoints without demanding that people desist from their own personal religion. It just means that their ideology can no longer dictate rules for the rest of society.
For instance. If a country had started implementing Sharia law...and people who opposed such measures decided to take the stance of "we need to remove Islamism from public life", it would mean going back to pre-Sharia days, not making people convert from Islam to another religion.
Upvote
0
What's the difference between racism and a racist?
-ism - Wikipedia
One of the things about an ism is that it can become a social movement. A societal change. You don't have to eradicate people in order to eradicate a societal movement which wishes to cause societal change.
That's the difference. And Knowles was very clear on that. He was referring to a social shift. We need to end this societal shift in accepting and promoting transgender ideology. We need to return to the days were transgender people existed within a society where they we not encroaching on women's bathrooms unless they looked like a woman, they were not competing against women in sports, where they were no demanding to get undressed in front of women and children and shower with them.
Where they weren't trying to get you fired or disciplined for failing to use a preferred pronoun. Where ideologists were not teaching boys and girls that they might be the opposite sex. Where men are trying to influence children to be queer. All of this is part of the ism that needs to be eradicated.
And before anyone asks no it does not mean anyone gets to bully, or assault transgender people. That never was acceptable and never will be.
You can be nice and still tell them no you can't undress around the opposite sex and you can't participate in women's sports.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
