North Dakota legislature fails to override veto of transgender pronoun bill

[rjs330]

That's where our positions would respectfully deviate... If I were a religious person, I'd be avoid those types of arguments like the plague.

While I'd agree that young kids are extremely impressionable, it's hard to make an "indoctrination" claim against LGBT inclusion efforts that don't cut against any religion that has proselytization as a major component.

If a 9-13 year old isn't old/mature enough to be making a decision on what they want their identity to be for their finite life, then they're certainly not old enough to be making decisions about locking themselves into a ideology that determines their eternal afterlife.

Granted, most forms of religious indoctrination are somewhat reversible (though not totally reversible if one looks at the stats that suggest that 80%+ of people end up in the same religion as adults that they were raised in as kids...it can be difficult to "un-learn" something a person was raised as thinking is normal for the first 15 years of their life), the effects of hormonal and surgical transition are not...but I don't support those kinds of measures for minors.

I take a very different view on "social transition" vs. "medical transition"...mainly because social transition allows for a true desistence, the latter does not.

For instance, if there was a church ideology that was encouraging and compelling young kids to get some bodily alteration like a tattoo or cutting certain parts of them off, I'd take a much harsher stance on it than I do for forcing kids to attend Sunday school and participate in first communion.

So? We also know it's true. Our religion says so. It tells us to reach it to our children day and night. We are to write it on the door posts of our house. Our religion recognizes the importance of teaching our children because we want to influence them.

Just like the LGBT activists want to influence children. Cause like us they know that kids can be influenced.

The question is what are we influencing children to do and be and accept.

Are we teaching them that it's okay to live in the delusion that boys can be girls?

It delusion and we should not accept it. Because it harms them and it harms society as a whole, and it harms women. Real women because they have to share their spaces with real men.

 

[Aussie Pete]

As long as teachers are also extended the "right" of "freedom to speak the truth" about Christian students' religious beliefs. Seems like a reasonable compromise. It wouldn't be fair to give rights to some people but not others to "speak the truth" to children.

It seems to me that teaching undermines Christian beliefs already. Teaching evolution as a fact, for example. However, Christians do not have the right to present the Genesis account of Creation. In a New Zealand school, of all places, I was presented with both evolution and biblical creation and told that I could make up my own mind. I've never been able to accept evolution. As far as I can see, there is only one alternative.

If removing Christianity from education was beneficial, the world would have a point. It's not. Modern Americans are so fat, so addled with drugs, so struggling with mental health issues that it is difficult to find people fit enough to join the military. No wonder the military researches robotics. It looks likes the sci-fi concept of robot armies will come to pass by necessity.

 

[Pommer]

Yes it does, cause if I have to allow a woman in my locker room to get naked with me or allow a man in my daughters or wife's locker room it absolutely affects me. And it affects all society and all the real women in society. You think it only has to affect me to matter?

How many times has your scenario actually happened to you?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

So? We also know it's true. Our religion says so. It tells us to reach it to our children day and night. We are to write it on the door posts of our house. Our religion recognizes the importance of teaching our children because we want to influence them.

Just like the LGBT activists want to influence children. Cause like us they know that kids can be influenced.

The question is what are we influencing children to do and be and accept.

Are we teaching them that it's okay to live in the delusion that boys can be girls?

It delusion and we should not accept it. Because it harms them and it harms society as a whole, and it harms women. Real women because they have to share their spaces with real men.

"What a person knows is true" is going to be highly subjective.

From an outsider's perspective (who's neither religious, nor trans), both a male who believes that they're a woman and a person who believe in <insert religious miracle here> both have a conclusion about what is true that differs from my own.

I think there's value in making certain accommodations in order to try to strive or a politer society, but with limits.

I'll call a trans person "she" if that's what they want to be called in a casual conversation... when my aunt invited me to go to my younger cousin's first communion party, I went and I said "congratulations", I'll sit through a religious service that's part of a wedding and refer the priest as "Father So & So" in conversation (and not have a semantic ideological argument about why I don't think I should refer to him as "father")

My sentiments about the pronoun topic do somewhat resemble that of Ben Shapiro's, where, if it were a public debate about the issue itself, my talking points and statements would be very different than when interacting in every day life.

For instance, if I were debating a modern gender theory professor about the topic itself, I would likely be more verbally combative about it, but that's different than if a server at a restaurant (who I can tell is trying to present as a woman) is brining me a burger and fries or if I'm talking to a trans person at a tech convention and talking about a new software release.

Much like if I were in a debate specifically about religion, my talking points to a Catholic Priest would be very different than if I was simply talking to him about something unrelated at a wedding reception.

 

[KCfromNC]

And that's precisely why they want this LGBT education in the schools. Cause they know how impressionable kids are and if they can teach them they have them.

What kind of messaging from authority figures would get you to switch to being gay? Can you be specific?
I mean, it seems like there's been a lot of thought put into this argument. So let's see the approaches you would find most persuasive in convincing you that you're actually attracted to members of the same sex.

 

[KCfromNC]

How is bullying to refuse to use a pronoun someone wants used.

Just pointing out it is against the rules here to question the religious identification of members due to it being seen as a personal attack. Shouldn't be that much of a stretch to realize how that might apply to other things which are central to a person's identity.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Have you forgotten that they have already gotten into the locker rooms, bathrooms and sports?

I've not forgotten...if you recall, I've been very vocal about the sports aspect.

All this has come because too many in society had allowed them to live in their delusion. They will not accept guardrails. They are a woman and we have told them they are by calling them she/her. Therefore we have no right to put guardrails on. By affirming them as she/her and then denying them access we have further insulted them.

To me, that means that those aforementioned guardrails is where those battle lines need to be drawn, not way over on the other side where it's still things that aren't causing any externalities.

And what I'm suggesting isn't a novel concept. We do it for any number of ideologies.

For instance, and I'll pick a religion at random...Mormonism. (but there are examples from most any religion that could be pointed to)

We, as a society have found a way to restrict the excesses of Mormonism without having to resort to "using a sledgehammer to crack a nut" as the saying goes.

Obviously there are excesses that cut against what we view as acceptable in our society (such as taking wives that are under 18, and taking multiple wives). We restrict those particular aspects, without having to resort to completely removing all of Mormonism from society, or having to staunchly and publicly reject the entire faith via administrative measures.

And we also do this for things that aren't even purely ideological in nature. Take alcohol for example. We've been able to stave off the majority of the excesses of that by having age limits and BAC limits without having to resort to blanket prohibition.



There's the old adage of "give them an inch, they'll take a mile", and I know that's the fear among many people. But I think where my conclusions differ with others is how to address that.

Where others see that as a rationale for trying to squash something entirely and try to prevent them from having an inch in the first place, I say let them have an inch, but legally stop them from taking a mile.

Or to represent it visually:
| give them an inch, | they'll take a mile


Some would draw the battle line at the red line, I would draw it at the blue line

 

[ThatRobGuy]

How is bullying to refuse to use a pronoun someone wants used. As spoken by one poster if I wanted to be called king by all my classmates and teachers otherwise my feeling would be hurt they should all have to do it. It's not bullying. Bullying is calling them names like [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] or "f" word referencing gays or the n word.

Simply not using a pronoun is not calling them a name. And I don't buy the whole "well what if they called you a she?"

Is it specifically calling them something they don't want to be called? (knowing that it'll make them feel bad...and perhaps done for that specific purpose?)

For instance, there are people who don't like their name given at birth and go by a shorter version of their first name, or their middle name, or something else altogether. If a person was deliberately going out of their way to call them by the name they don't like, and justified it with "well, that's what your parents named you, so me calling you that is rooted in truth, suck it up", people would almost universally see it as rude if done in a classroom setting or in the workplace.

 

[rjs330]

How many times has your scenario actually happened to you?

Wow that went right over your head didn't it.

If you are only concerned about it if concerns you. How many times have you been shot in school?

How many times have you been descriminated against cause you are black?

How many times have you been raped?

Why do I have to wait until something has happened to me to be concerned about? The ole trope of "how many times has it happened to you?" is about a poor a question as one can ask. Especially on a website where we discuss all kind of things that hasn't happened to us personally.

I'm guessing you were not at the Capitol on Jan 6. So since you didn't personally experience that scenario you have nothing to say about it.

Are you transgender? If not then you haven't experienced anything and so have nothing to say about it.

 

[rjs330]

What kind of messaging from authority figures would get you to switch to being gay? Can you be specific?
I mean, it seems like there's been a lot of thought put into this argument. So let's see the approaches you would find most persuasive in convincing you that you're actually attracted to members of the same sex.

I'm far more concerned about transgenderism right now. Because we have seen how educators can influence kids in this area. Trying to convince kids of a biological unreality.

 

[rjs330]

I've not forgotten...if you recall, I've been very vocal about the sports aspect.

To me, that means that those aforementioned guardrails is where those battle lines need to be drawn, not way over on the other side where it's still things that aren't causing any externalities.

And what I'm suggesting isn't a novel concept. We do it for any number of ideologies.

For instance, and I'll pick a religion at random...Mormonism. (but there are examples from most any religion that could be pointed to)

We, as a society have found a way to restrict the excesses of Mormonism without having to resort to "using a sledgehammer to crack a nut" as the saying goes.

Obviously there are excesses that cut against what we view as acceptable in our society (such as taking wives that are under 18, and taking multiple wives). We restrict those particular aspects, without having to resort to completely removing all of Mormonism from society, or having to staunchly and publicly reject the entire faith via administrative measures.

And we also do this for things that aren't even purely ideological in nature. Take alcohol for example. We've been able to stave off the majority of the excesses of that by having age limits and BAC limits without having to resort to blanket prohibition.



There's the old adage of "give them an inch, they'll take a mile", and I know that's the fear among many people. But I think where my conclusions differ with others is how to address that.

Where others see that as a rationale for trying to squash something entirely and try to prevent them from having an inch in the first place, I say let them have an inch, but legally stop them from taking a mile.

Or to represent it visually:
| give them an inch, | they'll take a mile


Some would draw the battle line at the red line, I would draw it at the blue line

The problem is we have given them an inch and they have taken a mile.

What right do you have to limit them from anything if you have already acknowledged that they are what they say they are?

You make a personal choice to call them.what they want. I actually have no problem with that because that's the freedom thing. But that's not good enough for them. They want to FORCE you to call them that. That's taking a mile. Because is forcing you to acknowledge something you know is not a reality. It's forcing you to accept and affirm a delusion. Which as we have seen has led to the things you may want to ban. How dare you ban these things. Because they are what they say they are and you admit they are what they say by acknowledging it and affirming it.

It's the great delusion. Sometimes.b ing nice is actually saying no. Sometimes doing the right thing is to say no.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Irrelevant to the topic.


No. Simply existing in a manner contrary to previous repressive generation’s expectations does the trick.


It always has been. It’s just that recently the fear of being oppressed by attitudes this thread shines a light on are thankfully becoming the minority.

Compelled speech is oppression...remember?

The left used to fight for a student's right to not say the Pledge of Allegiance. They won...and rightly so.

What sort of principles regarding speech could you possibly hold that demand a teacher call a student by what pronouns, real or imagined, they choose?

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, and it would actually be harmful to do so. No therapist takes the approach of ridicule.

And let's remember the reason we treat things like eating disorders is due to the actual harm and distress associated with the condition, not because people deem it immoral. Moralism has no place in psychotherapy or medicine.

The hippocratic oath is based on a moral idea of "do no harm". If you're saying that doctors have no moral obligations to heal patients it's not obvious why you would ever go to one.

Agreed, at the very least, it seems odd that a Christian would be so eager to attack such a deeply held, personal notion as gender identity as "unscientific",

It is "unscientific" it's purely theoretical. In fact, we could eliminate the word gender entirely without need for replacing it. Most people couldn't actually define it if they had to.

when alot of things Christians believe aren't scientifically verifiable, either.

Of course...which is why I would oppose them being taught as such in elementary school.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Because people should be free to pursue their own ends.

Not children.

That doesn't make that behavior right. Michael Jackson had a condition called vitiligo.

Did he? I've seen vitiligo....I don't recall MJ ever appearing to have it. He does appear to have undergone the sort of skin bleaching that some black celebrities have done over the years.

"Encouraging neurosis"? Ignoring gender dysphoria is not a good idea. It is associated with significant morbidity and mortality,

What's the suicide rate of children under 18 with gender dysphoria?

and there don't seem to be any other good treatments

The problem is that Affirmative Care does not require any experience of depression, suicidal behavior, or suicidal thoughts to begin puberty blockers and HRT.

besides offering puberty blockers, hormones, and gender transition and/or sexual reassignment.

Which is fine as an adult. Do you even know the reason why FDA hasn't approved these treatments for gender dysphoria?

I mentioned puberty blockers as a reasonable response to long-standing gender dysphoria in minors, but then you jump to talking about mastectomy, which is a seperate issue.

See above.

Ridicule is ugly, especially when it involves "punching down".

You're use of "punching down" doesn't involve any real examination of power in any meaningful way. It simply refers to your own personal biases and who you find acceptable to ridicule. Your politics will never make you or anyone else a moral person.

 

[rjs330]

For instance, there are people who don't like their name given at birth and go by a shorter version of their first name, or their middle name, or something else altogether. If a person was deliberately going out of their way to call them by the name they don't like, and justified it with "well, that's what your parents named you, so me calling you that is rooted in truth, suck it up", people would almost universally see it as rude if done in a classroom setting or in the workplace.

I have difficulty believing that you actually think gender ideology is the same thing as a person's name.

There is no delusion or societal impact if someone wants to be called Sam instead of Samuel. I'd even call a boy Sue if that's what he wanted his name to be. Names may be associated with sex but strictly are not sexually derived. They are not biology.

I've known girls named Charlie, Randy, Blair etc. But no matter what they remain a she/her regardless of the name.

So if a male wants to be called Cindy, I'll do it. But don't ask me to say your are a female with she/her pronouns.

My best friend's daughter is trans and it happened because she was molested. Very sad. She changed her name to what is typically a boys name. She did so legally. Guess what I call her? Yup by her chosen name. But I won't call her a boy or a male. My best friend knows this and we are just fine.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It seems to me that teaching undermines Christian beliefs already. Teaching evolution as a fact, for example. However, Christians do not have the right to present the Genesis account of Creation. In a New Zealand school, of all places, I was presented with both evolution and biblical creation and told that I could make up my own mind. I've never been able to accept evolution. As far as I can see, there is only one alternative.

Do they still teach creationism in New Zealand?

I am always against teaching dogmatic beliefs as factual in school....but I admit, that's a rather low stakes fight and far more debate and consideration was given to it. A creationist seems unlikely to go into biology and succeed...but that doesn't mean their life is ruined.

Gender ideology on the other hand is a disaster that's growing because of the dumb and morally self righteous.

If removing Christianity from education was beneficial, the world would have a point. It's not. Modern Americans are so fat, so addled with drugs, so struggling with mental health issues that it is difficult to find people fit enough to join the military. No wonder the military researches robotics. It looks likes the sci-fi concept of robot armies will come to pass by necessity.

Actually military recruitment is down because, according to recruiters...DEI initiatives. The basis of our military has typically been relatively poor, rural, and white. They see the white privilege narrative and opt out. It's hard to convince someone to fight for their nation when you're also having some racist lecture them on how they're the cause of all problems.

 

[rjs330]

Some would draw the battle line at the red line, I would draw it at the blue line

This is part of the issue. Transgenderism doesn't want anyone to stop at the red line. Everyone must stop at the blue line and if you don't you will be punished for it. You will be suspended, lose your job etc. Everyone must bow down.

A reasonable person would be willing to acknowledge that there is a red line and we should allow people to stop there should they choose, no matter how it makes me feel. After all I choose the life. I chose to change my real pronouns for false ones. And since I did I should force other to as well. If they choose to then fine. But if not that's okay to.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Is it specifically calling them something they don't want to be called? (knowing that it'll make them feel bad...and perhaps done for that specific purpose?)

For instance, there are people who don't like their name given at birth and go by a shorter version of their first name, or their middle name, or something else altogether. If a person was deliberately going out of their way to call them by the name they don't like, and justified it with "well, that's what your parents named you, so me calling you that is rooted in truth, suck it up", people would almost universally see it as rude if done in a classroom setting or in the workplace.

Imagine a professor in a class of 150....

Do you think you could entertain the possibility of remembering 150 personal pronouns? Especially if they can change any time? It's absurdity.

I'm not actually worried about the pronouns. Corporate America had initially embraced this stuff....but it's only taken them a few years to figure out that it doesn't improve productivity in any way, and ends up with a lot of petty fighting in HR. Now, it appears to be growing tend to simply throw resumes that include preferred pronouns (especially any outside he/her) in the trash bin. HR is increasingly just responding to complaints of misgendering by doing nothing. They aren't real complaints....but mini power struggles.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Imagine a professor in a class of 150....

Do you think you could entertain the possibility of remembering 150 personal pronouns? Especially if they can change any time? It's absurdity.

That's a situation where I think my aforementioned guardrails would solve the issue.

Plus, I think the notion of 150 people all having 150 different made-up pronouns would be a stretch.

I think for 99.9% of cases, you can tell whether or not person would identify as "him" or "her" (even if you can tell that they're trans)

From the vibe I get, this was centered more around the concept of "deliberate misgendering" and the complications.

And even so, this veto didn't represent a state mandate one way or the other, only that local school districts can set their own policies on the matter. If a local school district wants to go down the rabbit hole of dealing with 150 different pronouns, then they'll reap the consequences of that.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

This is part of the issue. Transgenderism doesn't want anyone to stop at the red line. Everyone must stop at the blue line and if you don't you will be punished for it. You will be suspended, lose your job etc. Everyone must bow down.

With any ideology, there's always going to be some people who don't want to stop at the red line, but I don't think it does any good (or give opposing viewpoints any credibility) to try to overcorrect for that in the other direction. Once that occurs, whatever slim chance there was of finding middle ground goes right out the window.

It'd be like saying that because there's a percentage of religious people who don't want to abide by the limitations set by the first amendment with regards to church & state, that the only solution would be to remove religion of public life altogether our of fear of a slippery slope