Calls for violence against LGBTQ people intensify

[Neu California]

I did read it, but decided that it was deluded, and had no connection to reality.

I think you have concluded that anybody who thinks differently to you is disconnected to reality, because you confuse your worldview for an accurate view of the world. Which is why I would suggest to you you read some books on epistemology, because the implication here is you think you have an accurate grasp of reality. Which as a Discordian i would say is... quaint... but the text itself would described as "Unenlightened perplexion.". (I point this out to you so you can see the relevant section).

The Aneristic Principle is that of apparent order; the Eristic Principle is that of apparent disorder. Both order and disorder are man made concepts and are artificial divisions of pure chaos, which is a level deeper than is the level of distinction making.

With our concept-making apparatus called "the brain" we look at reality through the ideas-about-reality which our cultures give us. The ideas-about-reality are mistakenly labeled "reality" and unenlightened people are forever perplexed by the fact that other people, especially other cultures, see "reality" differently.

It is only the ideas-about-reality which differ. Real (capital-T) True reality is a level deeper than is the level of concept. We look at the world through windows on which have been drawn grids (concepts). Different philosophies use different grids. A culture is a group of people with rather similar grids. Through a window we view chaos, and relate it to the points on our grid, and thereby understand it. The order is in the grid. That is the Aneristic Principle.

Western philosophy is traditionally concerned with contrasting one grid with another grid, and amending grids in hopes of finding a perfect one that will account for all reality and will, hence, (say unenlightened westerners) be true. This is illusory; it is what we Erisians call the Aneristic Illusion. Some grids can be more useful than others, some more beautiful than others, some more pleasant than others, etc., but none can be more True than any other.

Disorder is simply unrelated information viewed through some particular grid. But, like "relation", no-relation is a concept. Male, like female, is an idea about sex. To say that male-ness is "absence of female-ness", or vice versa, is a matter of definition and metaphysically arbitrary. The artificial concept of no-relation is the Eristic Principle.

The belief that "order is true" and disorder is false or somehow wrong, is the Aneristic Illusion. To say the same of disorder, is the Eristic Illusion.

The point is that (little-t) truth is a matter of definition relative to the grid one is using at the moment, and that (capital-T) Truth, metaphysical reality, is irrelevant to grids entirely. Pick a grid, and through it some chaos appears ordered and some appears disordered. Pick another grid, and the same chaos will appear differently ordered and disordered. Yea verily, so much for all of that then.

I think you're reading way too much into it and need to back off. If I think someone's wrong, I call them wrong. In this case, I thought you weren't even wrong.

Also the pseudophilisophical babble has nothing to do with the question of why the right (YOUR SIDE) wants to visit violence on LGBT individuals so I'm not even going to engage it. If you want to discuss your bizarre philosophical viewpoint, start a thread for it. Otherwise, focus on the topic.

An example of the problems arising from epistemic injustice and a point in favour of my proposal. Eventually, if not rectified through participatory mechanisms, violence resolves the dispute.

I'd say it more favors my side. When one side's openly harmful views get so engrained that violence is the only way to root them out, then, when said violence is used and succeeds, things improve, not continue deteriorating. None of the views from the modern left on the topic of LGBT (you know, the topic of this thread) can be called harmful, as far as I can tell. Prove otherwise without going down the road of philosophy, which is off topic here.

Because the conception of "Rights", an essentially contested concept, was not arrived at through participatory mechanisms inclusive of those expected to view this regime with legitimacy. Similarly, the progressive movement has constructed a conception of equality and equity it expects whites, men, cis people, heterosexuals etc to adhere to.

It expects those groups to adhere to those rights because, lo and behold, it expects everyone to respect and adhere to those rights. I'm failing to see the problem, other than you seem to prefer a "rights for me but not for thee" approach.

You're assuming they have equal footing because you're not addressing the contentedness of the concept of equality. Plenty of whites and males think women and minorities are privileged over them, and simply re-stating women and minorities opinion on that is not a sufficient rebuttal once you understand essentially contested concepts and participatory legitimacy.

Breaking news: Ostro thinks helping women and minorities get equal rights is actually giving them special rights.

Also, just because they say that does not make it true in the least.

So without the crass gynocentrism and afrocentrism on your part, let's restate your point in a more neutral manner that doesn't rely on epistemic injustice or privilege.

And why should I argue with this stupid strawman that has no connection with anything I've argued?

But nice to see your balatant dishonesty and unwiullingness to actually argue the points made on display. Or doi you think that black people and women are inferior? Hint, I never argued for an afrocentric or gynocentric viewpoint. My vikewpoint is egalitarian, or egalocentric if you prefer. If this is the shit you're going to accuse me of, why should ANYONE take you seriously? If anyhting you come off as eurocentric and androcentric.

"Because let me tell you, you sound a lot like you're saying that women and minorities conceptualizing and then legally defining equality themselves, and imposing that view on society while expected men and white people to view it as legitimate is a bad thing.".

Yes. Yes that is what i'm saying. If you try hard, you might now understand the connection between "A bunch of white plantation owners conceptualizing and then legally defining human rights by themselves, and then expecting others to go along with it" was also a bad thing and where the comparison comes from.

So you twist my words to say something I never said and don't believe. Nope, not even going to engage until you cut the dishonest strawmanning of my positions.

[quote]

Not at all. Mugabe's rise to power has a lot to do with epistemic and hermeneutical injustice.

(Only because this is the end)

Prove it!

edit: finally I unbroke my post.

[Ostroeuropa]

So i'm just going to say, this is a waste of my time. If you can't fulfil the requests at the end, this will be my last reply to you.

I think you're reading way too much into it and need to back off. If I think someone's wrong, I call them wrong. In this case, I thought you weren't even wrong.

You not understanding it, doesn't make it untrue.

Also the pseudophilisophical babble has nothing to do with

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't make it babble.

the question of why the right (YOUR SIDE)

I am not right wing.

wants to visit violence on LGBT individuals so I'm not even going to engage it.

I'm sure that's why you're not engaging. You're not about to once again display that you don't even understand the point.

If you want to discuss your bizarre philosophical viewpoint, start a thread for it. Otherwise, focus on the topic.

This is on topic.

I'd say it more favors my side. When one side's openly harmful views get so engrained that violence is the only way to root them out, then, when said violence is used and succeeds, things improve, not continue deteriorating.

*Sigh*.

Improve according to whom? The victors, right?

None of the views from the modern left on the topic of LGBT (you know, the topic of this thread) can be called harmful, as far as I can tell.

Their conception of equity is not arrived at through a participatory mechanism, and thus the conceptions arrived at by heterosexual and cis people which draw upon different hermeneutical pools of knowledge are not included. This ensures that the version of equity utilized will have elements conceptualized as being inequitable to the outgroup.

Prove otherwise without going down the road of philosophy, which is off topic here.

This sentence is a huge insight into how you view philosophy. You want me to prove something is wrong, without using philosophy?

It expects those groups to adhere to those rights because, lo and behold, it expects everyone to respect and adhere to those rights. I'm failing to see the problem, other than you seem to prefer a "rights for me but not for thee" approach.

I know you're failing to see it. But that isn't what i'm saying, and I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it for you.

Breaking news: Ostro thinks helping women and minorities get equal rights is actually giving them special rights.

You don't seem to even be able to parse what i'm telling you about "Equality.".

Also, just because they say that does not make it true in the least.

And how are you determining that? What is your epistemological basis? Is it drawing exclusively upon the hermeneutical knowledge of women and minorities, explaining their conception of equity and how white mens differs, so white men are wrong?

And why should I argue with this stupid strawman that has no connection with anything I've argued?

Just because you do not understand your behavior, does not make it a strawman. I am criticizing you and what you are engaged in. Explain how you are not doing so, don't just cry that it's a strawman because you're ignorant of your own biases and don't like the implications.

But nice to see your balatant dishonesty and unwiullingness to actually argue the points made on display.

What are you talking about?

Or doi you think that black people and women are inferior? Hint, I never argued for an afrocentric or gynocentric viewpoint.

I have explained to you how you have done so numerous times. By calling an afrocentric and gynocentric conceptualization of equality "Equality" and suggesting it as objective, you are engaged in afrocentrism and gynocentrism.

My vikewpoint is egalitarian, or egalocentric if you prefer.

Equality is an essentially contested concept. A conceptualization of that concept is dependent upon participants.

If this is the shit you're going to accuse me of, why should ANYONE take you seriously? If anyhting you come off as eurocentric and androcentric.

So, I explained in detail how you're engaged in those things. Can you explain how you think i'm doing so?

So you twist my words to say something I never said and don't believe. Nope, not even going to engage until you cut the dishonest strawmanning of my positions.

No. I'm criticizing what it is you actually said, but you desperately wish were not true. See here;

"Breaking news: Ostro thinks helping women and minorities get equal rights is actually giving them special rights.".

How was this conceptualization of equality arrived at?

And you did it previously with;

"Do you think women having equal rights is bad?", which is where this response comes from.

My argument to you is that you have conceptualized equality in such a way that this question completely misses the point and you haven't actually addressed *Any* of the comparisons or criticisms.

Tell you what. If you want me to think you've understood it and this isn't a fucking waste of my time, before you do anything else, explain to me the following;

1. What is an essentially contested concept

2. What is an example of one

3. What are hermeneutical pools of knowledge

4. What is hermeneutical injustice

5. How are these terms used by me, and how am I using them in ways that are inaccurate?

You might even then be able to answer why I am comparing the white planter class conceptualizing "Rights" in away that excluded rights black people's epistemological resources, and why this eventually was settled by simply beating the shit out of the white planters, is relevant to the conversation of why LGBT people are getting the shit kicked out of them in relation to a conceptualization of "Equality".

Your replies to me constantly demonstrate you don't understand the difference between a concept and conceptualization, despite it being explained at length to you.

I will just leave this here and point out you are a TEXTBOOK case.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/23352291

When I say "The equity progressives advance is a conceptualization derived from women and minorities hermeneutical knowledge, and excludes white and male hermeneutical knowledge" and you reply "What's the problem with equity?", I genuinely don't know how to reply to that.

This?

"Breaking news: Ostro thinks helping women and minorities get equal rights is actually giving them special rights.".

And this?

"Do you think women having equal rights is bad?"

This is the reply of somebody who has failed the assignment.

(Only because this is the end)

Prove it!

*sigh*.

I have, to my satisfaction, explained the issue. If you do not address these points and instead come out with some more garbage, I won't be replying.

[Neu California]

I'm only posting because Ostro either doesn't get it, or is being deliberately dense. Either way, one last post to explain what he's getting wrong. I'm starting to wonder if he's some sort of supremacist.

So i'm just going to say, this is a waste of my time. If you can't fulfil the requests at the end, this will be my last reply to you.

Your strawmen failed, so you run off with your tail between your legs.

I think you're reading way too much into it and need to back off. If I think someone's wrong, I call them wrong. In this case, I thought you weren't even wrong.

You not understanding it, doesn't make it untrue.

And your saying it's true doesn't make it true.

Also the pseudophilisophical babble has nothing to do with

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't make it babble.

Either way, it's irrelevant.

the question of why the right (YOUR SIDE)

I am not right wing.

>Only attacks the left
>claims not to be right wing

wants to visit violence on LGBT individuals so I'm not even going to engage it.

I'm sure that's why you're not engaging. You're not about to once again display that you don't even understand the point.

No, because you don't want to stay on topic.

If you want to discuss your bizarre philosophical viewpoint, start a thread for it. Otherwise, focus on the topic.

This is on topic.

No, the topic is violence and threats against LGBT individuals, not your ramblings on philosophy.

I'd say it more favors my side. When one side's openly harmful views get so engrained that violence is the only way to root them out, then, when said violence is used and succeeds, things improve, not continue deteriorating.

*Sigh*.

Improve according to whom? The victors, right?

Nope, not going to argue solipsism. But I will take this as a sign that you don't care about the rights of others.

None of the views from the modern left on the topic of LGBT (you know, the topic of this thread) can be called harmful, as far as I can tell.

Their conception of equity is not arrived at through a participatory mechanism, and thus the conceptions arrived at by heterosexual and cis people which draw upon different hermeneutical pools of knowledge are not included. This ensures that the version of equity utilized will have elements conceptualized as being inequitable to the outgroup.

And the way you view rights is completely at odds with how others do, and comes off more as an excuse to deny others rights that you get. BTW, your overly fancy prose is giving me a headache, and seems designed to simply obfuscate your point.

Prove otherwise without going down the road of philosophy, which is off topic here.

This sentence is a huge insight into how you view philosophy. You want me to prove something is wrong, without using philosophy?

I dunno, evidence? You know that thing that exists in the real world and covers real world outcomes and is thus far superior to philosophy in defining what works in the world? That you reject it out of hand is very telling.

It expects those groups to adhere to those rights because, lo and behold, it expects everyone to respect and adhere to those rights. I'm failing to see the problem, other than you seem to prefer a "rights for me but not for thee" approach.

I know you're failing to see it. But that isn't what i'm saying, and I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it for you.

Start by not wrapping it in your philosophy. Or how about this: Do, women, non-white people, and LGBT people deserve to have the same rights as white heterosexual males? Yes or no? Explain your answer.

Breaking news: Ostro thinks helping women and minorities get equal rights is actually giving them special rights.

You don't seem to even be able to parse what i'm telling you about "Equality.".

You mean that people have to earn it before they get it? Sorry, but I reject that notion. If not that, explain in simple terms what you mean. Because what I'm getting for5m you is men's supremacist vibes trying to hide in a nice coat of bullshit philosophy.

Also, just because they say that does not make it true in the least.

And how are you determining that? What is your epistemological basis? Is it drawing exclusively upon the hermeneutical knowledge of women and minorities, explaining their conception of equity and how white mens differs, so white men are wrong?

Fuck the "epistemological basis"! Where's the evidence?

And why should I argue with this stupid strawman that has no connection with anything I've argued?

Just because you do not understand your behavior, does not make it a strawman. I am criticizing you and what you are engaged in. Explain how you are not doing so, don't just cry that it's a strawman because you're ignorant of your own biases and don't like the implications.

I know what I said.. If you can't understand it, than that's your problem. If you can't argue against it (and let me note for you: you brought women and africans into the discussion, not me), then that's very telling.

What are you talking about?

The strawmen you keep throwing around and trying to act like they're my actual arguments.

I have explained to you how you have done so numerous times. By calling an afrocentric and gynocentric conceptualization of equality "Equality" and suggesting it as objective, you are engaged in afrocentrism and gynocentrism.

You've claimed that, but I have seen no explanation. So, explain to me one more time,. citing my actual arguments and any actual sources (not your philosophy), where I advanced such causes

Equality is an essentially contested concept. A conceptualization of that concept is dependent upon participants.

Philosophy is off topic. And you sound like a supremacist.

So, I explained in detail how you're engaged in those things. Can you explain how you think i'm doing so?

No, you've claimed I have, not offered any explanation. And maybe, just maybe your views are so androcentric ands eurocentric that anytthing that falls even the slightest bit out of that range is gynocentric and afrocentric. And the way you keep throwing around those words makes me think you're a white male supremacist. Hint: the US was founded on all men being equal, so if anything I'm writing from a literal Americentric viewpoint

No. I'm criticizing what it is you actually said, but you desperately wish were not true. See here;

"Breaking news: Ostro thinks helping women and minorities get equal rights is actually giving them special rights.".

How was this conceptualization of equality arrived at?

How else was I supposed to interpret your saying "You're assuming they have equal footing because you're not addressing the contentedness of the concept of equality. Plenty of whites and males think women and minorities are privileged over them, and simply re-stating women and minorities opinion on that is not a sufficient rebuttal once you understand essentially contested concepts and participatory legitimacy."

because it sounds a lot like you're saying that helping women and minorities get equal rights is actually giving them special rights at least, through some men's eyes, including your own. In fact, from my perspective, it reads a lot like "to the privileged, equality feels like oppression," which happens to be the vibe I get from you.

And you did it previously with;

"Do you think women having equal rights is bad?", which is where this response comes from.

My argument to you is that you have conceptualized equality in such a way that this question completely misses the point and you haven't actually addressed *Any* of the comparisons or criticisms.

Anmd my argument is you have done nothing of the sort and are just dancing around the point with pretty words, instead of, you know, answering the fucking question. So answer the fucking question: do women deserve equal rights in your opinion? A non-response will be taken as a no. Oh, and add it to my sig pointing out your refusal to answer a simple question.

Tell you what. If you want me to think you've understood it and this isn't a fucking waste of my time, before you do anything else, explain to me the following;

1. What is an essentially contested concept

Not relevant to this discussion, unless tied back to the topic directly, which you refuse to do.

[

2. What is an example of one

Evidence, not philosophical concepts, or irrelevant to this discussion. Either tie it back directly to the thread topic, or stop this threadjack.

3. What are hermeneutical pools of knowledge

Irrelevant to the questions asked about violence against LGBT individuals

4. What is hermeneutical injustice

I'll answer if you can directly tie it into the discussion, which you have not. IE explain how this relates to LGBT individuals being on the receiving end of threats and violence.

5. How are these terms used by me, and how am I using them in ways that are inaccurate?

I cannot speak for their accuracy, but I can say you're using them to obfuscate the point, rather than engage the topic of threats and violence against LGBT people

(Only because this is the end)

Prove it!

*sigh*.

So you have no proof.

Thank you for admitting that you can't prove any of your arguments with evidence

[Ostroeuropa]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

If anybody else wants to address any of the points made, i'll reply to them. Or you're welcome to have your own discussions and not reply to my posts.

[Neu California]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

If anybody else wants to address any of the points made, i'll reply to them. Or you're welcome to have your own discussions and not reply to my posts.

You obviously want to talk about philosophy, so go start your own thread and stop trying to hijack mine with your philosophical stuff. Hell, start a thread on the is/ought problem since you're so damn interested in it, instead of discussing the topic.

And your refusal to answer my simple question is noted.

[Dimetrodon Empire]

i mean, why not? puberty blockers are entirely reversible, and sometimes medically necessary. it's not SRS or HRT (even though the latter isn't inherently a trans treatment, either: hormonal therapy is also used in hypogonadism treatments, intersex "treatment", for growth hormone disorders, type 1 diabetes treatment via insulin, and its main use outside of treating menopause and trans affirmation care is in oncology, i.e. treating cancer).

also, y'know, fuck's the point of giving puberty blockers to adults?

Incidentally, this post is probably medical misnformation.

Puberty blockers have been observed to have long term likely irreversible effects on children and teens, including bone density loss comparable to osteoporosis, that does not reverse when the blockers are stopped.

To add on to my previous post, my post does not apply to other life threatening disorders. ie. Type one diabetes, etc.

And yes, possible negative side effects are my main concern. But if someone here proves me wrong, I will stand corrected.

I'm not some right-wing culture warrior after all.

[Dimetrodon Empire]

It’s genuinely amazing how many people who haven’t even taken the fucking MCAT, much less gone to med school and actually completed a residency in the relevant field, think they’re qualified to expound on the need for political proscriptions and access restrictions for whole classes of medications and patients— whether it’s puberty blockers, mifepristone, PrEP, various classes of painkillers, even fucking antibiotics. Are you a fucking endocrinologist? Can you tell a scalpel from a saline bag? Why the fuck should anyone give a rat’s ass who you think puberty blockers should or shouldn’t be prescribed to?

Although I am a progressive, I may have to take the traditionalist position on this and advocate for banning all antibiotics. There are a lot of bacteria, and this stuff is getting over complicated, so I really think they should just get rid of all of it so I don’t have to worry about those “superbugs” and “preventable deaths” etc. Big Pharma and no one else is making a big deal out of. Better to die now than succumb to our own unnecessary failures later.

for both of you.

Hope you enjoy your free worthless internet points. Because these are unintelligent posts.

[The Error Islands Union]

Threats of violence against the LGBTQIA+ community are on the rise and intensifying, according to a new briefing by the Department of Homeland Security.

The DHS document, distributed to government and law enforcement agencies on May 11, said that domestic violence extremists and people who commit hate crimes have increased threats of violence against the LGBTQIA+ community within the last year.

"These issues include actions linked to drag-themed events, gender-affirming care, and LGBTQIA+ curricula in schools," DHS said.

DHS said that the issues inspiring threats and calls of violence against the LGBTQIA+ community could lead to a rise of potential attacks against larger targets, such as public spaces and healthcare sites that may be linked to the community.

DHS analysts also cite social media chatter celebrating the recent mass shooting at a Nashville church school.

"High-profile attacks against schools and faith-based institutions like the recent shooting in Nashville have historically served as inspiration for individuals to conduct copycat attacks," DHS said.

In recent months, politicians in Tennessee, Florida and other Republican-run states have introduced legislation that critics say targets the LGBTQIA+ community.

In March 2022, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the Parental Rights in Education bill, dubbed the "Don't Say Gay" bill by detractors.

The bill banned classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through third grade. Last month, the Florida Board of Education expanded those restrictions to include all grades. In March, Tennessee became the first state to restrict public drag performances.

HB 9 and SB 3, signed by Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee, make "a person who engages in an adult cabaret performance on public property" -- or where it can be viewed by minors -- a criminal offense.

Last month, a federal judge temporarily blocked the law, saying it was vaguely written and overly broad, according to AP.

At least 14 states have passed laws or policies that restrict gender-affirming care for people under the age of legal majority, which is the threshold for legal adulthood.

According to DHS, about 20% of all hate crimes reported throughout the country in 2021 were motivated by bias linked to sexual orientation and gender, citing the FBI's hate crime statistics.

This is what all the anti-woke nonsense gets you in the end, and why I will never vote for a Republican.

So, NSG, is the Republican culture war against those who aren't heteronormative the cause of this? And if not, who is?

I'm definitely going to say that if the Repubs aren't responsible for creating this harmful, hateful rhetoric, they are responsible for amplifying it and if there is another massacre of LGBT individuals (say, in the style of the Pulse Nightclub shooting), then the right should be held responsible for creating an environment where it's more likely to happen.

I get all of this is bad and all, but I would like to point out that the fact you want little children to learn about sexual orientation in kindergarten to elementary age and then say it's an attack on the community when the school says no... is disgusting. It is okay for them to learn about sexual orientation in middle school and high school, but not in elementary! They are very young and don't even know, and are most likely not going to know who they are truly at that age. So Florida not allowing children to learn about that stuff from kindergarten to third grade, I am fine with. Oh, and what that also means is that is not an attack on the community, that is literally protecting the kids until they are old enough to understand sexual orientation and who they are. At their age, their sexual orientation stays between them and the parents. Learning about sexual orientation should come later, not the moment they get out of preschool.

Prove me wrong.

[Vassenor]

This is what all the anti-woke nonsense gets you in the end, and why I will never vote for a Republican.

So, NSG, is the Republican culture war against those who aren't heteronormative the cause of this? And if not, who is?

I'm definitely going to say that if the Repubs aren't responsible for creating this harmful, hateful rhetoric, they are responsible for amplifying it and if there is another massacre of LGBT individuals (say, in the style of the Pulse Nightclub shooting), then the right should be held responsible for creating an environment where it's more likely to happen.

I get all of this is bad and all, but I would like to point out that the fact you want little children to learn about sexual orientation in kindergarten to elementary age and then say it's an attack on the community when the school says no... is disgusting. It is okay for them to learn about sexual orientation in middle school and high school, but not in elementary! They are very young and don't even know, and are most likely not going to know who they are truly at that age. So Florida not allowing children to learn about that stuff from kindergarten to third grade, I am fine with. Oh, and what that also means is that is not an attack on the community, that is literally protecting the kids until they are old enough to understand sexual orientation and who they are. At their age, their sexual orientation stays between them and the parents.

Prove me wrong.

Protecting kids from learning that some people have two mommies or two daddies and that's OK.

Also "prove me wrong" is literally how no debate works. Prove yourself right.

[The Error Islands Union]

I get all of this is bad and all, but I would like to point out that the fact you want little children to learn about sexual orientation in kindergarten to elementary age and then say it's an attack on the community when the school says no... is disgusting. It is okay for them to learn about sexual orientation in middle school and high school, but not in elementary! They are very young and don't even know, and are most likely not going to know who they are truly at that age. So Florida not allowing children to learn about that stuff from kindergarten to third grade, I am fine with. Oh, and what that also means is that is not an attack on the community, that is literally protecting the kids until they are old enough to understand sexual orientation and who they are. At their age, their sexual orientation stays between them and the parents.

Prove me wrong.

Protecting kids from learning that some people have two mommies or two daddies and that's OK.

Also "prove me wrong" is literally how no debate works. Prove yourself right.

Alright, they are allowed to learn about that. But not stuff like transgender and all that stuff. They're too young to understand. What part do you not get? I hate the fact that I have to explain the obvious to you!

[Ostroeuropa]

This is what all the anti-woke nonsense gets you in the end, and why I will never vote for a Republican.

So, NSG, is the Republican culture war against those who aren't heteronormative the cause of this? And if not, who is?

I'm definitely going to say that if the Repubs aren't responsible for creating this harmful, hateful rhetoric, they are responsible for amplifying it and if there is another massacre of LGBT individuals (say, in the style of the Pulse Nightclub shooting), then the right should be held responsible for creating an environment where it's more likely to happen.

I get all of this is bad and all, but I would like to point out that the fact you want little children to learn about sexual orientation in kindergarten to elementary age and then say it's an attack on the community when the school says no... is disgusting. It is okay for them to learn about sexual orientation in middle school and high school, but not in elementary! They are very young and don't even know, and are most likely not going to know who they are truly at that age. So Florida not allowing children to learn about that stuff from kindergarten to third grade, I am fine with. Oh, and what that also means is that is not an attack on the community, that is literally protecting the kids until they are old enough to understand sexual orientation and who they are. At their age, their sexual orientation stays between them and the parents. Learning about sexual orientation should come later, not the moment they get out of preschool.

Prove me wrong.

Is it the explicit nature of the content to which you object? For example, if there were a book or tv show that depicted a same sex couple in much the same way as a heterosexual couple, would you find this objectionable? Would this extend to depicting trans people without explanation?

I'm somewhat sympathetic to the tension around explicitly explaining this shit to kids. I think that comes laden with problems. But I also think that normalization can occur through simple depiction and the kid will register it as normal.

[The Error Islands Union]

I get all of this is bad and all, but I would like to point out that the fact you want little children to learn about sexual orientation in kindergarten to elementary age and then say it's an attack on the community when the school says no... is disgusting. It is okay for them to learn about sexual orientation in middle school and high school, but not in elementary! They are very young and don't even know, and are most likely not going to know who they are truly at that age. So Florida not allowing children to learn about that stuff from kindergarten to third grade, I am fine with. Oh, and what that also means is that is not an attack on the community, that is literally protecting the kids until they are old enough to understand sexual orientation and who they are. At their age, their sexual orientation stays between them and the parents. Learning about sexual orientation should come later, not the moment they get out of preschool.

Prove me wrong.

Is it the explicit nature of the content to which you object? For example, if there were a book or tv show that depicted a same sex couple in much the same way as a heterosexual couple, would you find this objectionable? Would this extend to depicting trans people without explanation?

I'm somewhat sympathetic to the tension around explicitly explaining this shit to kids. I think that comes laden with problems. But I also think that normalization can occur through simple depiction and the kid will register it as normal.

Alright, you got me. I guess there is nothing wrong.

Looking back at the first post of the forum, I realize that not allowing children to have "gender affirming care" is supposed to also be an attack. THERE IS AN AGE LIMIT FOR A REASON! The children are too young to make life changing decisions that will permanently affect their body. There is way too many health risks. Since when did it become an attack. Please explain.

[Vassenor]

Protecting kids from learning that some people have two mommies or two daddies and that's OK.

Also "prove me wrong" is literally how no debate works. Prove yourself right.

Alright, they are allowed to learn about that. But not stuff like transgender and all that stuff. They're too young to understand. What part do you not get? I hate the fact that I have to explain the obvious to you!

And presumably that age of "too young to understand" will conveniently keep getting higher and higher.

[Dimetrodon Empire]

This is probably the only time I take the right-wing position on this.

I don't think puberty blockers should be given to children. Though I think that the amount of children who receive them is a small group, not this huge trend the right pretends it is.

Yeah, I think both sides tend to exaggerate trends, it's what gets the people to vote for them. It's important not to fall into the trap of blindly following either side and to think for yourself. It's tragic that many of the posters on this site are so far-right or so far-left.

It's more like our political dissent into mere culture warriorism. All that ever seems to matter nowadays is the culture war. The right is mainly to blame for that, though many on the left love to follow them.

That being said, it's funny how many people gave me shit for that post, as if it had any impact on my voting patterns or I said it out of malice.

I get all of this is bad and all, but I would like to point out that the fact you want little children to learn about sexual orientation in kindergarten to elementary age and then say it's an attack on the community when the school says no... is disgusting. It is okay for them to learn about sexual orientation in middle school and high school, but not in elementary! They are very young and don't even know, and are most likely not going to know who they are truly at that age. So Florida not allowing children to learn about that stuff from kindergarten to third grade, I am fine with. Oh, and what that also means is that is not an attack on the community, that is literally protecting the kids until they are old enough to understand sexual orientation and who they are. At their age, their sexual orientation stays between them and the parents. Learning about sexual orientation should come later, not the moment they get out of preschool.

Prove me wrong.

Is it the explicit nature of the content to which you object? For example, if there were a book or tv show that depicted a same sex couple in much the same way as a heterosexual couple, would you find this objectionable? Would this extend to depicting trans people without explanation?

I'm somewhat sympathetic to the tension around explicitly explaining this shit to kids. I think that comes laden with problems. But I also think that normalization can occur through simple depiction and the kid will register it as normal.

Ostro, many of these people are so homophobic they want a Russian style gay propaganda law.

I cannot speak for that poster directly, but he probably does fall into that camp.

[The Error Islands Union]

Alright, they are allowed to learn about that. But not stuff like transgender and all that stuff. They're too young to understand. What part do you not get? I hate the fact that I have to explain the obvious to you!

And presumably that age of "too young to understand" will conveniently keep getting higher and higher.

They should learn about that in middle school. Not elementary. Some parts of LGBT should be saved for later.

[Dimetrodon Empire]

And presumably that age of "too young to understand" will conveniently keep getting higher and higher.

They should learn about that in middle school. Not elementary. Some parts of LGBT should be saved for later.

Sex Ed was taught in late elementary in my school.

So I see no problem with it in late elementary. It's not like its porn or anything.

[Gravlen]

Incidentally, this post is probably medical misnformation.

Puberty blockers have been observed to have long term likely irreversible effects on children and teens, including bone density loss comparable to osteoporosis, that does not reverse when the blockers are stopped.

To add on to my previous post, my post does not apply to other life threatening disorders. ie. Type one diabetes, etc.

And yes, possible negative side effects are my main concern. But if someone here proves me wrong, I will stand corrected.

I'm not some right-wing culture warrior after all.

I still think you're being a bit unclear here though.

You are fine with this medication being prescribed for some medical conditions, but not others. OK. But what does that mean? Does it mean that you wouldn't want it to be given to your own child, or that nobody should be allowed to use it?

If doctors, parents, and the child itself all agree that the benefits outweigh the risk, do you want to deny them the ability to make the choice? Do you think doctors/parents should be criminally prosecuted if they make this choice? Should the State remove the child from their parents if they allow this medication to be used because of the risk of side effects?

If you want to ban its use for others, would this also apply to other medication with risks of side effects? In that case, can you tell me more about where and how you draw the lines?

[Ostroeuropa]

Is it the explicit nature of the content to which you object? For example, if there were a book or tv show that depicted a same sex couple in much the same way as a heterosexual couple, would you find this objectionable? Would this extend to depicting trans people without explanation?

I'm somewhat sympathetic to the tension around explicitly explaining this shit to kids. I think that comes laden with problems. But I also think that normalization can occur through simple depiction and the kid will register it as normal.

Alright, you got me. I guess there is nothing wrong.

Looking back at the first post of the forum, I realize that not allowing children to have "gender affirming care" is supposed to also be an attack. THERE IS AN AGE LIMIT FOR A REASON! The children are too young to make life changing decisions that will permanently affect their body. There is way too many health risks. Since when did it become an attack. Please explain.

Were it a case of life choices i'd broadly agree. However, the argument is that it's a healthcare provision and treatment for a specific condition which has a high fatality rate if left untreated, the risks to which are considered worth it. I'm open to discussing whether there is a meaningful difference between for example kidney surgery and gender affirming care, but I think that framework needs to be acknowledged first.

I think that we could approach the topic either by denying the condition, which is likely to go poorly, or attempting to discern whether there is something specific about medical procedures which alter the body in ways associated with sex and sexuality which should require a higher bar, and if so, on what basis and is that basis well reasoned?

The best I can come up with is that it is unusual to resort to physical treatments for mental conditions. But, given that surgery is typically delayed until the child is considerably older, is there a meaningful difference between puberty blockers and anti-depressants? Or ritalin, for example? While many mental conditions are dealt with through psychological means, not all are and many are not possible to deal with adequately, even with the drawbacks of medication.

Can you be clearer about what it is specifically you're objecting to, and use comparative examples to say what it is you find meaningfully different about this case?

[Rhodevus]

Alright, they are allowed to learn about that. But not stuff like transgender and all that stuff. They're too young to understand. What part do you not get? I hate the fact that I have to explain the obvious to you!

When did you realize that you were a guy (or a girl, I don't pretend to know your gender over the internet)? That's the age that kids should learn about what transgender people are. and gender affirming care for children? That's letting them wear clothes they like and maybe changing their name. The most dangerous part is whether or not they grow out their hair or cut it.

hormone blockers are used most often for cisgender kids with no side effects. they delay puberty. they don't stop it from ever happening. and that's only used when doctors, parents, and the kid is in agreement.

And presumably that age of "too young to understand" will conveniently keep getting higher and higher.

They should learn about that in middle school. Not elementary. Some parts of LGBT should be saved for later.

what part? The L? kids can't know that they can have two mommies? the G? kids can't know they can have two daddies? the B? kids can't know that they can like both boys and girls? the T? kids are too young to know that it's possible to be a boy or a girl?

it's not about forcing kids to choose. It's letting them know that there are other options besides being cisgender and heterosexual. It's not about sex. or body-parts or anything like that. You keep it simple for kids, and then expand as they get older.

have you ever answered the 'where do babies come from?' question? you don't tell your toddler the in depth answer first. you tell them something simple, and as they get older, you explain more.

[Vassenor]

Alright, they are allowed to learn about that. But not stuff like transgender and all that stuff. They're too young to understand. What part do you not get? I hate the fact that I have to explain the obvious to you!

When did you realize that you were a guy (or a girl, I don't pretend to know your gender over the internet)? That's the age that kids should learn about what transgender people are. and gender affirming care for children? That's letting them wear clothes they like and maybe changing their name. The most dangerous part is whether or not they grow out their hair or cut it.

hormone blockers are used most often for cisgender kids with no side effects. they delay puberty. they don't stop it from ever happening. and that's only used when doctors, parents, and the kid is in agreement.

They should learn about that in middle school. Not elementary. Some parts of LGBT should be saved for later.

what part? The L? kids can't know that they can have two mommies? the G? kids can't know they can have two daddies? the B? kids can't know that they can like both boys and girls? the T? kids are too young to know that it's possible to be a boy or a girl?

it's not about forcing kids to choose. It's letting them know that there are other options besides being cisgender and heterosexual. It's not about sex. or body-parts or anything like that. You keep it simple for kids, and then expand as they get older.

have you ever answered the 'where do babies come from?' question? you don't tell your toddler the in depth answer first. you tell them something simple, and as they get older, you explain more.

Hell, I was getting basic sex ed when I was 11.

[Rhodevus]

Hell, I was getting basic sex ed when I was 11.

yeah, I got the first sex-talk when my sister was born, so when I was around 7.

[Dimetrodon Empire]

To add on to my previous post, my post does not apply to other life threatening disorders. ie. Type one diabetes, etc.

And yes, possible negative side effects are my main concern. But if someone here proves me wrong, I will stand corrected.

I'm not some right-wing culture warrior after all.

I still think you're being a bit unclear here though.

You are fine with this medication being prescribed for some medical conditions, but not others. OK. But what does that mean? Does it mean that you wouldn't want it to be given to your own child, or that nobody should be allowed to use it?

If doctors, parents, and the child itself all agree that the benefits outweigh the risk, do you want to deny them the ability to make the choice? Do you think doctors/parents should be criminally prosecuted if they make this choice? Should the State remove the child from their parents if they allow this medication to be used because of the risk of side effects?

If you want to ban its use for others, would this also apply to other medication with risks of side effects? In that case, can you tell me more about where and how you draw the lines?

While I do question if it is a good idea or if the side effects are worth it, I am not in favor of the government getting involved.

Like I said, despite my skepticism, the right is making a mountain out of a mole hill.

[Dimetrodon Empire]

Hell, I was getting basic sex ed when I was 11.

yeah, I got the first sex-talk when my sister was born, so when I was around 7.

Oh my god, the horror. /s

[Radnonymous]

https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map?ideology=anti-lgbt

They keep existing, what would you do?

[Gravlen]

I still think you're being a bit unclear here though.

You are fine with this medication being prescribed for some medical conditions, but not others. OK. But what does that mean? Does it mean that you wouldn't want it to be given to your own child, or that nobody should be allowed to use it?

If doctors, parents, and the child itself all agree that the benefits outweigh the risk, do you want to deny them the ability to make the choice? Do you think doctors/parents should be criminally prosecuted if they make this choice? Should the State remove the child from their parents if they allow this medication to be used because of the risk of side effects?

If you want to ban its use for others, would this also apply to other medication with risks of side effects? In that case, can you tell me more about where and how you draw the lines?

While I do question if it is a good idea or if the side effects are worth it, I am not in favor of the government getting involved.

Like I said, despite my skepticism, the right is making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Good, that's a respectable position. It's perfectly fine for you to choose to not take the medication due to the possibility of side effects.