Gr666mer Updates

[TheTrooper]

View attachment 274023

......and many many traitorous Republicans.

 

[BugI02]

Any thoughts on a practical solution to this problem? How do you recommend we begin to solve the problem? What is the practical alternative to the uniparty and what steps should we be taking now to get on that path? Remaking the Republican Party as America First and populist would seem to be a good start, but Orange Man Bad

 

[jamil]

Any thoughts on a practical solution to this problem? How do you recommend we begin to solve the problem? What is the practical alternative to the uniparty and what steps should we be taking now to get on that path? Remaking the Republican Party as America First and populist would seem to be a good start, but Orange Man Bad

That's not an easy problem. Maybe the Republican party just needs to die. And something to replace it needs to happen. I've been thinking about the possibility that if Trump lost in the Primaries, he would probably run third party. I'm guessing he might start a new party instead of just declaring as independent.

Of course you know that I don't think Trump is the best guy to lead us out of this mess. And that some of it is of his own doing. But I'm kicking around the "what-if", where Trump would start a new party assuming he lost in the primaries, and that party got way more votes than Republicans in the general.

If Trump runs third party, Democrats will win anyway. So might as well be pragmatic because it doesn't matter which non-Democrat you vote for. But, if Trump's new party does way better than Republicans, that might help bring a viable alternative party to the Republican party, and hasten its death. In the long run, in such a case I think AF minded people should vote for Trump, if not for Trump, the new party. To kill the Republcian party.

I haven't vetted that out much. Just a scenario I've kicked around.

 

[Leadeye]

Sadly third parties haven't done well, I voted for Perot and wasn't nearly as popular as TR.

 

[BugI02]

That's not an easy problem. Maybe the Republican party just needs to die. And something to replace it needs to happen. I've been thinking about the possibility that if Trump lost in the Primaries, he would probably run third party. I'm guessing he might start a new party instead of just declaring as independent.

Of course you know that I don't think Trump is the best guy to lead us out of this mess. And that some of it is of his own doing. But I'm kicking around the "what-if", where Trump would start a new party assuming he lost in the primaries, and that party got way more votes than Republicans in the general.

If Trump runs third party, Democrats will win anyway. So might as well be pragmatic because it doesn't matter which non-Democrat you vote for. But, if Trump's new party does way better than Republicans, that might help bring a viable alternative party to the Republican party, and hasten its death. In the long run, in such a case I think AF minded people should vote for Trump, if not for Trump, the new party. To kill the Republcian party.

I haven't vetted that out much. Just a scenario I've kicked around.

I would disagree. It is parallel to the 'national divorce' conundrum. In both cases it is better to keep the valuable real estate/name recognition and organizational framework and force those who can't deal to be the ones to go elsewhere

I might go for it, though, if RFKjr would go fourth party at the same time

 

[jamil]

Sadly third parties haven't done well, I voted for Perot and wasn't nearly as popular as TR.

I did too. I think it’s possible that a new party would be more successful with a guy like Trump kickstarting it. It’s not gonna happen on its own. I don’t know that it would be more possible to save the Republican part. There’s too much good ole boy CoC apparatus still in the party.

 

[jamil]

I would disagree. It is parallel to the 'national divorce' conundrum. In both cases it is better to keep the valuable real estate/name recognition and organizational framework and force those who can't deal to be the ones to go elsewhere

I might go for it, though, if RFKjr would go fourth party at the same time

Well, you’ll go for it anyway if Trump runs a third party. Right? It doesn’t work if Trump doesn’t. I think it’s impossible to start a new party without having someone to attract enough voters to embarrass Republicans. I also doubt that the party can be remade. We’ll get the likes of McCarty types running it, and working behind the scenes to impede progress.

 

[BugI02]

Trump going third party is the scorched earth/burn it down option, it won't magically accomplish anything else. It's a Butch Cassidy and Sundance moment, go down swinging if you're going down anyway

If there were a viable fourth party with equivalent draw on the left, that might throw open the door to break the unipartry - but either new party could win it

I don't see either wing of the uniparty suddenly getting religion on doing the people's business just because they survive a third party scare

 

[jamil]

Trump going third party is the scorched earth/burn it down option, it won't magically accomplish anything else. It's a Butch Cassidy and Sundance moment, go down swinging if you're going down anyway

If there were a viable fourth party with equivalent draw on the left, that might throw open the door to break the unipartry - but either new party could win it

I don't see either wing of the uniparty suddenly getting religion on doing the people's business just because they survive a third party scare

Of course they wouldn’t. It’s more about killing the Republican Party. But it would be a long shot.

 

[XMil]

The author of that blog post spells his first name Simon(e) as he is a "transgender nonbinary woman," hardly unbiased on this matter. Of course, it's fashionable these days to say that because we can never been 100% impartial, we shouldn't even try. And putting in efforts to be impartial doesn't count as "doing the work." While Scientific American used to be a great source of science for the general population, it and Nature, and other formerly science-first publications have been taken over by ideology that undermines doing actual scientific work. Scientists should science, politicians should politic, and well, you get the point.

The argument of "if you don't have a perfect answer for classifying intersex persons means you hate transgendered people" is nonsensical.

Without delving into statistical distributions and multi-dimensional spaces (which would be a hoot but I don't have that kind of time), the fact that demanding a single measure to perfectly classify all persons is a fool's errand.

Chromosomes are great because they classify, what, 99.8% of human beings without issue? But they aren't everything. Rather than repeat myself, I guess I'll just point to this post in the Insane Social Justice Thread:
https://www.indianagunowners.com/th...ice-thread-pt-iv.483909/page-236#post-9548111
and the related biologist's take on this topic:

Avoid the ‘Intersex Trap’

How intersex conditions are used by activists to sow confusion and manipulate your emotions.

www.realityslaststand.com

With respect to the interracial marriage comment and how transgendered kids are out now because it's allowed, it's much more likely that the vast majority of this is more fashion than reality (see for instance, the Tik Tok video in the post above this - Pride Week is not some sort of jamboree at that school, who doesn't want to be represented on the cool flag everyone is talking about?). Back before the affirmation-first model, about 85% of transgendered kids reverse-transitioned to non-transgendered be adulthood. It also doesn't explain why adolescent girls, who historically have very little representation in the transgendered subset of the population, have exploded in the people who claim to be transgendered. More on this below. (Also, the word claim might very well be the accurate word here as describing oneself as bisexual can apply to people who've not to much as French-kissed another, any other, person: https://www.nationalreview.com/2023...-americans-actually-lgbtq-etc-dont-bet-on-it/)

There are some things that are just opposite interpretations of the same data:
We're told that this is life-saving care, but the suicide rate of transgendered persons doesn't seem greatly affected pre-/post-medical transition. Advocates of surgeries and puberty blockers/cross-sex hormones blame societal factors. Those of us on the other side find this far more suggesting of an particularly vulnerable group of adolescents in need of help and learning to cope with the general awkwardness of puberty. This vulnerable group interpretation does seem to explain quite a bit; when I was in high school, cutting and bulimia affected many teenage girls, these days it seems to be the various flavors of LGBTQIA+ . In particular, much of the gigantic uptick in transgenderism in young people is among girls, which is historically very strange. A naive assumption is that that inclusivity would increase the fraction of young people who identify as transgender, but that the ratio of men to women would resemble the same number through time. Since women are typically and traditionally far more accepting of same-sex sexual encounters than men, if anything we would expect the number of men relative to the number of women identifying this was as a number that would be increasing with additional inclusivity, but we see the number of girls/women transitioning increasing with respect to men, and an order of magnitude larger number of younger people transitioning than in older cohorts:
https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/about-an-hour-on-the-transgender-movement.507900/



I understand the urge to try to demonstrate that you're one of the good people, who wouldn't be one of those terrible bigots. (Though, if you hate religious people as much as you seem to, you'd still be quite literally a bigot, but hey, as long as you only hate those bad Bible-thumpers. They're you,know, really evil and stuff.) I understand the temptation to feel that the people who disagree with you maybe just don't care about the well-being of others. Painting the people who disagree with you as hateful/beyond reproach is neither helpful in convincing others nor does it allow you to see the irreversible risks against the vast majority of the young and vulnerable people who you're claiming to defend.

I'll try giving this a response since you don't appear at first blush to be part the pitchfork waving, angry mob. Full disclosure, though I've seen more than one person pretend to be willing to engage in dialog and then quickly reveal their true aim within a post or two. However, I'm not going to put a lot of effort into until I see honest dialog unfolding.

First, I don't know much about Simón(e) Sun. I don't know how they identify but since she says she is a trans woman, until I hear different, I'll stick with "she". Now, the article:

There is never going to be a source that satisfies the pitchfork mob, so I picked one from a long established, mainstream source. Most people responding to this thread, since the ones using slurs like "tranny" and "groomer", deliberately misgendering people and posting examples of a select few terrible people as representatives of entire group, aren't going to read them anyway. It's a tough balance between being readable and being informative.

"Chromosomes are great because they classify, what, 99.8% of human beings without issue?"

I guess if that was true, we wouldn't have so much of an issue. I have spent more than 30 years studying evolution and embryonic development. There is variation among all living things. This variation doesn't stop at eye color, nose shape or skin color. It equally effects our brain and therefore our cognitive functions, preferences and much to the chagrin of right-wing radicals, sexuality and gender identity. Any time you have more than one genetic choice, there is to one degree or another variation between them. Many of these things are very loose divisions like raw mathematical ability ( as separate from learning) ranging from nearly no ability to extreme giftedness. Others are more tightly grouped, like "handedness".

If you agree that there are generally mental differences between males and females, then you must realize those are in the brain. Fetuses are more or less starting from the same place in the beginning. A complicated choreography of cell specialization, directed in large part by hormonal signals from the mother strongly influence the final result. Yes, the outcome is typically associated with one set of characteristics OR the other. However, like the physical sexual characteristics, the mental ones are variable to. "Intersexness" does not effect only the body. I think the people that get so emotional over this basic fact must believe that could easily have been transgender but for having been "raised right". In other words, in their mind men are just women with external bits.

I will agree that there is definitely some "over diagnosing" of gender issues currently. Again though, most of the people who get their knowledge of sex and biology from Steven Crowder, just think it's all b*****t and are willing sacrifice the actual transgender people. I am not. I think all people deserve to exist and live in accordance with their biological truth even if it offends the current lynch mob.

Suicide: I'm not going to spend anytime finding data because no matter what, some Tucker Carlson bot will find some "evidence" that supports their claim. Here is what seems to be true: The outcome is effected by the ability to get the medical care they need AND the acceptance of their family and friends. If you give them medical treatment an alleviate one source of their issue, but then treat them like outcasts, generally treat them like freaks and ostracize them, of course they will have major issues. Anyone would. This is what the far right seems to want.

The elephant in the room.

You said "if you hate religious people as much as you seem to". I don't believe I've been unduly hard on religion here. I've been here a long time though and I had less restrained tongue when I was younger. Let's be clear though, what is the source of this hate for trans people? This thread is called "Gr666mer Updates". Is that 666 something from Huckleberry Finn or Moby Dick? No. I started studying evolution because I was raised in the Pentecostal church a long time ago. I also had a deep love an curiosity about nature and spent about 99% of my free time outdoors looking at animals and plants and fossils and I could see the obvious connection been all things. Meanwhile, the "church" fought tooth and nail against it. They mocked it, tried to outlaw teaching it, and get this: gave us weekly lessons and literature on why was wrong and the work of Satan. That sounds a lot like grooming to me. Since then, the educated and intelligent part of society has come to see the truth of it. The point, lets just be clear about the source of all the drama. Ironically, I doubt a creator, who made all these creatures, would be pleased with this demonization.

In summary. I think we should give transgender people the treatment they need. After of course a very careful and thorough diagnosis.

My prediction: Most respondents to this post will zero on on some minor point within, ignore the rest and go right back pitchfork waving.

There is another key point that should be of interest to people leery of government: You are inviting the government into your doctors office. This double edge sword will cut both ways. Sooner or later someone you fundamentally disagree with will be making ideology based rules about what your doctor can do for you.

 

[jamil]

I'll try giving this a response since you don't appear at first blush to be part the pitchfork waving, angry mob. Full disclosure, though I've seen more than one person pretend to be willing to engage in dialog and then quickly reveal their true aim within a post or two. However, I'm not going to put a lot of effort into until I see honest dialog unfolding.

First, I don't know much about Simón(e) Sun. I don't know how they identify but since she says she is a trans woman, until I hear different, I'll stick with "she". Now, the article:

There is never going to be a source that satisfies the pitchfork mob, so I picked one from a long established, mainstream source. Most people responding to this thread, since the ones using slurs like "tranny" and "groomer", deliberately misgendering people and posting examples of a select few terrible people as representatives of entire group, aren't going to read them anyway. It's a tough balance between being readable and being informative.

"Chromosomes are great because they classify, what, 99.8% of human beings without issue?"

I guess if that was true, we wouldn't have so much of an issue. I have spent more than 30 years studying evolution and embryonic development. There is variation among all living things. This variation doesn't stop at eye color, nose shape or skin color. It equally effects our brain and therefore our cognitive functions, preferences and much to the chagrin of right-wing radicals, sexuality and gender identity. Any time you have more than one genetic choice, there is to one degree or another variation between them. Many of these things are very loose divisions like raw mathematical ability ( as separate from learning) ranging from nearly no ability to extreme giftedness. Others are more tightly grouped, like "handedness".

If you agree that there are generally mental differences between males and females, then you must realize those are in the brain. Fetuses are more or less starting from the same place in the beginning. A complicated choreography of cell specialization, directed in large part by hormonal signals from the mother strongly influence the final result. Yes, the outcome is typically associated with one set of characteristics OR the other. However, like the physical sexual characteristics, the mental ones are variable to. "Intersexness" does not effect only the body. I think the people that get so emotional over this basic fact must believe that could easily have been transgender but for having been "raised right". In other words, in their mind men are just women with external bits.

I will agree that there is definitely some "over diagnosing" of gender issues currently. Again though, most of the people who get their knowledge of sex and biology from Steven Crowder, just think it's all b*****t and are willing sacrifice the actual transgender people. I am not. I think all people deserve to exist and live in accordance with their biological truth even if it offends the current lynch mob.

Suicide: I'm not going to spend anytime finding data because no matter what, some Tucker Carlson bot will find some "evidence" that supports their claim. Here is what seems to be true: The outcome is effected by the ability to get the medical care they need AND the acceptance of their family and friends. If you give them medical treatment an alleviate one source of their issue, but then treat them like outcasts, generally treat them like freaks and ostracize them, of course they will have major issues. Anyone would. This is what the far right seems to want.

The elephant in the room.

You said "if you hate religious people as much as you seem to". I don't believe I've been unduly hard on religion here. I've been here a long time though and I had less restrained tongue when I was younger. Let's be clear though, what is the source of this hate for trans people? This thread is called "Gr666mer Updates". Is that 666 something from Huckleberry Finn or Moby Dick? No. I started studying evolution because I was raised in the Pentecostal church a long time ago. I also had a deep love an curiosity about nature and spent about 99% of my free time outdoors looking at animals and plants and fossils and I could see the obvious connection been all things. Meanwhile, the "church" fought tooth and nail against it. They mocked it, tried to outlaw teaching it, and get this: gave us weekly lessons and literature on why was wrong and the work of Satan. That sounds a lot like grooming to me. Since then, the educated and intelligent part of society has come to see the truth of it. The point, lets just be clear about the source of all the drama. Ironically, I doubt a creator, who made all these creatures, would be pleased with this demonization.

In summary. I think we should give transgender people the treatment they need. After of course a very careful and thorough diagnosis.

My prediction: Most respondents to this post will zero on on some minor point within, ignore the rest and go right back pitchfork waving.

There is another key point that should be of interest to people leery of government: You are inviting the government into your doctors office. This double edge sword will cut both ways. Sooner or later someone you fundamentally disagree with will be making ideology based rules about what your doctor can do for you.

I don't think there's really any common ground. But, I'd like you to consider the possibility that you're underestimating the extent to which ideology is baked into your own perspective. You seem to think the side pushing back is motivated by religion, and for some people it is. I wouldn't even say for most people it is. Even bars in progressive cities can't sell Bud Lite. You think that boycott is only supported by far right Christians?

The people pushing back mostly don't give a **** about what people do with their own bodies. They do want them to be of an age of consent. And they don't want it shoved down their throats. Seeing Dylan Mulvaney being paraded around everywhere commanding people to "accept the bulge" is just not gonna help the trans movement if there were any legitimacy to it.

Probably this is one of those issues where there's not going to be an agreement between the sides. People think your side is bat **** crazy. You think their side is all religious zealots. That only uneducated people could think such things. I don't see a way both sides can agree on policies in a common jurisdictional space. You'll probably just need to move to a blue state where laws can be more to your liking. And people will need to self sort. Or. It's gonna get violent.

We'll start seeing more transgender people becoming mass shooters. Because they're being told that conservatives are waging genocide on them. And that's just ****ing crazy. This is one of the reasons that I think you haven't considered that ideology is baked into your perspective, at least a little. You've used that kind of language too. You haven't addressed the extent to which suicidal thoughts might be enhanced by the unrealistic belief pushed by people on your side, that conservatives want to murder trans people.

 

[JEBland]

I'll try giving this a response since you don't appear at first blush to be part the pitchfork waving, angry mob. Full disclosure, though I've seen more than one person pretend to be willing to engage in dialog and then quickly reveal their true aim within a post or two. However, I'm not going to put a lot of effort into until I see honest dialog unfolding.

I believe I'll be honest, but I highly doubt that we have commensurate world-views. I'm not sure that there's any particular aim here, and I would predict that at best you walk away saying "maybe they're not all pitchfork-wielders" even if on the opposite side of this (or any other particular issue). There's a few parts to your post, so I'll divvy it up and respond in pieces. I doubt we'll come to agreement, and suspect that neither of us wants days long ping-ponging of posts.

First, I don't know much about Simón(e) Sun. I don't know how they identify but since she says she is a trans woman, until I hear different, I'll stick with "she". Now, the article:

There is never going to be a source that satisfies the pitchfork mob, so I picked one from a long established, mainstream source. Most people responding to this thread, since the ones using slurs like "tranny" and "groomer", deliberately misgendering people and posting examples of a select few terrible people as representatives of entire group, aren't going to read them anyway. It's a tough balance between being readable and being informative.

Referring to slurs/general maliciousness, I oppose malicious behavior whether it's a Christian who goes and harasses people (<- not the same as evangelizing, but that's maybe a better discussion for the Civil Christianity Thread) or some militant post-modernist psuedo-science argument about some scientist at one point saying something racist/sexist and then claiming that science/the scientific method itself is some form of oppression. For clarity, I'm not accusing you of any of that.
That said,
I don't think that groomer is being used for all members of a group (here transgendered people) even by gender critics. I certainly can't claim that every person uses groomer the same way (I mean, my goodness look at the loons discussing "abolishing" the police.) Groomer really is for the people who are purposesfully preparing young or otherwise vulnerable to believe these post-modernist gender and other ideologies or frankly readying them for sexual abuse. Just a couple examples:

1. It's undeniable that there is a substantial (but probably not majority) subset of teachers of young students who imbibe them with glib versions of critical (in the legal theory sense) ideology. The major problem that I and others have is that one could teach critical theory or marxism without advocating for it; for example, Thomas Sowell once said that one of the greatest compliments he's ever received was that after teaching Marxism for a semester that one student came up to him and said that he (Sowell) had taught Marx and Marx's critics all semester and but that the student had no idea what Sowell's opinion on Marx is. Sowell viewed this as a deep compliment because he (and many others) think that the point of teaching a subject is to teach the subject and that their personal views and lives should have effectively no impact in the classroom - Groomers reject this and belief that their job is to use their positions to indoctrinate students into their same ideology at the expense of teaching the subjects.
2. There are people who spend months to years preparing vulnerable people for blatant sexual abuse. In this thread there has been reports of a gay couple sexually abusing their adopted children. A few INGOers commenting that all homosexuals are guilty/complicit of this, and other INGOers vehemently disagreeing with that position. Of course, something I think we in this thread all agree on is that sexual abuse of children is disgusting. I'd further add that we probably don't need to classify pedophiles past pedophile.

"Chromosomes are great because they classify, what, 99.8% of human beings without issue?"

I guess if that was true, we wouldn't have so much of an issue. I have spent more than 30 years studying evolution and embryonic development. There is variation among all living things. This variation doesn't stop at eye color, nose shape or skin color. It equally effects our brain and therefore our cognitive functions, preferences and much to the chagrin of right-wing radicals, sexuality and gender identity. Any time you have more than one genetic choice, there is to one degree or another variation between them. Many of these things are very loose divisions like raw mathematical ability ( as separate from learning) ranging from nearly no ability to extreme giftedness. Others are more tightly grouped, like "handedness".

If you agree that there are generally mental differences between males and females, then you must realize those are in the brain. Fetuses are more or less starting from the same place in the beginning. A complicated choreography of cell specialization, directed in large part by hormonal signals from the mother strongly influence the final result. Yes, the outcome is typically associated with one set of characteristics OR the other. However, like the physical sexual characteristics, the mental ones are variable to. "Intersexness" does not effect only the body. I think the people that get so emotional over this basic fact must believe that could easily have been transgender but for having been "raised right". In other words, in their mind men are just women with external bits.

I don't see how the final two sentences of the preceding follow from any of the previous. In fact, the only people I know who believe that males and females are the same except for genitalia are people who agree with modern critical gender ideology. All of the gender critical people I know believe that men and women are fundamentally different and that those differences extend beyond gamete production. Though, having testes and menstrual cycles do affect brain behavior, etc.

I will agree that there is definitely some "over diagnosing" of gender issues currently. Again though, most of the people who get their knowledge of sex and biology from Steven Crowder, just think it's all b*****t and are willing sacrifice the actual transgender people. I am not. I think all people deserve to exist and live in accordance with their biological truth even if it offends the current lynch mob.

Just for clarity: Literally lynching trans-identifying people is not on the table, not even from the MAGA-ites. Of course there's some idiot somewhere advocating for it, just as there are people who advocate that we kill right-wingers, but the fringe is the fringe. We don't actually need a new legal theory for trans-identifying persons to have the right to walk down the street and be safe from attack. I also don't know how I can live my own personal truth - this concept makes no sense to me (more on this below).

Suicide: I'm not going to spend anytime finding data because no matter what, some Tucker Carlson bot will find some "evidence" that supports their claim. Here is what seems to be true: The outcome is effected by the ability to get the medical care they need AND the acceptance of their family and friends. If you give them medical treatment an alleviate one source of their issue, but then treat them like outcasts, generally treat them like freaks and ostracize them, of course they will have major issues. Anyone would. This is what the far right seems to want.

We may more directly part ways here - I don't believe in a legal theory that others need to affirm us or our beliefs. For instance, my wife and I are from different races and religions (and continents!) There are people who would say that our marriage is illegitimate for one or both of the first two items of that list.

On the topic of living our own truth and affirmation. This is very inconsistently used by gender ideologues. The I identify and therefore I am mantra doesn't seem to bear scrutiny. We can make a really extreme example like suppose a person as epileptic seizures and during these fits sees visions from God. The modern pro-gender atheist cannot accept this person's truth as truth. Less extreme but somewhat common these days is trans-racialism. One push back on this is that we have separate words for gender and sex, but there is no word for racial-self-identity, but this is merely a semantic point and we can introduce sexual-self-identity and racial-self-identity to put those on equal terms. But one is vilified for being transracial and applauded for transgender (there are pins and flags and t-shirts and every other thing one can imagine for pride). Certainly in 2023, genuine transracial persons are socially disincentivized much more than transgendered persons (gender/sexual-self-identity critics would also be critical of racial-self-identity). Overall, there's nothing about I identify and therefore I am that seems to translate into any other topic.

The elephant in the room.

You said "if you hate religious people as much as you seem to". I don't believe I've been unduly hard on religion here. I've been here a long time though and I had less restrained tongue when I was younger. Let's be clear though, what is the source of this hate for trans people? This thread is called "Gr666mer Updates". Is that 666 something from Huckleberry Finn or Moby Dick? No. I started studying evolution because I was raised in the Pentecostal church a long time ago. I also had a deep love an curiosity about nature and spent about 99% of my free time outdoors looking at animals and plants and fossils and I could see the obvious connection been all things. Meanwhile, the "church" fought tooth and nail against it. They mocked it, tried to outlaw teaching it, and get this: gave us weekly lessons and literature on why was wrong and the work of Satan. That sounds a lot like grooming to me. Since then, the educated and intelligent part of society has come to see the truth of it. The point, lets just be clear about the source of all the drama. Ironically, I doubt a creator, who made all these creatures, would be pleased with this demonization.

It's understandable that you have a knee-jerk reaction to the church. It's unsurprising that God Fearing Gun Toting would include 666 in the title of the thread about groomers, I mean, it's not out of the question for a God fearing individual to use religious language. I typically try to keep faith out of my arguments having been around other scientists and find myself injecting physics lingo when I struggle to grab an appropriate word in English. But it's not fair to compare general religious teaching to grooming because like more general teaching, religious teaching is widely varied. For instance, the Big Bang hypothesis was formed by a priest, along with many other seminal works in all of the natural sciences.

As for the source of the drama - I think you're quite mistaken here. Gender ideology is a critical theory - the ideology requires the assumption of a designed oppressive system that must be destroyed. Gender critics are gleefully the provocateurs, that's part of the social mission.

In summary. I think we should give transgender people the treatment they need. After of course a very careful and thorough diagnosis.

My prediction: Most respondents to this post will zero on on some minor point within, ignore the rest and go right back pitchfork waving.

There is another key point that should be of interest to people leery of government: You are inviting the government into your doctors office. This double edge sword will cut both ways. Sooner or later someone you fundamentally disagree with will be making ideology based rules about what your doctor can do for you.

The government is already in our doctor's office, and beyond just the transition topic.
Back to gender:
Gender ideologues want to make it a crime to not transition a child, to provide barriers for parent's knowledge of transitioning children in school in secret. Not only do gender activists advocate for the rights of adults to transition but in fact to subvert familial structure. And then have the gall to tell parents that they don't know their own children nor do they have rights to ensure that their children are not being brainwashed by some people who pays no penalty when he/she is wrong, and is in fact patted on the back for "inclusivity."

 

[jamil]

I think I want to address the idea of "biological truth" more.

Biological truth for humans, in simplest terms, if you are biologically equipped to get another human pregnant, whether or not the equipment works, you're a male. If you're biologically quipped to be impregnated, regardless of whether that equipment works, you're a female. That's human biological sex.

Gender, at least the original idea of gender, is a spectrum from feminine to masculine; it's not female or male. Lots of things have gender. Language, for example. In terms of how gender relates to biology, statistically most males are masculine. Most females are feminine. Out of the box. Plenty of studies confirm that boys don't need to be taught masculinity. If left alone, they tend to be more masculine. Girls don't have to be taught femininity. Sex/Gender conformance is statistically apparent, but it's not the rule.

In terms of what reproductive organs you have, you either accept it or you don't. If you can't cope with it, if you're dysphoric about your reproductive body, that is psychological. There is likely some biology wrapped up into the psychology. Is there a trans gene? I don't think science has established either way conclusively. Same with the gay gene. But there seems to be an ideological interest in claiming the science favors one or the other depending on the ideology.

Okay so what should society believe about people with gender dysphoria? Is a person who is dysphoric about their penis actually a woman? No. Because a person with a penis can't play the woman's role in reproductive sex.

So the real question is, should we humor people who feel inside that they're the opposite sex? If you're ideologically predisposed to prioritize identity over biology, you'll say yes. And not just yes, but you'll think that their identification as a woman, makes them literally, biologically, a woman, even though they do not have the biological parts that women have.

If you don't place a priority on identity, then you'll most likely not think humoring the person is the right "treatment". Given the difference in thinking, if you form a moral position that it's evil not to think of that person as a woman is problematic, your moral position is purely ideologically driven.


On the idea of gender fluidity, that's not the same thing as transgender. And it muddies up the whole conversation. The thinking that a person's point on the spectrum between feminine and masculine is an identity is purely ideological. It's not biological. It's not really even psychological. It is 100% made up. There is no "otherkin" gender.

 

[jamil]

But it's not fair to compare general religious teaching to grooming because like more general teaching

At first I did not think the "grooming" language was all that applicable to the whole transgender debate. But I started agreeing with the characterization as "grooming" as videos of real teachers bragging on video that they're manipulating their students.

So I think a reasonable definition most people would agree with is courting a sort of relationship of trust with someone, for the purpose of using the relationship to manipulate the person for their own purpose, especially someone too young to have awareness of manipulation.

Religious teaching isn't grooming per se. But, I would say religious teaching can be grooming. If an overzealous religious person cultivates a relationship with a young child, and the purpose of the relationship is to manipulate the child to believe in the religion, I'd say that's grooming all day long.

Also, what is grooming all day long is teachers cultivating the kind of relationships with students so that they can convince them that they're actually a different gender than they are.

 

[JEBland]

At first I did not think the "grooming" language was all that applicable to the whole transgender debate. But I started agreeing with the characterization as "grooming" as videos of real teachers bragging on video that they're manipulating their students.

So if we define grooming as courting a sort of relationship of trust with someone, for the purpose of using the relationship to manipulate the person for their own purpose, especially someone too young to have awareness of manipulation. Religious teaching isn't grooming per se. But, I would say religious teaching can be grooming. If an overzealous religious person cultivates a relationship with a young child, and the purpose of the relationship is to manipulate the child to believe in the religion, I'd say that's grooming all day long.

Also, what is grooming all day long is teachers cultivating the kind of relationships with students so that they can convince them that they're actually a different gender than they are.

We're largely in agreement but I would further add that the vast majority of religious teachings happen with the consent of parents, and not with the intention of undermining relationships with the family / existing social structure. Part of grooming is alienating the vulnerable person away from that person's existing social structure to effectively capture the victim of the grooming. The classroom groomers encourage students to keep secrets from parents. A healthy evangelism does not encourage secret-keeping, with healthy being the critical word. Lastly, I would also add that teachers in public schools should not evangelize (in the classroom, obviously).

 

[jamil]

We're largely in agreement but I would further add that the vast majority of religious teachings happen with the consent of parents, and not with the intention of undermining relationships with the family / existing social structure. Part of grooming is alienating the vulnerable person away from that person's existing social structure to effectively capture the victim of the grooming. The classroom groomers encourage students to keep secrets from parents. A healthy evangelism does not encourage secret-keeping, with healthy being the critical word. Lastly, I would also add that teachers in public schools should not evangelize (in the classroom, obviously).

Yes. I agree with that. And there are a few more characteristics of grooming we could bring out. But, I think that what these teachers are doing in schools could definitely be classified as grooming.

If you don't want to be called groomers, stop manipulating kids under your care. Stop trying to isolate them from the influence of families and friends. Stop trying to convince them of things that aren't true, like conservatives are trying to kill them.

I think that if @XMil is being intellectually honest, he would admit that it's fair to say a Christian teacher, who uses his relationship to manipulate kids, using tactics like isolating students from atheist parents, secretly giving bible lessons, against the parents wishes, to try to convert kids in his charge to become Christians, is a groomer.

 

[courier6]

Who knew we had groomers lurking on ingo, ready to gaslight you for not wanting you to castrate children.

 

[BugI02]

Seeing Dylan Mulvaney being paraded around everywhere commanding people to "accept the bulge" is just not gonna help the trans movement if there were any legitimacy to it.

Maybe his job is just to front-run for Moochelle

 

[1DOWN4UP]

 

[1DOWN4UP]