The following is a great analysis of what the left has been doing to truth for a long time:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/03/a_senate_hearing_and_a_swimming_pool_give_the_truth_its_due.html
This is a tactic we see endorsed by our very own Danny T, though I no longer expect anything akin to reason, logic, intelligence or honesty from the likes of him or his troll.
The quote presented at the end of the piece is especially awesome, as debates on the meaning of words...or more precisely, how the left bastardizes the meanings of words to serve their warped purposes...has been the subject of discourse many times on these here blogs. Stan has often expounded on the subject. It seems to me that even if we were to accept that the left believes what they say they believe, they'd find a better way to promote those beliefs than lying about what words mean....or in the case of Ketanji Brown Jackson, whether or not they can be defined at all.
We see it also in the creation of words, such as "homophobia" or "transphobia" as if there is actual psychological fear of the people referenced by those words. They're bludgeons. Nothing more or less than that, meant to silence those who object to all that those who enable such people represent for the culture.
We see it in the misapplication of words, like "racist" or "nazi", also used as weapons to force those who object to leftist notions into submission. Words like "oppression" or "disenfranchise" or "marginalize" are bandied about when policies opposed by the left are proposed or enacted, as we see in response to voter ID laws, laws regarding how and when our kids are taught about sexual issues and laws meant to protect women against unfair competition by men who either suffer from delusion about their sex or simply wish to exploit women by pretending so. And of course, there's the hateful rhetoric regarding protecting kids from the pressures of the pro-trans activists and parents who stupidly buy into that farce.
It's so stupid to say it, because it's so blatantly obvious: Truth is important. But the left isn't concerned with truth, but what they want truth to be. That's dangerous as hell and hell will likely be the destination of those who intentionally disregard it, and certainly what our nation will become if truth is rejected in favor of leftist principles and agendas.
170 comments:
Yep. "Phobe" just means "shut up, I can't refute your facts and logic!!" If they really thought we were "phobes" -- i.e., people with literal mental illnesses, then on their own philosophy they'd have to affirm us, just like they do with mentally ill trannies.
Oh, and not all trannies are mentally ill, and very few of their supporters are. Their primary motive as Leftists is to shake their puny fists at almighty God in their pathetic Romans 1 Poster Children rebellion against him. You can see it, for example, in the NBC people getting giddy over the male swimmer who beat the female swimmers. Those people couldn't care less about women's swimming, but they get off on sticking it to God and his created order.
"If they really thought we were "phobes" -- i.e., people with literal mental illnesses, then on their own philosophy they'd have to affirm us, just like they do with mentally ill trannies."
Ah, Neil, but that's not how it works, don'tcha know. THEY get to decide which is mental and which isn't, so two who are both disturbed/disordered/dysfunctional are for one of them, angelic, innocent people oppressed and marginalized for all of human history, while the other is just a sinister hater. It will always be so for the lying left.
When a person calls me a "homophobe," either when we had our street ministry, on my blog, and on FB (before I left those discussions due to getting jail time), I respond that I have no fear of homosexuals but they fear heterosexuals and are therefore "heterophobes" and truth-deniers.
Once The Truth morphed into "My truth/Your truth" or "multiple truths", I think that we turned a major corner.
Oh, absolutely. We turned a corner down a very dark alley.
Glenn,
Your comment is what's known as "a direct hit".
A bunch of old white guys making up false claims - stupidly false claims - while pretending (or maybe actually thinking) they are defending truth is sadly the hallmark of modern "conservatism."
You all - not an expert among you - decide that ideas and people you don't like are "mentally ill," in spite of expert opinion or reality, and you proclaim it to be true. Redefining words and reality while decrying Redefining words!
Do none of you see the rank privilege, oppression and hypocrisy in any of this?
And Glenn... "getting jail time..."?? Say more. What kind of criminals do you have on your blog, Marshal?
Neil... "Their primary motive as Leftists is to shake their puny fists at almighty God in their pathetic..."
Another example of a patently stupidly false claim and attack on an historically oppressed group of people. Neil can't support this false attack claim and yet, not one of you who say you value truth will call him on it.
Thou shall not bear false witness, Neil, etc al. If you can't support this claim (and none of you can, as it's stupidly false) then don't make it. These oppressive attacks DO cause harm and oppress people. LGBTQ folk are beaten, killed, attacked and shamed in the real world because of false attacks like these.
You all confuse us standing with Jesus against the pharisees and think that by disagreeing with you we're disagreeing with God.
Blind guides. Whitewashed tombs. Just stop the attacks and stupidly false claims.
Stupidly false claims from your "source" include...
1. "A nominee for the Supreme Court of the United States refused to venture a definition for the word ‘woman,’ one of the most basic facts in all of humanity."
The implication here is that it's "obvious" to know the "basic facts" about what someone's gender is just by looking between their legs. Unfortunately, this is a rather shallow, grade school understanding of gender. The facts are more complicated than that and Judge Jackson merely acknowledged that scientific reality. That so many conservatives are operating with a grade school understanding doesn't mean that Jackson was wrong or to be mocked for humbly answering honestly.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-020-0666-3
When you can respond to the science at an expert level, let us know. In the meantime, you lose to science and basic reason and decency.
2. "but you had to endorse them through the force of law. Just ask Jack Phillips, the owner of the Masterpiece Cake Shop."
No one has to endorse anything. If you're in a bakery business that sells wedding cakes and a black and white couple requests a cake for their wedding and you're one of the conservatives who don't "approve " of "mixed marriages," they don't have to endorse the wedding but they DO have to sell them the cake. Operating a business for all people does not mean you approve of all people. It just means you are not free to engage in harmful discrimination.
Being a bigot is still a free option for people like you (and yes .. you are literally bigoted against LGBTQ folk). But causing harm is not an option.
And yes, denying access to simple mainstream options open to other groups of people but not historically oppressed people IS causing harm. That you all don't understand the harm is just another example of cis white privilege.
I could go on. The article is full of stupidly false claims. But you get the idea.
Stop oppressing historically oppressed people.
The concluding remark you referenced...
"There are objective truths
and meaning is essential to life,
but there are people
deeply offended by reality.”
Amen.
In contrast to your stupidly false claims, progressive types DO believe in both facts and objective Truths and conservative snowflakes like you all regularly melt when confronted with basic realities that you want to disagree with.
But it doesn't matter if you all are offended by the reality of LGBTQ folk, they are here, beloved children of God and their allies. All your hateful harmful denials of their reality will not cause them to disappear.
Objective Truths indeed.
Marshal... " in the case of Ketanji Brown Jackson, whether or not they can be defined at all."
Actual experts...
"Scientists, gender law scholars and philosophers of biology said Jackson's response was commendable, though perhaps misleading. It's useful, they say, that Jackson suggested science could help answer Blackburn's question, but they note that a competent biologist would not be able to offer a definitive answer either. Scientists agree there is no sufficient way to clearly define what makes someone a woman, and with billions of women on the planet, there is much variation.
"I don't want to see this question punted to biology as if science can offer a simple, definitive answer," said Rebecca Jordan-Young, a scientist and gender studies scholar at Barnard College whose work explores the relationships between science and the social hierarchies of gender and sexuality. "The rest of her answer was more interesting and important. She said 'as a judge, what I do is I address disputes. If there's a dispute about a definition, people make arguments, and I look at the law, and I decide.' In other words, she said context matters – which is true in both biology and society. I think that's a pretty good answer for a judge."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/7152439001
Jackson gave the factually correct, scientific answer. Fools and the ignorant don't understand how she's correct, and so try to mock her. But their mocking only serves to embarass them.
Trabue,
Facebook jail time because you disagree with LEFTIST lies is common with intelligent people like me who think for ourselves.
I never say anyone is "mentally ill" because I disagree with that ideology. The mind is intangible and cannont be ill. IF there is an organic issue with the brain which causes problems with one's thinking processes then that can be addressed medically.
However, there is also no such thing as a "transgender" any more than the king was wearing new clothes when he was naked. Those who practice homosexual behavior are just plain perverts and are not bound to do such--they are sinful people who need to lead that sin behind just like fornicatiors and adulterers need to leave the sin behind.
NO sexual perversion should be force upon anyone by forcing them to bake cakes for prepare flowers, etc for fake marriages, etc. That is unjust and giving special rights to sexual perverts. God has condemned homosexual behavior in no uncertain terms but people like you are of the devil and want more people to go to hell as you lie to them about what God says.
Actually what Judge Jackson acknowledged is that the definition of "woman" is firmly in the purview of biology.
Further, the problem with her evasive answer is that as a potential SCOTUS justice, she will likely be involved in cases involving "women" as a protected class under US law. If she can't define something, how can she protect that which can't be defined?
"Operating a business for all people does not mean you approve of all people. It just means you are not free to engage in harmful discrimination."
Really, are you claiming that a "business for all people" must provide there services to literally "all people"? Are you claiming this as an inviolable principle?
March 28, 2022 at 9:21 AM
"A bunch of old white guy..."
Of what significance or importance is either our ages or race in determining the truth of what we say? What is true remains so regardless of who says it, and regardless of the age or race of whomever says it. To question the validity of another person's position based on that person's age or race is, by definition, ageism and racism. You're no better than your slave-trading ancestors.
"...making up false claims - stupidly false claims..."
Which claims are false...stupidly or otherwise...and what evidence will you provide to back up your accusation? Present it or apologize.
"...while pretending (or maybe actually thinking) they are defending truth is sadly the hallmark of modern "conservatism.""
What we say is true until you can prove otherwise by presenting evidence to support the accusation that it isn't. Defending truth is the hallmark of Christianity and honest people, regardless of political persuasion. It just happens to be far more common of conservatism of every era. But then, you have no understanding of conservatism, so you make this mistake with incredibly dishonest regularity.
"You all - not an expert among you - decide that ideas and people you don't like are "mentally ill," in spite of expert opinion or reality, and you proclaim it to be true."
In what way are you an "expert" that you can criticize our positions? What research have you conducted, had reviewed by your peers (as that is so important to you) and duplicated by others that provides you with the least amount of authority to do so? To date, you've not provided ANY evidence of anything you perpetuate.
"Redefining words and reality while decrying Redefining words!"
Which words would those be you feel we've "redefined"?
"Do none of you see the rank privilege, oppression and hypocrisy in any of this?"
It's not at all common for normal people to see the same hallucinations of deluded people like yourself. Thus, no...we do not see what doesn't exist in anything we've said or presented in this post or subsequent comment thread.
"And Glenn... "getting jail time..."?? Say more. What kind of criminals do you have on your blog, Marshal?"
He's referring to what's commonly referred to as "Facebook jail", when one runs afoul of the highly subjective and terminally biased opinions of so-called "fact checkers" and arbiters of "community standards" of Facebook. To my knowledge, he has no criminals of any kind on his blog. But YOU have an incredibly immoral, heretical, arrogant, racist asshole on yours who refers to himself as "feodor". (That's in addition to the host of your blog)
Marshal... "Of what significance or importance is either our ages or race in determining the truth of what we say?"
If you have to ask, the odds are you won't understand or like the answer (in your lack of understanding).
Old white men - especially conservative ones - have led the way in oppressing folks who didn't fit their idea of worthwhile humans. And they had the privilege of being the ones who set the rules, normalizing oppression.
March 28, 2022 at 9:30 AM
"Neil... "Their primary motive as Leftists is to shake their puny fists at almighty God in their pathetic..."
Another example of a patently stupidly false claim and attack on an historically oppressed group of people."
Not at all. It's an honest assessment of the reality of the people about whom Neil refers based on the clear and unambiguous tenets of the Christian faith as presented in Scripture. And frankly, it can be easily argued that leftists are historically a group of oppressors.
Of course, the fact that you're referring once again to the LGBT community as the "historically oppressed group of people" is not at all lost on me. The problem with your constant nauseating description of that community in this way doesn't mitigate the fact of what Neil says or that they are an immoral group indulging in what Scripture clearly describes as sinful behavior God regards as "abomination". Said in more plain language you're more likely to understand, the oppressed can be assholes, too.
"Neil can't support this false attack claim and yet, not one of you who say you value truth will call him on it."
If it was false, we would call him on it. But anyone who supports behaviors which conflict with Biblical teaching is indeed shaking their puny fists at almighty God...though I would temper that with the reality that most of them have no true knowledge of what Scripture says, or would care to know. But you know, or claim to know, and thus are among the worst offenders.
"Thou shall not bear false witness, Neil, etc al. If you can't support this claim (and none of you can, as it's stupidly false) then don't make it."
The hypocrisy of one like you preaching the 9th Commandment (from that Book which isn't a "rule book") would be laughable if not for the serious spiritual harm you inflict upon yourself by doing so. The claim is supported as seen in my last bit directly prior to this. It's not false. You are.
"These oppressive attacks DO cause harm and oppress people. LGBTQ folk are beaten, killed, attacked and shamed in the real world because of false attacks like these."
Speaking the truth never causes harm. Rejecting it does. Those you defend reject truth in favor of what pleases their own selves and as a result, they expose themselves to assaults, not because of the immorality of their behaviors as Scripture and reason clearly affirm, but due to the immorality of the attackers who likely don't restrict their violent behavior to just this group of morally bankrupt people. But liars pretend speaking the truth motivates attackers because it serves the agenda to do so. It's easier than defending LGBT behaviors and agenda as morally good or benign.
"You all confuse us standing with Jesus against the pharisees and think that by disagreeing with you we're disagreeing with God."
Another self-serving but false accusation as you are indeed disagreeing with God, not with us. We simply speak the truth about what God (and/or Scripture) says about the behaviors you champion as morally good or benign, while you provide absolutely no evidence from Scripture which could possibly contradict us or support your position. You never have thus far and could never possibly do so ever.
It should be noted the article doesn't focus on this one issue in it's solid reasoning about how "Truth Struggles To Survive Where Leftists Dominate".
"Blind guides. Whitewashed tombs. Just stop the attacks and stupidly false claims."
Blah, blah, blah. Try bringing evidence instead of your whining and petulant foot stomping.
Marshal... "Which words would those be you feel we've "redefined"?"
Mentally ill. Immoral. Male swimmer. Truth deniers. "Heterophobe." For starters.
Marshal... "Not at all. It's an honest assessment of the reality of the people about whom Neil refers..."
But factually, people like me are striving to follow God and working with a great deal of effort on behalf of righteousness, Justice and reasoned morality against injustice and oppression.
You might think we're mistaken, but you can't deny our motives. It's a stupidly false claim. We are literally not shaking our fists at God. We're praying for God's will to be done on Earth as it is in heaven.
March 28, 2022 at 10:11 AM
"Stupidly false claims from your "source" include...
1. "A nominee for the Supreme Court of the United States refused to venture a definition for the word ‘woman,’ one of the most basic facts in all of humanity."
The implication here is that it's "obvious" to know the "basic facts" about what someone's gender is just by looking between their legs."
No. The TRUTH here is that defining "woman" isn't beyond the ability of the vast majority of people and certainly shouldn't be for someone some regard as "highly qualified" for a position on the Supreme Court of the United States. Aside from your fixation on what's between a woman's legs, obvious biological differences are indeed enough for Jackson to proffer a definition. And given your own grace-embracing disparagement of the GOP, one would think you'd presume a response like this from Jackson would have stopped Blackburn in her tracks.
"Unfortunately, this is a rather shallow, grade school understanding of gender."
Unfortunately for you, this is a basic, but absolutely accurate understanding of what a woman is. But being the liar you are, you're now drifting toward the lie of gender identity spewed by the left, thereby supporting the premise of the article which compelled this post.
"The facts are more complicated than that and Judge Jackson merely acknowledged that scientific reality."
No. The facts are not more complicated than that. Biology determines whether one is a male or female. Not how one feels. No science backs up the premise you falsely put forward as legit.
"That so many conservatives are operating with a grade school understanding doesn't mean that Jackson was wrong or to be mocked for humbly answering honestly."
Conservatives are operating with a factual, biologically based understanding of what constitutes one gender/sex versus the other (as there are only two). Jackson was dodging the question because she was at least wise enough to understand the implications of actually answering honestly. You're too much of a liar to acknowledge that.
"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-020-0666-3"
Throwing out another article which you didn't study because it says what you want to believe is true doesn't help your false position. The reason is that these studies do not prove that what biological differences in the brain exist in these people are the cause or effect of their identity issues. That is to say, which came first, the differences in the brain which leads to their identity issues, or did their identity issues, nutured over time in various ways, lead to alterations in the brain discovered in research? To take this even further, if the brain didn't adapt and change due to outside stimuli...which is a biological fact...then perhaps these studies would indicate the differences in the brains of these deluded people would have been constant throughout their lives since they would have been fixed in the womb. There are no such studies which suggest such a thing. Your pro-LGBT studies only take data and assert it means what the agenda needs it to mean, and chumps like you lap it up as if it is truth.
"When you can respond to the science at an expert level, let us know."
When you can prove your expert credentials, then you might be justified in daring to condescend to better people.
"In the meantime, you lose to science and basic reason and decency."
In the meantime, our positions are not in opposition to actual science, real reason and true decency. You don't have science on your side. At all!
"2. "but you had to endorse them through the force of law. Just ask Jack Phillips, the owner of the Masterpiece Cake Shop."
No one has to endorse anything."
This is a typically dishonest response to reality. Regardless of one's personal feelings, all are mandated to endorse your immorality or suffer legal consequences which fly in the face of Constitutional protections. Jack Phillips is just one such victim of the Gaystopo fascism you favor.
"If you're in a bakery business that sells wedding cakes and a black and white couple requests a cake for their wedding and you're one of the conservatives who don't "approve " of "mixed marriages," they don't have to endorse the wedding but they DO have to sell them the cake."
How typical that you'd submit this tired and false equivalency. The reason denying interracial marriage is unconstitutional is because there is no significant difference between people of different races. "Race" isn't a behavior which one can control or a desire which one can overcome. Those who conflate race with "sexual orientation" are liars. Not surprising a liar like you would gravitate to such a fake argument.
"Operating a business for all people does not mean you approve of all people. It just means you are not free to engage in harmful discrimination."
No one is harmed by seeking out a business willing to make a buck off them despite their immoral disorder when a good Christian refuses to join in celebrating their sinfulness. However, there is no discrimination in this situation. Phillips would make a cake for a "gay" wedding if the straight parents of the "gay" dudes (or chicks) placed the order. One can't be charged with illegal discrimination for denying someone ordering on behalf of someone else. That's absurd, particularly if all that is known is that the straight couple wants a "gay" cake.
"Being a bigot is still a free option for people like you (and yes .. you are literally bigoted against LGBTQ folk). But causing harm is not an option."
Being prejudiced against sinfulness is not something of which honest Christian people fear being accused. Shame on YOU for being so bigoted against such people. But the reality is that those like me are definitely opposed to the behaviors of LGBT "folk" and have no obligation to suffer silently their open rebellion against God, science and common decency. We don't cause harm. They bring harm upon themselves. Period. That's even Biblical.
"And yes, denying access to simple mainstream options open to other groups of people but not historically oppressed people IS causing harm."
How? Because the disordered have to drive to another place to get what they want? Boo-freakin-hoo. A small price to pay in order to prevent good people of faith from having to subordinate their beliefs. What kind of asshole would impose upon another in such a way? Only leftists who shake their puny fists at almighty God. God-hating people like you.
"That you all don't understand the harm is just another example of cis white privilege."
What harm? Cite an example of harm inflicted upon a person who wants what a person of faith can't provide and still be right with his faith?
And thanks for an example of leftist redefining of words...in this case, totally making up a word to use in reference to normal people in order to deflect from their own disorder, you racist asshole.
"March 28, 2022 at 10:12 AM"
"I could go on."
No doubt. The very thought fills one with nausea.
"The article is full of stupidly false claims."
None you've proven so, or even attempted to provide evidence to that end. But you get the idea.
"Stop oppressing historically oppressed people."
Stop pretending we're doing that by stating facts and truths.
Stop pretending they were so oppressed because their own behavior, which they could control, has brought upon them assaults and attacks by people more like you than me.
Stop pretending their suffering is the result of good people adhering to God's word and actual science, rather than their own disorder.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4771012/
The above is a response to those who suggest there was science behind both APAs rejecting homosexuality as a disorder. It mirrors what plain reason had affirmed as well as arguments I've made myself, but does so with a more exact counter directed at specific claims made in arguments in court. It's a great piece with goes handsomely with rejecting the brain "studies" Dan thinks justifies the "LGBT is normal" position he holds, and which is put forth to compel treating these unfortunates as if they are not disordered. The problem, again, with such studies is that they do not "prove" anything other than there are biological differences between normal people and "LGBT folk". I've always believe such differences could be one day found, but that such differences between normal people and all manner of other disordered people would be present as well...but no one would insist those other disordered people be treated as "ordered".
I also want to reiterate that there is no relation between speaking the truth about such matters and how others might respond or react to LGBT people. People like Dan, lacking any sense of honesty and morality, continue to insist that telling the truth is why the disordered suffer, when the truth is they suffer because they're disordered.
progressive types DO believe in both facts and objective Truths
"progressive types" deny objective truths and facts about:
COVID
Climate change
Transgender
Homosexuality
Pedophilia
same-sex marriage
creation
etc, etc, etc
Marshal... "Which words would those be you feel we've "redefined"?"
Mentally ill. Immoral. Male swimmer. Truth deniers. "Heterophobe." For starters.
"mentally ill" was invented by psychobabblers. OBJECTIVE FACT says the mind is intangible and therefore cannot be ill. I didn't "redifine" the word; I proved its erroneous invention.
"Immoral" it is you LEFTISTS who have decided to redefine that to not apply to all your sexual deviancy.
"male swimmer". Um, objective fact - a male cannot become a female because biology and even creation say so. So it isn't redefining a word to say that a "transgender" pretending to be female is in reality a male swimmer. It is you who deny biology.
"truth deniers" has only been redefined by your ilk to mean us intelligent people who deny your perverse sexual ideology and your stupidly wrong COVID claims as well as your denial of scientific facts of the "climate change" fraud. The real truth deniers are your ilk who continue to deny the truth about many things, especially the recent ideology such as "transgenders."
"Homophobe" is a word invented by sexual perverts to attack those who refuse to accept their perversion as legitimate. "Heterophobe" was inventen (not redefined) to respond to such nonsense to demonstrate that it is the homosexuals who are afraid fo heterosexuality.
SO your whole sentence responding to Marshall Art is total nonsense as well as fraudulent.
Marshal... "The above is a response to those who suggest there was science behind both APAs rejecting homosexuality as a disorder."
The above is ONE person who is not an expert in these fields offering his unproven opinion, much as you do. The question is: WHY pay any significant attention to outlier opinions of people not trained in the areas they're offering opinions on?
You have found ONE man - "Robert L. Kinney III holds a doctorate in pharmacy from Purdue University and an M.A. in philosophy" - who is (appears to be) deeply wrapped up in conservative Catholic traditions. And this ONE person not trained or an expert in these fields disagrees with the AMA, the APA, and other experts in the field who have actually studied in the field (Kinney's doctorate is not in human sexuality or psychology or a related field of expertise). He is a conservative philosopher and pharmaceutical expert. He appears to rely largely on Thomist theories of philosophy which, as I recall, are fine insofar as they go but have been criticized by Luther thusly...
"...which he alleged as being, "It seems so to me. I think so. I believe so." Luther also argued that the Thomist method led to shallowness among theological debates in England at the time."
So... what of it? Why should we ignore the experts and listen to this religionist?
Glenn... "I proved its erroneous invention."
That kind of psychotic break from reality would sound cute if it were coming from a six year old. Not so much in a grown man.
Just arrogant narcissistic delusions of grandeur.
If you don't understand, ask a mental health specialist. It would perhaps do you good.
Marshal... "straight parents of the "gay" dudes (or chicks) placed the order. One can't be charged with illegal discrimination for denying someone ordering on behalf of someone else."
That is literally a textbook definition of illegal discrimination.
Wake up and smell the reality.
Do you understand how demeaning, cruel and harmful it would be to tell a black man, "I will only sell you a cake if you get a white man to order for you..."?
Good God, you people can't see evil when it's coming out your own mouths.
March 28, 2022 at 4:31 PM
Kinney's arguments don't at all require a doctorate in psychology or psychiatry to be solid and beyond YOUR ability to rebut. He clearly demonstrates the argument of those two fields to be absolutely fallacious and laughable. You might want to actually read it. He doesn't use that many big words. If an auto mechanic says your gas mileage would improve if you paint your car a different color, do you need to be a mechanic yourself to understand the problem with his diagnosis? Of course not. Neither does anyone need to have a doctorate in either psych field to identify an argument as crap, which he did in a manner you clearly can't rebut. No. You attack him instead of his argument. I don't recall any reference by him to his being religious in any way, much less a Catholic. I do note at the start of his intro he references push back against a Catholic nun and I have no doubt that's as far as you've read, preferring to believe Kinney is just some religious nut, rather than a reasoned person of intelligence and wisdom, because then you'd have to actually focus on his arguments and mount an intelligent rebuttal, which you've shown no ability to do.
For those who can't yet take the time, or for those like Dan who won't, the premise of Kinney's argument is simply to look at that which was considered scientific evidence at the time of his writing this and analyzing it to determine if it actually supports the position of the psych "professionals" regarding homosexuality not being a mental illness. Do the arguments of the "professionals" really make that case. Very much like I've stated myself many times over the years, he shows how this "evidence" would render every other condition regarded by the community as mental illness not illness at all. He deals with the fallacious argument for a "continuum", which can also be used to legitimize non-sexual conditions as the activists in the field have done for homosexuality, transgenderism and even abhorrent desires as pedophilia. For those who, unlike Dan, actually take the time to read the entire lengthy piece, one will see there is no need for Kinney to actually be a shrink himself to demonstrate how fallacious the arguments of the leftist shrinks are in pretending homosexuality and these other conditions are just as normal as heterosexuality.
In short, Kinney proves the activists had, at the time he wrote it, no science at all which legitimizes their position. This has been proven in many ways since then, and Dan and degenerates like him have failed to provide anything more compelling.
Here's another argument very much like Kinney's from a slightly different angle:
https://clarion.causeaction.com/2022/03/26/my-dads-left-hand-and-the-insanity-of-transgenderism/
Like Kinney, Rucker blows up the arguments by the activists based on just how inanely stupid they are, but not so stupid lefties won't be ashamed to adopt as legit and intelligent...because "experts" told them so. Indeed, Dan's "experts", as is true of Dan himself, are the true exponents of "It seems so to me. I think so. I believe so."
So Dan thinks the mind is tangible, an item able to be touched and wounded and diseased.
Talk about science denial. Dissect a human and show me the mind.
Again, the term "mental illness" was invented by psychobabblers to take responsibility away from people who were making improper decisions, OR for people who actually had organic brain problems causing poor thinking processes
Does Dan EVER think for himself? All I ever see from him are echoes from LEFTISTS and perverts.
March 28, 2022 at 5:04 PM
Your response to Glenn might be compelling if it didn't involve inquiring of the very people whose "expertise" is in dispute, particularly due to their own "orientations" or defense of the premise at issue. It is their "science" which is lacking and no leftist spin on what exists is the final word in the least. Again, that's what's at issue.
March 28, 2022 at 5:12 PM
"That is literally a textbook definition of illegal discrimination."
No. Not ironically, it's a perversion of it.
First, discrimination has historically been about immutable characteristics such as race or gender. LGBT behaviors don't qualify because one isn't unable to overcome urges and desires.
Secondly, you perverse position claims it's discriminatory to deny "gay" people a cake if the baker sells cake to others. But it's not about cake, but about what the baker is expected to create by use of his own unique talents. Not a one of the merchants who've been victimized by gaystapo fascism has insisted they wouldn't serve "gay" customers. It's a specific request they would not fulfill for anyone which has led to their oppression by pervs and their representatives. That is to say, a straight couple would not be served if that straight couple requested a cake for a "gay" wedding. By YOUR twisted perversion enabling position, the baker would now be discriminating against straight people. Discrimination requires a merchant to refuse to do for an aggrieved group what it routinely does for everyone else. The baker NEVER makes "gay" themed cakes FOR ANYBODY.
That's literally a textbook definition of "equal application of the law".
Thus, you're a moron.
"Do you understand how demeaning, cruel and harmful it would be to tell a black man, "I will only sell you a cake if you get a white man to order for you..."?"
Clearly you continue to ignore (not "misunderstand", so you're intentionally lying again) the very real distinction between a controllable behavior versus an immutable characteristic such as skin color, and you stupidly pretend it's about cake and cake alone. No doubt, even if the baker knows a customer is "gay", if that "gay" dude simply ordered a wedding cake off the shelf and agreed to decorate it himself for his sinful occasion, the baker would have sold it to the "gay" dude as he would have sold him any other baked good he offers. What he doesn't offer to ANYONE is a baked good decorated and intended for the celebration of an abomination like homosexuality. Is the black man in your hypothetical a "gay" guy asking for a cake for a "gay" wedding, or just a black guy looking to buy cake? If it's the latter, your analogy fails as all your other pathetic attempts at analogy have failed.
Try to be honest and stick to facts and reality. Don't just use those words as if by doing so it makes your position right and moral.
There is no evil flowing from the mouths of those who speak the truth, particularly about this sinful behavior which God calls an abomination.
I get it. You can find ZERO experts in the field to support your religious bigotry, so you just quote another white religious man who, like you, really wants his religious bigotry to be true... but "I reaalllly think it's so..." is not adult reasoning.
I read his wishful thinking and find it wanting.
Glenn. I have to take issue with your argument. While I agree the mind is not tangible, I have no trouble believing the brain can be "sick" or injured in a way that affects perceptions, including about the issues on the table here now. A perfectly functioning brain results in a mind which deals properly with life and reality. Your position is rather one of semantics and gets in the way of the truth we both know is abundantly clear regarding the LGBT agenda and their arguments. Your point having been made repeatedly, we can set it aside as a given, regardless of whether or not Dan will recognize that fact anymore than he recognizes any other.
Marshal's other bigoted "source" from another arrogant non-expert...
"As adults they can live their lives as they choose but that still doesn’t make transgendered people real."
To which I just say, to hell with your religios bigotry, your hateful and perverse arrogance, your pharisaical oppression of people who have been harmed for millenia because of such deviance puked out by you and this idiot. To hell with it all.
You all are on the evil side of history and will be reviled by future generations and, no doubt, by God Almighty.
Transgender folk and LGBTQ folk are all real, of course, and no number of hateful religious zealots will ever change that.
March 28, 2022 at 5:46 PM
I get it. You have no legitimate argument rebutting anything I've presented, nor rebutting any rebuttal of mine toward anything YOU'VE presented, so you hoist the white flag of surrender with nonsense about religious bigotry (where no mention of religion was made in any of my links) and racist attacks on the color of my skin or that of my sources...assuming I'm even aware or concerned about the race of my sources.
When you think you've got a slam dunk study to provide, bring it and I'll show you why it fails to compel a change of mind as all your other weak-ass attempts have.
By the way, I've provided experts already, even though I've not done so in recent comments, though Kinney is far more expert than you are and you're a dick for daring to suggest he's not expert enough to hold his opinion you're to stupid to rebut like a man. "Adult reasoning" is never evident in anything you say. Every time you use that term, I regard it the same way I do your desperate use of terms like "white privilege" and blasphemous references to God or Christ...as proof you've lost.
Marshall,
You argeed with me. I stated an organic brain problem can cause skewed thinking and that is medically treatable -- usually. It's "brain illness," not "mental illness."
The term mental illness was indeed invented to remove responsibility for behaviors.
Kinney is LITERALLY NOT an expert in matters oh gender or sexual orientation. There is nothing whatsoever in his credentials that he offers to suggest he knows a damned thing about gender or sexuality.
On the other hand, I've cited experts speaking in agreement with the collective expert opinion from the AMA, APA, etc that point out that gender determination is in the brain and body and you've done nothing to say why such expert opinion doesn't overrule your religious bigotry.
And yes, in your case and Kinney's, you both have these bigotries because of your religious traditions. You share that bigotry in common with Muslim and other extremists in other religions.
Would you be this committed to your bigotry if it wasn't for your religious traditions?
Marshal... " baker NEVER makes "gay" themed cakes FOR ANYBODY."
It's not a gay-themed cake. It's a wedding cake. He makes wedding cakes. That's his business. They wanted to buy what he sells to everyone else and they were turned down specifically because it was for a wedding for a gay couple.
Literally discrimination based upon sexual orientation.
Marshal's post... " Truth is important. But the left isn't concerned with truth, but what they want truth to be."
Stupidly false claim that you can't support. Of course, we are concerned about the truth. We're concerned about justice and kindness and having a better world. Of course, we are and you have NOTHING to prove otherwise. It's not only a false claim, but a stupidly false claim. A dangerously false claim. The sort of idiotic claim that fascists have made about their perceived enemies - the people they want to oppress - to better demonize them and gain control over them.
But rational people see that it's an overtly stupidly false claim.
It's true that we should be good to people, that we should seek justice for people.
It's true that we should especially side with and seek justice for the historically oppressed and marginalized, the poor and foreigner.
It's true that we should love our neighbors and, many of us would say, in the sense that Jesus defined neighbor - ANY others and especially those in need.
It's true that transgender people are real people. Of course. It is comically diabolically evil to suggest they're not.
It's true that lesbian and gay people are real people, that they're good and decent neighbors, as likely to be good and decent people as any cis conservatives.
It's true that to suggest that they're evil, as a group, is itself, evil and stupidly false.
It's true that this earth is our home and it's rational and moral to take care of it, not to treat it as something to be exploited or polluted.
Of course we believe in truth and seek to honor them. This claim is just another in a long line of false unsupported claims you make and can't support because they're false.
March 28, 2022 at 5:54 PM
"Marshal's other bigoted "source" from another arrogant non-expert..."
None of my sources are "bigoted" in the false manner you use the word simply because you lack the intelligence...to say nothing of actual fact...to rebut their logical opinions. What's more, no one needs to be an "expert" who is no more than an LGBT activist to recognize a bullshit agenda. Both Rucker and Kinney clearly point out the obvious flaws (which is why they're so easy to point out) in the claims of the trans/homosexual activists. Your job is to provide evidence your activists use which cannot be so easily rebutted as Kinney and Rucker rebutted what they did.
""As adults they can live their lives as they choose but that still doesn’t make transgendered people real."
To which I just say, to hell with your religios bigotry..."
What religious bigotry? Which of the two people I presented ever mentioned religion? Which of the two ever mentioned they were religious at all? Are you really so stupid as to believe only people of faith (REAL people of faith, not fakes like you) are the only people who see through the bullshit of the LGBT activists? (rhetorical question...you're more than stupid enough to try and run with that crap!)
"...your hateful and perverse arrogance..."
The only hate and arrogance is that which emanates from you. But I will say we're not particularly fond of lovers of lies like you. Nothing is more hateful than lying, especially to young people as you do. Speaking truth to enlighten the lost is one way one loves his neighbor. Nor do we speak with an attitude of arrogance, though to a liar, holding firmly to truth my seem arrogant...but that's a defense mechanism, or just more lying.
"...your pharisaical oppression of people who have been harmed for millenia because of such deviance puked out by you and this idiot. To hell with it all."
Ah! Now THIS is a fine example of perverse arrogance and hatred! Well done, Danny-girl! By your twisted logic, every law-breaker is oppressed by those who uphold truth and decency. It's OK to hate sin. It's what God does.
"You all are on the evil side of history and will be reviled by future generations and, no doubt, by God Almighty."
Doubtful as we are on the side of God's morality, just by accepting real science with regard to the issue of human sexuality.
Transgender folk and LGBTQ folk are all real, of course, and no number of hateful religious zealots will ever change that.
March 28, 2022 at 6:14 PM
"Kinney is LITERALLY NOT an expert in matters oh gender or sexual orientation."
Nor does he have to be given what he set out to do in his piece. But he is highly educated in a scientific field and knows what a good medical study should look like. He examined the "evidence" put forth in favor of the LGBT agenda and found that what they try to put forth would justify all manner of behaviors as "normal". Either that's true or it isn't, and if you read for understanding, you could actually read his report and find fault in it. You haven't and so you never will, but instead will whine on about "religious bigotry" as if he is actually religious, which isn't clear from anything he said in his report.
"On the other hand, I've cited experts speaking in agreement with the collective expert opinion from the AMA, APA, etc that point out that gender determination is in the brain and body and you've done nothing to say why such expert opinion doesn't overrule your religious bigotry."
Once again we see you doing the logical fallacy thing in appealing to numbers as well as to "experts". But nothing you've presented proves what you just said, since what you've provided simply point to facts about what's different in the brains of these disordered people. They then assert these differences justify their delusions as reality. That's not how it works. They haven't established how the brains became different. They simply assert because they're either LGBT themselves or enablers of that community. What they are not are people who seek to truly help these delusional people.
Also, once again, you write off my position as mere religious bigotry, when I've not brought up religion in this discussion except in response to your insistence that religion is the only reason why anyone would oppose the LGBT agenda, as if that wouldn't be enough all by itself. I do try to be a Christian, after all and unlike yourself. But I'm dealing with the science alone, none of which supports your position or that of the LGBT activist. None of it.
"And yes, in your case and Kinney's, you both have these bigotries because of your religious traditions."
You are now required to copy/paste where Kinney identified his religion or any reference to what he believes in that regard. Failing to do so will only serve to prove what an asshat you are for using that weak tactic to diminish the truth of his report.
You also fail in the repeated suggestion that non-religious people can't see the bullshit in your position. And since this post is actually about truth, you support the premise of it by your constant lies and distortions.
"You share that bigotry in common with Muslim and other extremists in other religions."
This is just rank ad hominem attack. Why not just call me Hitler? That's about all you could muster anyway. You certainly haven't produced any unassailable fact. I'm extreme in my desire to adhere as closely as I can to the truth of Scripture. You pretend that's a bad thing because you're not really a Christian. You're of the world. I'm merely in it. Disparage that if you will. Christ warned us about those like you.
"Would you be this committed to your bigotry if it wasn't for your religious traditions?"
There's no telling what I'd be like if I wasn't the Christian you only pretend to be (and even my falling so short is better than pretending like you do). It's not out of the realm of possibility that I'd be just as morally bankrupt and corrupt as you are. But I doubt I'd be as stupid with regard to science and evidence and the reality that the LGBT agenda is nothing but lies they want to force us to accept.
March 28, 2022 at 6:35 PM
"Marshal... " baker NEVER makes "gay" themed cakes FOR ANYBODY."
It's not a gay-themed cake. It's a wedding cake. He makes wedding cakes. That's his business."
Heretics like you don't get to demand anyone abides your God-hating ways. In his world, and in the world of all God-loving and truth-abiding people, weddings are the unions of one man with one woman. His business is provide baked goods in a manner that glorifies God. Making cakes to celebrate abomination is in conflict with his business. If you wanted to marry your goat, he wouldn't bake a cake for that purpose, either, regardless of how badly you want to insist your union with your goat is no different than that of one man with one woman. But you would accuse him of bigotry and discrimination, which would be just as much a lie as what you're suggesting about him now.
"They wanted to buy what he sells to everyone else and they were turned down specifically because it was for a wedding for a gay couple."
None of what he sells to anyone else includes any reference to same-sex couples. Thus, he's not denying them anything he doesn't deny to anyone else. No discrimination. In fact, he's treating them just as he treats everyone. Equal application of the law, to say nothing of truth.
"Literally discrimination based upon sexual orientation."
Literally a lie based on the reality of the situation. Stop lying. That's what YOUR blog is for.
Marshal... "Are you really so stupid as to believe only people of faith (REAL people of faith, not fakes like you) are the only people who see through the bullshit of the LGBT activists?"
It is possible that you both are bigoted for non-religious bigotry reasons but the odds are it's for religious reasons. Why? Because religious people are significantly more likely to be opposed to equal rights for LGBTQ folks than non-religious people.
"In most of these 18 countries, religiously unaffiliated adults were more likely than those who identify with a religion to say homosexuality should be accepted by society."
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/09/28/religiously-unaffiliated-people-more-likely-than-those-with-a-religion-to-lean-left-accept-homosexuality/
Of course WHY any religious Christians would be against Transgender folks remains to be seen since the Bible is completely silent on the topic. But still, it's almost certainly your religious traditions are informing your general opposition to LGBTQ people.
You tell me.
March 28, 2022 at 7:20 PM
"Marshal's post... " Truth is important. But the left isn't concerned with truth, but what they want truth to be."
Stupidly false claim that you can't support."
I point it out all the time with an attendant explanation for why it is so. Every lie you tell, as well as the many lies of those you support and defend, I've exposed in this way. Your "Nyuh uh" responses don't change that and never will. Only unassailable facts and evidence will, which you never bring forth.
"Of course, we are concerned about the truth."
This is hilarious in how far from reality it is!
"We're concerned about justice and kindness and having a better world."
You're concerned with your version of justice and kindness and a better world. Hell, just your support of Joe Biden makes that a lie!
"Of course, we are and you have NOTHING to prove otherwise. It's not only a false claim, but a stupidly false claim. A dangerously false claim."
So you like to believe. Too bad you've never proven it to be so when I point out how wrong you are and why. You just go on the attack as you do with the following "The sort of idiotic claim that fascists have made about their perceived enemies - the people they want to oppress - to better demonize them and gain control over them." What a load of crap!
"But rational people see that it's an overtly stupidly false claim."
I don't believe you know any rational people. I believe you use the word incorrectly because nothing you believe indicates you have any idea what the word means.
"It's true that we should be good to people, that we should seek justice for people."
Do you think this means you are one who abides truth? Sorry to break it to you. It's a platitude you're using in defense of your falseness and nothing more. Such is the case with the rest which followed.
"It's true that we should love our neighbors and, many of us would say, in the sense that Jesus defined neighbor - ANY others and especially those in need."
You don't understand Jesus anymore than you understand conservatives. Jesus does not believe one loves who ignores the will of God as you do.
"It's true that transgender people are real people. Of course. It is comically diabolically evil to suggest they're not."
No. There are no transgender people. There are those who refer to themselves as such, but the reality is that they are disordered as anyone who believes they are what they are not is (for the purposes of this issue, based on biology). The "studies" you present prove there is a malfunction in the brain which results in the false perception...the delusion which manifests and is labeled as "transgender". But they are not literally and in reality "women in a man's body" or vice versa.
"It's true that lesbian and gay people are real people, that they're good and decent neighbors, as likely to be good and decent people as any cis conservatives."
They cannot be decent if they indulge in indecent behavior, like homosexual behavior. But they exist in the same way as your "trans" people exist...in delusion and disorder.
"It's true that to suggest that they're evil, as a group, is itself, evil and stupidly false."
We suggest nothing. We state the truth that their behavior is evil because evil is that which is in opposition to the will of God, as is homosexual behavior. We also suggest those who try to say other wise is evil for purposely promoting that which is in direct conflict with the will of God as regards human sexuality. Indeed, it's truth. YOU'RE false.
"It's true that this earth is our home and it's rational and moral to take care of it, not to treat it as something to be exploited or polluted."
What's not true is in the details when such comes from the mouth of the lying left...such as climate change being the result of human behavior.
"Of course we believe in truth and seek to honor them. This claim is just another in a long line of false unsupported claims you make and can't support because they're false."
Ironically, you speak falsely about loving the truth. It is not evident in the things you support or in how you support them. You might want to actually read the article upon which this post is based and actually address something specific the author said. Otherwise, you're lying about having credibility, too.
Marshal... "Once again we see you doing the logical fallacy thing in appealing to numbers as well as to "experts"."
Sigh. Appeals to experts and to numbers of experts is rational and NOT a logical fallacy.
And this is why you all have lost.
https://fallacyinlogic.com/appeal-to-authority-fallacy/#Legitimate_Arguments_From_Authority
March 28, 2022 at 9:16 PM
"Marshal... "Are you really so stupid as to believe only people of faith (REAL people of faith, not fakes like you) are the only people who see through the bullshit of the LGBT activists?"
It is possible that you both are bigoted for non-religious bigotry reasons but the odds are it's for religious reasons. Why? Because religious people are significantly more likely to be opposed to equal rights for LGBTQ folks than non-religious people."
There you go speaking bullshit again. We actual Christians are not at all opposed to equal rights for LGBT sufferers. We just have a more accurate and honest understanding of what equal rights looks like. For example, it does not mean you can refer to your relationship with your goat as a marriage, because it doesn't adhere to the true definition of marriage as it has been understood since the dawn of time. No one has a "right" to corrupt the meaning of words just to insert themselves into a "right". If you want to talk about things like being able to walk around without getting your ass kicked, we support the right of even the morally bankrupt to live their corrupt lives without being attacked. We support their right to pursue their happiness, but we don't recognize any right to expect the government must provide it by agreeing with the bastardization of words for the purpose. What you people do is what the article provoking this post examines. You trample on the truth by pretending we deny anyone their Constitutionally protected rights.
""In most of these 18 countries, religiously unaffiliated adults were more likely than those who identify with a religion to say homosexuality should be accepted by society."
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/09/28/religiously-unaffiliated-people-more-likely-than-those-with-a-religion-to-lean-left-accept-homosexuality/"
This is because most people not affiliated with a recognized religion have no devotion to morality. This is not news. Godless people do that sort of thing. They accept all manner of immorality simply because it feels good and damn the consequences. It's how we've had tens of millions of innocent babies murdered in this country since Roe v Wade.
"Of course WHY any religious Christians would be against Transgender folks remains to be seen since the Bible is completely silent on the topic."
Just the sort of lie I'd expect from a fake Christian for whom the truth is inconvenient. The Bible speaks against cross dressing. "Transition" surgery is the ultimate cross dressing. Only a lying fake Christian would pretend otherwise and only such hell-bound miscreant would ignore God's will because of how few verses speak to the issue.
"But still, it's almost certainly your religious traditions are informing your general opposition to LGBTQ people."
Again you fail to be truthful. We oppose their behavior, including their push to legitimize it as moral or morally benign. Too much harm has been done already for any true Christian, or true American, to side with them in their pursuit of perversion acceptance.
"You tell me."
I have...for years...and you continue to spew the same false crap you've always spewed with the same absence of evidentiary support. But as noted just as often, you're of the world. I'm merely in it. You pretend to be Christian, and I strive to be a better one. You're a liar, and I try to be as truthful as possible (as if it's really all that hard). Trump is Honest Abe compared to you.
March 28, 2022 at 9:39 PM
"Marshal... "Once again we see you doing the logical fallacy thing in appealing to numbers as well as to "experts"."
Sigh. Appeals to experts and to numbers of experts is rational and NOT a logical fallacy."
It is how you do it. You don't present an unassailable argument based on unassailable evidence from any "expert" you've ever presented, as I continue to prove. You simply cite them because they conclude...wrongly if not intentionally falsely...what gives you a tingle in your lady parts. You compound that by suggesting most agree, as if all who agree did their own studies, duplicated any they get behind or did more than simply do what you're doing...holding them up out of confirmation bias.
"And this is why you all have lost."
And once again you simply assert victory like the Black Knight with no arms or legs. You're a pathetic joke. I would hate to be a "gay" guy with you as an ally!
"https://fallacyinlogic.com/appeal-to-authority-fallacy/#Legitimate_Arguments_From_Authority"
"As Alfred Sidgwick, a British logician, wrote in his Fallacies: A View of Logic from the Practical Side:
A man may have all the wisdom and learning of an Aristotle, and yet be quite mistaken on a given point. The recognition of this fact tends to make us value conclusions more on their merits and less on the merits of those who advance them."
You value conclusions on those who advance them. I value conclusions based on merit. There is no merit in any study you've provided that supports your position on human sexuality. None.
"As such, the logical form of a non-fallacious argument from authority would be:
1. Authorities on a certain issue are usually correct.
2. Authorities on the issue have a general agreement that X is correct.
3. X is likely correct."
None of the above has ever been established to support the premise of the pro-LGBT activist. Indeed, that's what's at issue. You simply assert it's all true and meritorious...like liars do.
And while it would be hard to believe that you are ignorant of the real world oppression of LGBTQ people for centuries, it is, of course, a reality. Here is some documentation of how it is still happening...
"Overall, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) Americans report significant personal experiences of discrimination, across many areas of life. Regarding individual forms of discrimination, a majority of all LGBTQ people have experienced
slurs (57%) and
insensitive or offensive comments (53%) about their sexual orientation or gender identity.
A majority of LGBTQ people say that they or an LGBTQ friend or family member
have been threatened or non-sexually harassed (57%),
been sexually harassed (51%),
or experienced violence (51%) because of their sexuality or gender identity.
Furthermore, 34% of all LGBTQ people say that
they or an LGBTQ friend or family member have been
verbally harassed in the bathroom or been told or asked if they were using the wrong bathroom...
Overall,
90% of all LGBTQ people believe there is discrimination against gay, lesbian, and
bisexual people in America today, and
91% of all LGBTQ people believe there is discrimination
against transgender and gender non-conforming people.
Of these, one-third (33%) say the bigger problem is discrimination based in laws and government policies, while
43% say discrimination based on individual level prejudice..."
https://legacy.npr.org/documents/2017/nov/npr-discrimination-lgbtq-final.pdf
[Jackie realized she was lesbian, told her Catholic mom...]
“Oh, my God,” she murmured in disbelief. “Are you gay?”
“Yeah,” Jackie forced herself to say.
After what felt like an eternity, her mom finally responded. “I don’t know what we could have done for God to have given us a fag as a child,” she said before hanging up."
"... she got a call from her older brother. “He said, ‘Mom and Dad don’t want to talk to you, but I’m supposed to tell you what’s going to happen,'” Jackie recalls.
“And he’s like, ‘All your cards are going to be shut off, and Mom and Dad want you to take the car and drop it off at this specific location. Your phone’s going to last for this much longer. They don’t want you coming to the house, and you’re not to contact them. You’re not going to get any money from them. Nothing. And if you don’t return the car, they’re going to report it stolen.’ And I’m just bawling. I hung up on him because I couldn’t handle it.” Her brother was so firm, so matter-of-fact, it was as if they already weren’t family."
...Research done by San Francisco State University’s Family Acceptance Project, which studies and works to prevent health and mental health risks facing LGBT youth, empirically confirms what common sense would imply to be true: Highly religious parents are significantly more likely than their less-religious counterparts to reject their children for being gay – a finding that social-service workers believe goes a long way toward explaining why LGBT people make up roughly five percent of the youth population overall, but an estimated 40 percent of the homeless-youth population."
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/the-forsaken-a-rising-number-of-homeless-gay-teens-are-being-cast-out-by-religious-families-46746/
I seriously considered rejecting this comment. It's the same story with you. This is another "listen to black voices" moment, where we get self-reporting presented as hard, cold fact we're not to dispute...no embellishments, no possibility of exaggeration. Just, an LGBT person said it, so we must believe...it's absolutely true. I'm especially suspicious of hearing nothing but tales of immediate rejection upon the first utterance in an LGBT coming out. I don't buy it, even if a parent affirms it happened in his/her own case. That is, I doubt it's the least bit representative, and chumps like you are more than willing to regard every sad story as fact without any legitimate investigation.
And in doing this, you again validate the point of the post as regards leftist lack of truthfulness. Half the story (only the LGBT side) is no better than half the truth put forth as the whole truth...and that requires accepting that half as true at all without verification. I've never seen pro-LGBT stories like the above present the family's side of the story, and I suggest that's because it's nowhere near truthfully presented by the LGBT folk trying to draw sympathy.
So here's the other half to which you don't devote the slightest amount of attention: the plight of the LGBT person has no bearing on whether or not there's science to support the LGBT narrative. It's a diversion to dare dismiss that reality in order to gin up sympathy for those who are so willing to succumb to their disorder.
Idiot. There have been plenty of first hand witnesses who are not LGBTQ folks to confirm this happens. I've seen it happening.
Only a true pervert would listen to first hand testimony, reported over and over, time and again, from black people, disabled people, LGBTQ people, women, foreigners/immigrants, etc and endlessly defend the oppressors, assuming that these millions of testimonies are not trustworthy. What a deviant useful idiot allowing himself to be used by the oppressors!
First of all, there are none so perverted as those who celebrate, defend and enable actual perversion as you do. So take your personal attacks and shove them next to your head up your ass.
Secondly, I'm not defending any "oppressors". I'm attacking you constantly presenting one side of any issue and pretending it's evidence of reality because someone claiming victim status asserts an anecdotal story no one can verify. But you simply swallow whatever these people say because you think it makes you appear compassionate. There's nothing at all wrong with expecting something more than mere assertion, but there's plenty wrong with a deviancy defending asshole like you attacking anyone for doing so and accusing them of "defending oppressors". It does, however, nicely validate the point of this post regard those like you having no regard for truth.
What's most obvious is your disregard for a basic American concept of innocent until proven guilty. You side with these perverts...as well as with anyone to asserts victimhood...and by doing so you necessarily accuse someone else without so much as a single shred of evidence. Thus, you do have sex with animals, simply because I say so and your denials are worthless. That's what your logic means. So spare me anymore unproven testimonies from people who have the capacity to overcome their disordered and immoral urges, but not the will because they choose personal deviant pleasure over maturity, decency and righteousness. And don't waste my time with any more of these "victims" if you're not going to also present the other side of the story from those these people accuse.
You're a pathetic joke and apparently prefer being one to being an honest person of character and integrity.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/03/racebaiting_sexuality_dogma_and_climate_voodoo_at_the_american_psychiatric_association.html
Yeah. I'm going to listen to "experts" like these. NOT!!
Marshal... "But the left isn't concerned with truth..."
This is ironic, given that the modern GOP has just given us the SINGLE most overtly dishonest president in our lifetimes and probably ever. His dishonesty was over the top and stupidly false, only complete morons and those detached from reality would believe him. THAT is what modern conservatism wrought. Thus, CLEARLY the modern Right has shown that they don't care about truth.
And in response to this onslaught on facts, truth and decency, the Left rose up saying what was obvious to even many still-honest conservatives - that this level of corruption and overt dishonesty is not acceptable... it's dangerous. We CLEARLY care about truth and decency, given our response to your lying pervert-in-chief.
Trump's dishonesty can be and has been measured. Lying dozens of times each and every day about serious and stupid matters. You can produce no such proof of dishonesty or lack of love for Truth for liberals. ALL you can say is, "I disagree with their conclusions and therefore, disagreeing with me shows they don't care about Truth..." as if you were the arbiter of facts and truth.
Be serious.
Interesting that the "first hand witnesses" who are publicly speaking out about the horrors they've been pushed into by parents and representatives of the government as they try to undue the hasty, irreversible surgical interventions foisted on them by adults with an agenda. Maybe we need a little more attention to them, rather than a headlong rush into irreversible intervention.
Who are these so-called first hand witnesses who've been pushed by their parents and the government into getting surgeries? While there are bad parents out there and it's POSSIBLE this has happened, I'm going to call bullshit and expect you to produce some data to support this likely false claim you're likely making.
IF it has happened, it's like, what? One in a billion instances? The vast majority report good results from these medical interventions. That would argue in favor of supporting trans folks and just watching out for the extremely rare instances of parents and "representatives of government" pushing unwanted solutions.
That is, IF your claim is not outright bullshit.
IF you've heard/read thus somewhere in the real world, I'm guessing it's someone who is being pressured to change by conservative religious extremists.
We'll see if you even try to support your claim.
March 31, 2022 at 11:51 AM
"This is ironic, given that the modern GOP has just given us the SINGLE most overtly dishonest president in our lifetimes and probably ever."
The GOP didn't give us Biden. It didn't give us Obama. What are you talking about?
Don't bother. I'm well aware who you mean. Yet I'm still waiting for an example of his dishonesty which has led us to ruin (ruin which never occurred during or because of his time in office). You just keep saying this crap as if it's true and beyond the need of evidence to support doing so. But hey, I get a kick out hearing a liar like you lying about Trump being the biggest liar every, while ignoring the liar for whom you cast your vote. I can expect no better from a liar like you.
"And in response to this onslaught on facts, truth and decency, the Left rose up saying what was obvious to even many still-honest conservatives - that this level of corruption and overt dishonesty is not acceptable... it's dangerous."
Yet no evidence of danger ever manifested throughout or because of Trump's term in office. None you've ever presented. Instead, the true response was the Left rising up to attack him in any way possible, including and primarily by lying. The lies continue and the Left lies publicly and tried to indict him on the basis of those lies. Both impeachment proceedings were based on proven lies. And your appeal to those you refer to as "still-honest conservatives" is a lie because you hold them in regard only for their opposition to the people's choice. It's that opposition alone...not actual fact or sound argument...which compels your appeal to them as "still-honest conservatives". That is, you lie about that, too. Indeed, you lie far more than Trump, and your lies are far more pernicious and dangerous.
"We CLEARLY care about truth and decency, given our response to your lying pervert-in-chief."
And you responded to one you falsely attack by replacing him with a proven liar, one whose lies are on tape for all to see and hear...someone who reversed all the progress our nation had made in the previous four years under a guy you still fail to provide evidence in support of your irrational hatred. What's more, promoters and enablers of sexual deviancy and infanticide are not champions of either truth OR decency. You are, by definition, a liar and indecent.
"Trump's dishonesty can be and has been measured."
And yet you still cannot provide an example of any "lie" he's told due to which this nation has suffered in any way. Do you think you'll ever even make the attempt to provide it for us?
"Lying dozens of times each and every day about serious and stupid matters."
So it should be pretty easy, then, to produce an example or two. Why haven't you yet?
"You can produce no such proof of dishonesty or lack of love for Truth for liberals."
"there are more than two genders"
"abortion doesn't take the life of a human being endowed by its Creator with the unalienable right to life"
"the wealthy aren't paying their fair share"
"Trump's tax cuts only benefited the wealthy"
"the GOP hates immigrants"
"the GOP hates women"
"the GOP doesn't care about the poor and working class"
"the GOP is anti-science"
"the mainstream liberal press is objective and truthful"
Tip of the iceberg. Clearly, these are blatant lies of the type your kind constantly spews in order to draw support from the stupid. It certainly worked in your case.
Craig. You're expecting us to ignore the LGBT voices by listening instead to those who have been harmed by doing so? What's the matter with you?
While Craig cites ZERO support for his claim, here are the known facts...
"A new study published in LGBT Health found that 13.1% of currently identified transgender people have detransitioned at some point in their lives, but that 82.5% of those who have detransitioned attribute their decision to at least one external factor such as pressure from family, non-affirming school environments, and increased vulnerability to violence, including sexual assault."
https://fenwayhealth.org/new-study-shows-discrimination-stigma-and-family-pressure-drive-detransition-among-transgender-people/
"The information that does exist appears to corroborate Asquith’s claim. In a 2015 survey of nearly 28,000 people conducted by the U.S.-based National Center for Transgender Equality, only 8 percent of respondents reported detransitioning, and 62 percent of those people said they only detransitioned temporarily. The most common reason for detransitioning, according to the survey, was pressure from a parent, while only 0.4 percent of respondents said they detransitioned after realizing transitioning wasn’t right for them."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1102686
So, .04% people who transition report that it was a mistake for them. So, out of 28,000, that means about TWELVE people said it wasn't for them.
So, of those TWELVE outof 28,000, how many does Craig think we're pressured by their parents and government representatives to seek medical intervention when they didn't want it
Also, if parents pressuring kids to transition is wrong, is parents pressuring to DE-transition also wrong?
Marshal...
"there are more than two genders"
It's factually true once you abandon your grade school level of understanding.
"abortion doesn't take the life of a human being endowed by its Creator with the unalienable right to life"
This is a matter of opinion and unproven and unprovable, as a matter of fact.
"the wealthy aren't paying their fair share"
This is a matter of opinion and debatable. Reasonable adults have disagreed about this and we have no way of proving it one way or the other as it's not the kind of question with one authoritative right answer.
"Trump's tax cuts only benefited the wealthy"
I haven't said that and don't believe it.
"the GOP hates immigrants"
I haven't said that and don't believe it. However, the GOP AND the Democrats could all do better in being helpful to immigrants... and especially the GOP.
"the GOP hates women"
I haven't said that and don't believe it.
"the GOP doesn't care about the poor and working class"
I haven't said that and don't believe it. However, they certainly have pushed programs that cause harm to the poor.
"the GOP is anti-science"
Many are, as demonstrably proven.
In short, many of your claims are not generally true as to what liberals like me say OR you're citing instances where liberals are factually correct and you're wrong to say we're lying about it.
Marshal...
"You're expecting us to ignore the LGBT voices by listening instead to those who have been harmed by doing so?"
No. I'm asking you to listen to the 99.9% of LGBTQ voices and the experts and allies who support them and listen to what they're telling you. When you do that, they will tell you that words like you are oppressive and harmful. I'm asking you to be a basically decent human being and stop harming and oppressing historically oppressed people. Acknowledge the oppression that has happened, largely at the hand of conservative church folks or with their support.
March 31, 2022 at 1:43 PM
"Who are these so-called first hand witnesses who've been pushed by their parents and the government into getting surgeries?"
This question proves Dan doesn't look at links provided as support for opposing positions. One of my links, in a group of several, began with, not just a witness, but an actual victim of the the push to transition. She explained how her vulnerability was exploited in a way that influenced her thinking about herself to the extent she began the journey. Those who are tasked with providing actual counsel, not only prescribed testosterone, but far more than even their perverse protocols suggest for one taking first steps. But hey...I get it if you only want to talk listen to "LGBT voices" who promote the agenda and not those who have suffered from it and speak against it. Such victims aren't voices of any concern to you.
So while you call bullshit simply because you don't like to hear the other side, in reality, you prove you are bullshit.
"IF it has happened, it's like, what? One in a billion instances?"
How could that be when the estimates are no more than a million tops in this country. And that's likely very high given they don't allow for those who wish they never transitioned...like Renee Richards and Walt Heyer...and the activists' penchant for presuming there are more than there truly are because some kids are "questioning".
"The vast majority report good results from these medical interventions."
There are no legitimate long term studies, but what is available maintains the somewhat long known understanding that there's an over representation of negative consequences among those who submitted to "medical interventions". More drug and alcohol abuse, more suicides and suicide attempts, more cases of depression and other mental/emotional outcomes, and of course, the physical problems associated with the lifelong need for various meds to maintain the delusion. Thus, "good results" are reported by those who may have recently transitioned before the bloom could be off the rose, so to speak. But as in all your "evidence", you're assuming such "good results" are unassailable simply because they make the claim.
"That would argue in favor of supporting trans folks and just watching out for the extremely rare instances of parents and "representatives of government" pushing unwanted solutions."
The problem isn't a matter of "wanting" those false solutions. It's a matter of believing they are solutions, and "woke" leftist parents, "trans folks" and reps of government and the medical/psychological community pushing them as what they need to resolve their issues.
"IF you've heard/read thus somewhere in the real world, I'm guessing it's someone who is being pressured to change by conservative religious extremists."
This is just an asshole statement by an asshole who has no real devotion to truth and facts. Those who've transitioned and then have regrets after the damage is done is a far larger percentage than the deviant pro-LGBT activists care to see publicized because it spoils their agenda goals. Morons among the "progressive" community aren't honest enough to even consider any of these sad people might have regrets at all because they're chumps for the cause. You're a perfect example.
"We'll see if you even try to support your claim."
Again, I've presented an example already, but you don't bother with the evidence you demand from us, so you're lying again.
Marshal...
"One of my links, in a group of several, began with, not just a witness, but an actual victim of the the push to transition."
"More drug and alcohol abuse, more suicides and suicide attempts, more cases of depression and other mental/emotional outcomes, and of course, the physical problems..."
And I REPEAT:
Who are these so-called first hand witnesses who've been pushed by their parents and the government into getting surgeries?"
I see your words. What I don't see is any proof. Cite your sources. Unfortunately, conservatives have demonstrated that you all are fine with "alternative facts" and made up claims and rational people cannot trust your claims. If you want to be taken seriously, Cite your data.
Marshal... "I get it if you only want to talk listen to "LGBT voices" who promote the agenda and not those who have suffered from it and speak against it"
Of course, the reality is I never said this AND I explicitly said the OPPOSITE. IF there are people who've been pressured by bad people to do something they don't want, then that should not happen and rules that are in place already should be followed.
But I'm consistent on this point.
IF there are parents and "government representatives" who are pressuring non-trans people to be trans against their will... that should not happen.
AND...
IF there are parents and "government representatives" who are pressuring trans people to be NOT trans against their will... that should not happen or gay kids to NOT be gay, that should not happen.
I'm consistent on the side of human rights and personal liberty.
Can you fellas say the same thing?
Marshal...
" It's a matter of believing they are solutions, and "woke" leftist parents, "trans folks" and reps of government and the medical/psychological community pushing"
It's a matter of oppressors like you and the fascists in Texas not getting to force your will on people. It's a matter of human rights and basic decency. It's a matter of whether we're going to live in a free Republic or not. It's a matter of you all staying The hell out of people's pants and bedrooms.
Marshal... "This question proves Dan doesn't look at links provided as support for opposing positions."
While I have provided multiple links to actual experts, I can find only a few fluff opinion pieces from non-experts and nothing that supports the claim of forced/pressured transitions.
Or do you mean, once upon a time you think you posted something to support this irrational claim?
I don't know what you may or may not have posted once upon a time. You want to be taken seriously? Support the claim here and now.
No gossip allowed.
About one person who detransitioned whose name you mentioned - Walt Heyer - here is some more information...
"I agree with the author of Trans Christians that Walt Heyer is not and never was transgender. So much of his own testimony is contrary to any indication that he has or had an internal female gender identity.
However, my complaint is really not with Walt Heyer. Wherever the truth lies about his personal journey, it appears that he dealt with a terrible amount of negative influences from an early age, and that the resultant conflicts created an even more terrible series of trials as he bounced from diagnosis to diagnosis and solution to solution. As a Christian, I am overjoyed when anyone finds peace and deliverance through receiving Christ, His free gift of salvation and His love. The only complaint I have with him is that, because it was not right for him, he makes the illogical and unsubstantiated leaps that transition and SRS are not right for anyone. "
https://ts4jc.wordpress.com/2014/07/11/walt-heyer-delivered-from-transsexuality-by-christianity/
In other words, you have offered ONE story of an abused and perhaps mentally ill child/adult (accordingto his testimony), who probably never was a transgender person who became an ultra-conservative adult and is not an instance, it does not appear, of a child pressured into transitioning by loved ones and "government representatives."
Debunking some of Heyer's claims...
http://archive.transgenderuniverse.com/2016/02/22/transgender-regret-fact-or-fiction/
And none of this is to criticize Heyer. He appears to be a person with some mental conditions and a traumatized background.
It's only to point out that he is not an expert on transgender issues, only on his own life. Many of the claims he makes do not conform with the facts.
May he get the help he needs and may conservatives stop exploiting his story, riddled as it is with false claims, misrepresentations and non-expert opinions.
Marshal...
"It's a matter of believing they are solutions, and
"woke" leftist parents,
"trans folks" and
reps of government and
the medical/psychological community
pushing them as what they need to resolve their issues."
Do you NOT see the arrogance in this?
The INDIVIDUAL who is transgender and knows it because it's THEIR lives and body...
And...
The parents who love and support their children as they are
And...
Medical and mental health experts (as well as these fabled "government representatives..." whoever that is!)...
ALL those experts are wrong but Marshal and some ultra-religious type of conservatives all know better... and these NON-expert outsider religious zealots are the ones who should decide..???
Good God, how do you not see the anti-science, anti-expert religious fascism in that? The potential for harm done to YOU if we accept the principle you're advocating?
How will you like it if religious liberals start dictating what you can do or not based on their unsupported beliefs and not on expert opinion and data?
Dan,
There's this wondrous miracle called google, given your tendency to ignore/dismiss/ridicule anything I provide you, how about if your do your own research.
Or just acknowledge that the likelihood of any sources measuring up to your rigorous standards is nill and just decide that you don't need to do any research.
https://ourduty.group/2021/03/12/detransition-awareness-day/
Interesting, you claim that Heyer is an "expert" "on his own life", yet proceed to ridicule "his story".
Craig... "Interesting, you claim that Heyer is an "expert" "on his own life", yet proceed to ridicule "his story"."
It didn't happen. I never ridiculed his story. I was quite emphatically specifically supportive of him and his traumatic experiences. AND I noted that while he's an expert on HIS story, he is literally not an expert on transgender folks since he is and never was transgender, by his own testimony.
Stick to the facts and quit making false claims.
Craig references an unknown site called ourduty.com which is written as if by an angry old cis white guy who is angry about his trans child with, as far as I can see, NO references to any actual expert opinion or actual data. He/they DO assert "many studies" support what they are saying but I see no links to support their claims. There are no references as to the writers' areas of expertise if they have any.
This website is ALL tangled up in red flags.
Here's one response to ourduty...
https://transsafety.network/posts/our-duty-uncovered/
So, again, do you all have any data-driven support for your claims?
If not, you'll have to excuse the rational adults who write you off as anti-science cranks and conspiracy theorists.
Craig...
"how about if your do your own research."
I have. That's why I recognize a crackpot "source" when I see one.
WHO is Richard Jordan? WHY should anyone listen to his conspiracies and empty claims?
Sorry. I just typed Richard Jordan and I meant Keith Jordan, the unknown organizer of ourduty.com.
From reviewing the website (based out of UK), I would guess that it's an organization made up of extremely conservative parents - possibly conservative Catholic parents - who hate that their children are transgender and are doing whatever they can to "fix" the "broken" world. Perhaps also suffering from narcissism and a messiah complex.
"Society has been broken. It is our duty to fix it" -OD.com
Craig, regarding your claim that I was ridiculing Heyer's story... Here's what I said about Heyer. It would be helpful if you could point to ANY of this to say, "That was something that I viewed to be ridiculing his story..." because, frankly, I can't imagine even you believe that stupidly false claim.
And none of this is to criticize Heyer.
He appears to be a person with some mental conditions and a traumatized background.
It's only to point out that he is not an expert on transgender issues,
only on his own life.
Many of the claims he makes do not conform with the facts.
May he get the help he needs and
may conservatives stop exploiting his story,
riddled as it is with false claims,
misrepresentations and
non-expert opinions.
I think part of the problem with modern conservatism is that they have become so emotionally fragile and afraid of losing power that ANY criticism of them - even polite, factually correct, comments dealing with the reality of a situation - is considered an attack or ridicule.
Here's a link to actual experts talking about data and science and not fear mongering and propaganda-izing. Jordan and his ilk are not even close to being credible...
"Shrier's book tells the stories of several young people who came out as transgender to their parents. The book claims that these adolescents and young adults were not actually transgender, but actually just confused. The problem is Shrier didn't actually interview any of these people she wrote about.
The author’s note points out that she only interviewed their parents, who uniformly did not accept their children’s transgender identities. Many of them were estranged from their kids because the children were so hurt by their parents' rejection. To actually understand the psychology of these young people, one would need to talk to them, not simply rely on stories from parents with whom they do not speak...
Within medicine, gender-affirming care for transgender and gender diverse youth is not controversial, outside of a few fringe groups like The American College of Pediatricians (an anti-LGBTQ group that is not to be confused with The American Academy of Pediatrics). There is broad consensus from The American Psychiatric Association, The American Academy of Pediatrics, The Endocrine Society, The American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, and The World Professional Association for Transgender Health that gender-affirming medical care is appropriate for transgender youth so long as clinicians follow guidelines set forth by these major medical organizations (e.g., The Endocrine Society Guidelines)
Shrier ignores all of the data showing that gender-affirming medical care results in improved mental health outcomes for transgender youth.
Though Shrier is quick to provide anecdotes from teenagers like "Riley" and stories from estranged parents as evidence, she is relatively less interested in the peer-reviewed scientific research that shows the benefits of gender-affirming medical care for transgender adolescents
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/political-minds/202012/new-book-irreversible-damage-is-full-misinformation%3famp
Dude...you really have to give me a little time to shred your earlier links before you continue piling on more absolute crap. I've only a day or so at most before I'll be on the road for a few days. Links you've posted have been shown to be far less than the slam dunk "evidence" you certainly want to believe they are simply because their conclusions make you all fuzzy inside. I continue to find within them reasons to believe you never actually studied them before posting because of those conclusions you find so pleasing. So I proceed from my last post responding to your crap:
March 31, 2022 at 2:00 PM
"While Craig cites ZERO support for his claim, here are the known facts...
"A new study published in LGBT Health found that 13.1% of currently identified transgender people have detransitioned at some point in their lives, but that 82.5% of those who have detransitioned attribute their decision to at least one external factor such as pressure from family, non-affirming school environments, and increased vulnerability to violence, including sexual assault."
https://fenwayhealth.org/new-study-shows-discrimination-stigma-and-family-pressure-drive-detransition-among-transgender-people/"
So I read this link and naturally found it wanting. But hey...I'm not expert, right? So unlike you, I looked to see what actual experts say about this "study", though because they shred it in a more professional manner than I ever could, no doubt they're "outliers" or "religious extremists" or any of the other sundry insults you fling at better people simply because they won't bend the knee to your Gaystapo agenda activists.
https://quillette.com/2020/11/01/jack-turbans-dangerous-campaign-to-smear-ethical-psychotherapy-as-anti-trans-conversion-therapy/
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-020-01844-2
Both of the above are essentially the same response, but the second is more detailed. Thus, since you don't read links anyway, you at least have a choice with these two with the first having more appeal to your limited attention span.
The bottom line is the link you present above refers to another study by pro-LGBT forces which again indulge in especially shoddy methodologies and you should read my links carefully so you can understand what you can't see without me providing such comprehensive explanation.
"The information that does exist appears to corroborate Asquith’s claim. In a 2015 survey of nearly 28,000 people conducted by the U.S.-based National Center for Transgender Equality, only 8 percent of respondents reported detransitioning, and 62 percent of those people said they only detransitioned temporarily. The most common reason for detransitioning, according to the survey, was pressure from a parent, while only 0.4 percent of respondents said they detransitioned after realizing transitioning wasn’t right for them."
Here's another which has similar complaints:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356145438_Letter_to_the_Editor_Regret_after_Gender-affirmation_Surgery_A_Systematic_Review_and_Meta-analysis_of_Prevalence
Again, the flaws of the study are many, and those I've cited are not religious wackos, but people of science themselves. They're just more honest than those you cite who are the real religious wackos...craven members of the Church of LGBT Activism.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1102686
This link of yours is really just another covering the same study of the first. It just does it in an activism manner, referring often to those who don't bend the knee as "transphobic", which is just another way of saying those who oppose are poopy-heads. Not very professional or scientific to use that term within a serious discussion on the validity of pro-LGBT "science".
"So, of those TWELVE outof 28,000, how many does Craig think we're pressured by their parents and government representatives to seek medical intervention when they didn't want it"
A stupid question because it demands one buy into the info you present as if it isn't flawed. By the way, the study itself allows for their own shortcomings to a certain extent...a token gesture at best...while still using the flawed study to recommend policy.
"Also, if parents pressuring kids to transition is wrong, is parents pressuring to DE-transition also wrong?"
No. Not at all. In the first instance, minors aren't capable of making life-changing decisions. This is acknowledged across the entirety of American law...except it is considered "transphobic" here. What's more, the entire field enabling this egregious notion is based on nothing more than wishful thinking with regard to the truth of the basic premise. There's no science to back it up. As such, it assumes allowing the minor to indulge the disordered desire is the best course of action without having proven it's so.
In the second instance, the only "wrong" of pressuring de-transition is in how it's done, not that it is. With the goal to restore, as much as is medically possible, a deluded person to what that person was born to be is generally a clear "good". It is restoring the person to an existence based on truth and reality, not enabling delusion.
More, hopefully, soon...
There is no science to "transgederism." Biology IS science and says there are only two genders and no one can change from one to the other. Transgederism is nothing but emotionalism by people who are mentally unstable.
Children and teens are brainwashed into it by parents and culture and teens often out of rebellion. Making insurance companies pay for such "transitions" raises insurance costs for all of us. The military accepting such nonsense weakens our military. Men/boys who are unable to be high performers in their own sports are being allowed to compete against women/girls and take away all their hard work and honors. Men doing so are just cowards and bullies.
Transgederism should NEVER be fostered, rather these mentally disturbed people should be give counseling.
Transgederism is just the emperor thinking he's wearing new clothes when in reality he is naked. It's time for the GOP and Christians and conservatives and everyone with common sense to start fighting this destruction of people and yell loud and clear "The emperor is naked!"
NO one should be forced to accept people's claims to be the opposite sex.
Mosty amusing is that Dan provides "expert" testimony from people who are mentally deranged trying to prove mental derangement is normal.
Yeah, experts. Worthless research by people who are wanting people to accept denial of biology and common sense.
Marshal.. "Dude...you really have to give me a little time to shred your earlier links before you continue piling on more..."
The problem is that you all post so many false and unsupported false claims from so many non-expert and biased/bigoted sources and misunderstand and misrepresent what I and others have said that it takes a good bit of time and words to address.
Fyi: your first link (you know, the links you falsely claim I don't read) is broken. The quillette.com link.
Transgender children are overwhelmingly raised by Godless leftists. Is there some weird genetic quirk on the Left that results in them having a preponderance of these children? Or is there some gap in their belief system and world view that leads a child into such despair that he feels the only solution is to negate the self? …
The current sexual menace is nothing more than another search for salvation through physical transformation. It's no different than using drugs, or money, or food, or plastic surgery, or triathlons or video games or any other idol to fill that soul need. Like the other failures, this won't work. It will only lead to suffering. The worst part? It will be suffering without meaning.
To suffer, is to be human. The solution, though, cannot be found in this world.
Melissa Mackenzie [email] Newsletter 4/1/22
She writes 100% truth.
Marshal...
"So I read this link and naturally found it wanting. But hey...I'm not expert, right? So unlike you, I looked to see what actual experts say about this "study"
Let's think this through slowly, deliberately and rationally...
1. It's a given that all the groups of experts are generally agreed on LGBTQ issues. The AMA, APA, AAP, Endocrine Society, etc, etc all acknowledge the reality of LGBTQ folk, their human rights and that there in nothing innately unnatural or unhealthy about being LGBTQ.
2. Given that reality, when someone cites a study or opinion that is OUTSIDE the dominant paradigm, it's a bit natural to want to investigate the claims and pedigree of the outliers.
3. But that's not what's happening with you. In your case, you read a report from a group within and in agreement with the main dominant scientific paradigm and you found problems AND you rightly noted, "but I'm not an expert." But what did you do... ?
4. You went in search of outlier views precisely because you, in your ignorance (no insult... just acknowledging what you acknowledged... that you're not an expert and you're an outsider to LGBTQ concerns), you sought out other experts to validate your feelings.
Is that not a perfect example of you actively trying to find support for your religious/political views instead of just going where the data and experts lead? That is... not that you've familiarized yourself with the issues in an unbiased manner and then made a conclusion, but instead actively sought SOME justification to validate your existing philosophy?
Glenn...
"NO one should be forced to accept people's claims to be the opposite sex."
Look, you can be a rude jackass all day long, if you want. You can embrace ignorance and an anti-science hostility if you want.
What you CAN'T do is actively cause harm.
You don't think in your little bigoted head that Janey is actually a woman? Don't think it. But keep it to yourself. Janey doesn't need to hear hostile bigotry from an angry old white gut. She probably gets enough of that from her dad.
You're free to think what you want. You aren't free to inflict harm on innocent bystanders.
Examples of stupidly false and unsupported claims abound...
"Children and teens are brainwashed into it by parents and culture and teens often out of rebellion."
Prove it, you old liar.
"Biology IS science and says there are only two genders..."
Prove it, you old liar. Biologists say differently.
Your limited understanding is fine for a 7 year old. But a grown adult should know better.
"Dan provides "expert" testimony from people who are mentally deranged..."
Prove it, you old liar.
"The military accepting such nonsense weakens our military."
Prove it, you old liar.
I'm gonna start calling you boys Old Nick, because you lie and make up stupidly false claims so frequently and easily. Your father would be proud.
Let me know if you even try to support your empty claims, Wormwood.
April 2, 2022 at 9:56 AM
"The problem is that you all post so many false and unsupported false claims from so many non-expert and biased/bigoted sources..."
A remarkable claim given your consistent inability to prove anything I've said is false or without evidence. My sources are certainly expert enough to whatever extent necessary to express the positions and claims they make, especially as regards the highly biased/bigoted sources and positions you continue to present. In fact, your allegations of bias and bigotry on the part of my sources is rank projection by you and your kind when you and your kind fail to prove your positions and fail to find legitimate fault in rebuttals and positions of my sources. I misunderstand and misrepresent nothing you and your kind say, and you continue to fail to prove it.
April 2, 2022 at 9:58 AM
"Fyi: your first link (you know, the links you falsely claim I don't read) is broken. The quillette.com link."
That's too bad. Of the two, that's the summary of the other, dumbed down for people like you. FYI: it opened just fine for me just now using my phone. I'll try it on my desk top later, but again, the other is the full presentation anyway, so it doesn't matter. There's just more in the other link for you to skim over to pretend you've given it a serious look.
Glenn cited M Mackenzie who is, as far as I can tell, just a far right hack writer, prone to making false and unsupported claims with no expert scientific credentials. She said (again, with ZERO support... and I can't emphasize enough that this trend amongst modern Trump-servatives is just so banal and dangerous)...
"Transgender children are overwhelmingly raised by Godless leftists."
Clearly an unsupported and, I suspect, false, claim. Prove it.
Dear God in heaven, I pray it's true, given how cruel so many far right conservatives have been to their LGBTQ family members. But I suspect it's another stupidly false claim. Given that transgender children appear in all families, just like lesbian and gay folk... it may be the case that LGBTQ people are not as repressed and underground in progressive families as in harsh conservative families as a safety measure. But as it is, this is just another empty claim.
Mackenzie also said...
"...that leads a child into such despair that he feels the only solution is to negate the self? …"
If you actually LISTEN to LGBTQ people, they will tell you that itvis conservative and religious bigotry that pushes so many LGBTQ people into hiding that is the actual "negation of self."
Your collective words cause harm. Listen to LGBTQ people. Listen to actual experts. Or at the least, shut up and mind your own business.
Your words are killing people.
Glenn. Is McKenzie from American Spectator? Please provide a link to whatever it was from which you pulled that quote. I'd love to read it in its entirety.
Dan,
Bigotry is from YOUR ilk, bigoted against those who disagree with you and you want them punished -- so much for LEFTIST "tolerance."
Anti-science are people like you who think a man can become a woman and a woman can become a man. It harms no one to point out your anti-science/anti-biology lies.
You asked me to "prove" the statements I made, but the claims are self-evident to any intelligent person, proving you are just a stupid and ignorant fool. It is you and your ilk who are the liars when you support the LIE of transgenderism. Everything she said in that paragraph is 100% fact, but you perverts want to deny such so that you can continue to push your deviant, perverse agendas. You are hell-bound.
When speak of "Old Knick" and "wormwood," you are looking in the mirror because you are either a minion of Satan or downright possessed they way you rail at God and His creation and lie about what He says about sexual perversions.
You know nothing about Melissa Mackenzie except that she proves you to be a liar. She is a bonafide, Christian -- a very intelligent one. She's the managing editor and publisher of the American Spectator. You know, a bastion of truth exposing the LEFTIST (i.e. YOUR) perverted agendas.
Marshall
What I got was her weekly email commentary, and there is no link to it. Message me your email on FB and I'll send it to you.
Trabue,
It is the perverted ideology you and your ilk promote which is killing people--thousands of them.
Yes, I'm thinking she's the one with the American spectator. Which suggests that's her one credential, that she writes for a conservative magazine, apparently with no expertise in any field.
Also, Marshall, by googling I did find your Link, which, as you said, added nothing.
March 31, 2022 at 2:27 PM
"Marshal...
"there are more than two genders"
It's factually true once you abandon your grade school level of understanding."
It's factually true if one adheres to actual biology and human reproduction from which the concept of gender is drawn.
Definition of gender (from Merriam-Webster)
(Entry 1 of 2)
1a : a subclass within a grammatical class (such as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (such as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms
b : membership of a word or a grammatical form in such a subclass
c : an inflectional form (see inflection sense 2a) showing membership in such a subclass
2a : sex sense 1a the feminine gender
b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex
MW provides a "2c"..."GENDER INDENTITY"...which is not a definition of "gender", but a term requiring it's own definition which MW provides. It acknowledges the recent radical, extremist, disorder promoting but science-free claim there are more than two genders, but it does nothing to mitigate the true definition of that which I posted.
"abortion doesn't take the life of a human being endowed by its Creator with the unalienable right to life"
This is a matter of opinion and unproven and unprovable, as a matter of fact.
"the wealthy aren't paying their fair share"
This is a matter of opinion and debatable. Reasonable adults have disagreed about this and we have no way of proving it one way or the other as it's not the kind of question with one authoritative right answer. It's never been proven scientifically there are more than two genders, since "gender" is a reference to the two sexes, the truth of which biology clearly provides all the evidence we need.
""Trump's tax cuts only benefited the wealthy"
I haven't said that and don't believe it."
I'm not about to go looking for proof, but I believe you have indeed made comments to this effect. What's important, however, is that it doesn't matter. I made the list in response to the following statement you posted:
"You can produce no such proof of dishonesty or lack of love for Truth for liberals."
Thus, it might be one thing YOU haven't personally said (again, I don't believe that's true), but it is among the many stupidly false (isn't that the term you like?) claims made by liberals demonstrating their problem with being honest and disregard for truth.
""the GOP hates immigrants"
I haven't said that and don't believe it. However, the GOP AND the Democrats could all do better in being helpful to immigrants... and especially the GOP."
Look...I admit to taking liberties in how I paraphrase leftist sentiment. But it's absolutely in line with the prevalent expression of leftist disparagement of the GOP and conservatives. So the crap about you not having uttered the sentiment in so many words is hollow and another example of that which validates the premise.
""the GOP hates women"
I haven't said that and don't believe it."
Yet another example. It doesn't matter if it is something you personally haven't expressed exactly in the way presented here. It's absolutely common among your kind to one extreme or another. To pretend you're not a part of it is just another lie. And demonstrating your double standard, I've NEVER seen you stand up and against these memes of the left, as you demand of us when any of the right goes astray. So cut the crap.
""the GOP doesn't care about the poor and working class"
I haven't said that and don't believe it. However, they certainly have pushed programs that cause harm to the poor."
Yet another example.
""the GOP is anti-science"
Many are, as demonstrably proven."
I don't argue those like you have attempted to prove it demonstrably (usually that isn't true either, as you lefties simply say without having provided sound "science"). You've simply failed routinely to succeed in that attempt.
"In short, many of your claims are not generally true as to what liberals like me say OR you're citing instances where liberals are factually correct and you're wrong to say we're lying about it."
In other words, you're saying "Nyuh uh" once again. None of the above are even close to being factually incorrect, so you're simply making a baseless assertion.
Look, both of you, I know you don't want to listen to the experts. I know you think they're mistaken and that you know better. But just slow down and think about it for a minute...
WHAT IF they're right? What if hateful, bigoted, arrogant, presumptuous, belittling, demonizing words like you and many others do cause great harm? What if it's causing people to kill themselves ? What if it's encouraging other people to beat up LGBTQ folk? To wrong with kick their children out of their homes and churches?
What if your words are causing great harm? Why in the name of all that's holy Would you not at least shut up?
Why not just think to yourself, I think I'm right, but I don't have to say that to anyone else. I don't have to be rude to an LGBTQ person. I don't have to tell them they're wrong or bound for hell because I disagree with you. I can easily call them she and Mary if that's what they want me to call them? Why don't you just not be jackasses? Keep your opinions to yourself? If you can't say something nice then shut the hell up? Why not do that? What if you are killing people? How guilty are you going to feel one day?
March 31, 2022 at 3:51 PM
"Marshal...
"You're expecting us to ignore the LGBT voices by listening instead to those who have been harmed by doing so?"
No. I'm asking you to listen to the 99.9% of LGBTQ voices and the experts and allies who support them and listen to what they're telling you."
First of all, despite the fact I was roundly mocking you with this question, it wasn't directed at you. I was asking that of Craig.
Secondly, you neither know nor have access to as many as 99.9% of anybody, much less "LGBTQ voices and the experts and allies who support them". Indeed, you know scant few if any.
Thirdly, as you do with "black voices", you're only concerned with a portion of all voices on the subject. Thus, this stands as a lie which further validates the premise of the post.
"When you do that, they will tell you that words like you are oppressive and harmful."
No doubt they'll tell all sorts of things. But will they tell me anything which is true beyond their insisting their delusion is reality? And will they tell me just how speaking the truth is harmful to them, beyond the difficulty in accepting the truth? I don't think so. Thus, listening any more to them than I already have is pointless. I don't regard one's anecdotal stories to be rational reasons to regard their perception of their selves to be factual and worthy of acceptance as such. Their "words" are not evidence of what is true.
"I'm asking you to be a basically decent human being and stop harming and oppressing historically oppressed people."
"Decency" requires speaking the truth, which I do. Speaking the truth is not harmful or oppressive to those open to truth. It doesn't matter how "oppressed" they may have been throughout history, despite your false intentions in constantly referencing "historically oppressed". To whatever degree they've been "historically oppressed", that is totally and absolutely irrelevant to the FACT they are deluded in believing they are what they say they are. What's more, there's no science to back it up. None. And you've yet to produce anything which can be taken as such.
"Acknowledge the oppression that has happened, largely at the hand of conservative church folks or with their support."
An intentional lie. Rejection of the delusion is not "oppression". It's dealing in facts and truth. And "conservative church folks" is Dan-speak for "those devoted to truth who piss me off for being so".
April 1, 2022 at 7:30 AM
"Marshal...
"One of my links, in a group of several, began with, not just a witness, but an actual victim of the the push to transition."
"More drug and alcohol abuse, more suicides and suicide attempts, more cases of depression and other mental/emotional outcomes, and of course, the physical problems..."
And I REPEAT:
Who are these so-called first hand witnesses who've been pushed by their parents and the government into getting surgeries?"
I see your words. What I don't see is any proof. Cite your sources. Unfortunately, conservatives have demonstrated that you all are fine with "alternative facts" and made up claims and rational people cannot trust your claims. If you want to be taken seriously, Cite your data."
You should actually read and watch what my links have provided. All you demand is within them. I present no "alternative facts" or "made up claims" and you wouldn't know "rational" if it kick you in your lady parts. If you want to be considered at least sometimes honest, then actually study the links I provide and stop merely pretending you have.
I'm going to leave it here for now. No doubt at this point you likely have something sitting in moderation where it will remain until I catch up. I have less than a day and a half to do so, and I've too much stuff to do which is more important than responding to more infantile and dishonest responses from you, like watching the important Bulls/Heat match-up now on my DVR.
Marshal... "But will they tell me anything which is true beyond their insisting their delusion is reality?"
And this is one of the signs of white privilege... one of the signs of white male fragility.
Whole groups of People can testify to you... 90%, 95% of a group can testify to you about the harm being done. And yet in your arrogance, you think you can dismiss it as if it's nothing. To hell with that arrogance.
Don't you see? Can't you recognize the great arrogance in telling them, all these people, that they are wrong? What do you know About their lives? The beatings, the the rejection by family and church, which, the teasing, the mocking, the debasement, the harm? What do you know, jackass? How long have you spent listening to gay listening to LGBTQ people?
Who the hell are you? Go to hell, you blind guide.
Marshal...
"And will they tell me just how speaking the truth is harmful to them, beyond the difficulty in accepting the truth?"
You do not know the truth. You have your own little Marshal-sized God damned opinions that you, in your diabolical arrogance, think trumps everyone else's understanding. Again, to hell with that arrogance, that white privilege, that oppression. To hell with it, where that evil belongs.
Marshal... "You should actually read and watch what my links have provided."
I've read your little links. There's nothing there. You know there's nothing there. If there was something there, you could easily just show it to me. You're not showing it to me because it's not there. You can't support your stupid false claim.
I was willing to allow that maybe such evil existed somewhere, because people are bad sometimes. But the fact that you can't point to it emphasizes the likelihood that there is no such link and there are no such people.
April 1, 2022 at 7:57 AM
"Marshal... "I get it if you only want to talk listen to "LGBT voices" who promote the agenda and not those who have suffered from it and speak against it"
Of course, the reality is I never said this AND I explicitly said the OPPOSITE. IF there are people who've been pressured by bad people to do something they don't want, then that should not happen and rules that are in place already should be followed.
But I'm consistent on this point."
Funny, I don't recall that coming from your virtual mouth. All we hear is "listen to LGBT voices". We present those who've expressed opposition, including those who suffered from exposure to the agenda in one way or another, and you've ridiculed them and suggested negative attributes in them because they expressed opposition, demanding from us far more than you've EVER brought to the table. But then, honesty isn't your strong suit, and this spin is just more evidence of it.
"IF there are parents and "government representatives" who are pressuring non-trans people to be trans against their will... that should not happen."
This isn't exactly an honest representation of our argument. Pressure comes from several directions. Leftist parents who've bought into the LGBT lie offer up their children for transition simply because a kid expresses a desire to be or a perception of being of the opposite sex. Good parents don't do this. They don't abide a child's delusions.
Other pressures come from leftist teachers, psychological "experts", leftist peers who push a confused kid toward believing they are some manifestation of LGBT nonsense. Good people don't do this. They "pressure" kids or their peers to embrace truth and reality, not delusion.
"AND...
IF there are parents and "government representatives" who are pressuring trans people to be NOT trans against their will... that should not happen or gay kids to NOT be gay, that should not happen."
ALL adults should guide kids...or even other adults...toward truth and reality, and also toward a moral lifestyle. That's a good thing which good people endeavor to do. That does NOT include appeasing, enabling or celebrating LGBT nonsense, all of which is based on lies.
"I'm consistent on the side of human rights and personal liberty.
Can you fellas say the same thing?"
Of course we can. But when we do, it's true. For example, we don't reject the personal liberty of merchants pressured to abide requests of LGBT customer they would never fulfill for anyone else. We don't dismiss the rights of people based on their age, size and location, as you do regarding the unborn. We're consistently on the side of actual human rights and actual personal liberty. You're on the some bullshit leftist version of it which is in reality a corruption of those ideals.
April 1, 2022 at 8:03 AM
"Marshal...
" It's a matter of believing they are solutions, and "woke" leftist parents, "trans folks" and reps of government and the medical/psychological community pushing"
It's a matter of oppressors like you and the fascists in Texas not getting to force your will on people. It's a matter of human rights and basic decency. It's a matter of whether we're going to live in a free Republic or not."
So first, you couldn't be bothered to copy/paste my entire comment, and then you respond to the out-of-context snippet of the entire comment to make a point which is another tangential dodge from the point my quote was addressing. No one who opposes the lies of the LGBT agenda are oppressors. The real oppressors are those who enable people lost in their delusions and disorders regarding what they are and to what or whom they're sexually attracted. Real efforts help these unfortunate people recover or learn to cope is not at all being even considered, but instead your kind does that which is akin to "helping" an out of control driver by advising he presses harder on the accelerator. Thus their suffering in assured and what could be more oppressive than to enable people toward that which results in worse mental, emotional and physical outcomes than their normal counterparts? If "fascism" means protecting minors from themselves and leftist enablers and appeasers, where do I sign up? True fascists force the population to accept lies and live according to them when told to. Those like myself have no desire to force anyone to do anything they don't want to do, except where the welfare of minors are is at risk, as it is when adults refuse to be adults and parents refuse to be parents. The Texas proposal does no more, but assholes misrepresent the purpose of that proposal because it conflicts with the demands of the perverted and disordered. Defending the welfare of minors is not in any way, shape or form a threat to a free Republic. That's just asshole talk for "let us lead our kids to suffering!"
"It's a matter of you all staying The hell out of people's pants and bedrooms."
The above I had to separate for direct response, because it is a common and most pernicious lie you lefties tell. Nothing conservatives do or say is a case of getting into anyone's pants or bedrooms. It's never been the case since the extremely flawed Lawrence v Texas ruling ended arresting disordered and immoral adults from having consensual disordered and immoral sex in the privacy of their own homes. But I'm appreciative of you continually validating the premise of this post. You're a pip.
April 1, 2022 at 8:28 AM
"Marshal... "This question proves Dan doesn't look at links provided as support for opposing positions."
While I have provided multiple links to actual experts, I can find only a few fluff opinion pieces from non-experts and nothing that supports the claim of forced/pressured transitions."
Well, now you're lying again and lying intentionally, because I've provided much in the last couple of weeks or so from all manner of "experts" of various kinds. You reject their expertise only because you don't like what they say. You reject their expertise because...assuming you're actually studied what they said, which is highly doubtful given your responses to them...they completely shred any of your "multiple links to actual experts" *snicker*. (What's more, as I said above, you're not accurately representing our position. Stop saying "forced" where we've not suggested force was used, and you'll sound just a scoche less dishonest....but only a scoche.) I've certainly provided more than mere "fluff opinion pieces" from anyone. That bullshit review also suggests you're not reading my links.
"Or do you mean, once upon a time you think you posted something to support this irrational claim?"
No, I mean like March 14th. Go find it yourself since you never opened the links from that day, either.
"I don't know what you may or may not have posted once upon a time. You want to be taken seriously? Support the claim here and now."
How about you go f**k yourself if you're going to again dare to condescend to someone who actually brings actual evidence for a position. Just for the record, I NEVER take you seriously, except as a seriously corrupt and immoral fake. You do not now, nor have you ever had the moral high ground in any discussion between us. If you won't open the links I provide, that's your choice. But don't you ever again dare suggest I don't support my position with evidence. Indeed, on THIS topic of LGBT bullshit, your kind has NEVER provide evidentiary support for that which is in total conflict with human understanding of human sexuality for the last several thousand years. That is to say, square one is the following: humans come in two sexes for the purpose of perpetuating the species and are naturally attracted to each other to serve that purpose. Nothing you and your kind have ever presented contradicts that in any way, alters the truth of it or supports any proposition of an alternative way of thinking. All else is disorder, malfunction and disability.
"No gossip allowed."
Indeed.
"April 1, 2022 at 8:50 AM"
"About one person who detransitioned whose name you mentioned - Walt Heyer - here is some more information..."
You offered what is akin to your cheap rationalizations for rejecting that which I've offered in these discussions. That is, it's your version of a religious extremist, but in this case it's a disordered person daring to dismiss a "transsexual" who opposes the concept of "transgenderism". Indeed, if I was to have offered something like that at your blog, you'd delete it. In the above post, if we're to believe you're an honest person, it's nothing more than gossip. I've never read Heyer's book and I doubt the person from the blog to which you linked (and I actually read the whole damned thing, not just the portion you copy/pasted) is providing an accurate rendering of his words. Yet, what it does present (I didn't look to see if the host is a disordered male or a disordered female), is an attempt to crap on his story and his claim to have been someone as disordered as the host of that blog. A shameful attempt on your part, but par for your course.
"In other words, you have offered ONE story of an abused and perhaps mentally ill child/adult (accordingto his testimony), who probably never was a transgender person who became an ultra-conservative adult and is not an instance, it does not appear, of a child pressured into transitioning by loved ones and "government representatives."
First of all, I did not intend to present him as an example of your distorted understanding, though by his own testimony, he did indeed have influence (a more accurate term than "pressured") from adults around him. So it satisfies even your perverted rendering of our position.
Secondly, when I mentioned him, I also mentioned Renee Richards who not also experiences regret, but warns off all who seek her advice about "transitioning".
Thirdly, I provided yet another case of a young woman who told her tale of being "pressured" to transition back on Mar 14th. Go find it and actually open the freakin' link and study what is said there.
April 1, 2022 at 8:59 AM
"Debunking some of Heyer's claims...
http://archive.transgenderuniverse.com/2016/02/22/transgender-regret-fact-or-fiction/"
None of it debunks anything, and more importantly, it's just another evil twin of the religious extremist strawman you've invented when solid science actually debunks YOU and your position...as well as the LGBT narrative. Why you'd even dare to present a blog post when you constantly crap on anything from a blog post that I've posted, even when they're blog posts of actual scientists, is just another manifestation of your dishonesty...again validating the premise of this post.
"And none of this is to criticize Heyer. He appears to be a person with some mental conditions and a traumatized background."
As do you, but that's not what I address when confronted with your positions and arguments for them.
"It's only to point out that he is not an expert on transgender issues, only on his own life. Many of the claims he makes do not conform with the facts."
He's as much an expert as the last two people to whom you linked. His story is representative of many, if not most, transgendered people, as well as people representing every letter they're not using for the LGBTNESTLES=%)$! community. His claims conform with actual facts, not that which is presented as facts by that same community based on ridiculously poor science and studies.
"May he get the help he needs and may conservatives stop exploiting his story, riddled as it is with false claims, misrepresentations and non-expert opinions."
Wow. A better example of projection and arrogance would be difficult to find. That's LGBT activism in a freakin' nutshell!!
more later...not checking moderation until I've caught up, so don't bother.
April 1, 2022 at 11:07 AM
"Marshal...
"It's a matter of believing they are solutions, and
"woke" leftist parents,
"trans folks" and
reps of government and
the medical/psychological community
pushing them as what they need to resolve their issues."
Do you NOT see the arrogance in this?"
Why would I? Speaking the truth, presenting reality...even if imperfectly...is hardly a sign of arrogance, except to dishonest people like for whom truth and reality is inconvenient. Indeed, it's rather arrogant to condescend in this manner, as well as a sad attempt to deflect by asking such questions. That is, let's pretend it is arrogant. What's that got to do with the merits of the arguments? Answer: nothing. It's just another desperate ploy of a corrupt fake.
"The INDIVIDUAL who is transgender and knows it because it's THEIR lives and body..."
What the INDIVIDUAL who is transgender thinks it knows is what is at issue. It's delusion not proven to be anything else by those who enable such a person, be they other so-called "transgender" people, leftist enabling parents very possibly more afraid of condemnation of the LGBT activists than they are concerned for the future of their kids, leftist enabling activists, be they in government or the medical and psychological community.
"The parents who love and support their children as they are"
But only if their children "are" certain ways, not "are" anything. Would you support your children by enabling their desires and urges to have sex with animals, small children or their siblings? This is a bullshit ploy to appear more loving. It's not. And it reflects the parents' position, not the child's who is not mature enough to make these decisions.
"Medical and mental health experts (as well as these fabled "government representatives..." whoever that is!)..."
That would be...as you damned well know, you liar...are those reps who are activists for this disordered cause. Joe Biden has just exposed himself as one of them. What's more, not all in the medical and mental health fields are down with this cause at all. Most who are are victims of leftist fascism, their jobs at risk should they voice their objections to the nonsense the activists push on society.
"ALL those experts are wrong but Marshal and some ultra-religious type of conservatives all know better... and these NON-expert outsider religious zealots are the ones who should decide..???"
More evidence of your aversion to truth, as you presume there must be something wrong with professionals of any kind who oppose this nonsense you, in your moral corruption and rebellion to God, promote, celebrate, defend and enable. A zealot for truth is a good person beneficial to the deluded. Liars like you and those you worship are not.
"Good God, how do you not see the anti-science, anti-expert religious fascism in that? The potential for harm done to YOU if we accept the principle you're advocating?"
Again with the false pontificating and bloviating. The position I defend is firmly based on actual science and offers no policy or proposal any honest person can justly regard as "fascism". Rather, the only evidence of fascism is from your side of the divide, as your kind ruthlessly imposes policies and laws which force honest people to live as if the lies of your kind are truths. Protecting children is not fascism.
"How will you like it if religious liberals start dictating what you can do or not based on their unsupported beliefs and not on expert opinion and data?"
You've been doing that long enough as it is, as you demand complicity in and with the lies of the LGBT activists. Ask any merchant forced to subordinate their firmly held religious beliefs to fulfill any immoral request of their services by LGBT people. The beliefs of your kind are unsupported by science as I demonstrate with every crappy attempt by you to assert otherwise. You would insist the experts you worship are absolutely perfect in their opinion and conclusions based on data which doesn't support the agenda. No "expert"...even the good ones I cite...are perfect. Yours are just liars pushing an agenda.
April 1, 2022 at 1:25 PM
"Craig... "Interesting, you claim that Heyer is an "expert" "on his own life", yet proceed to ridicule "his story"."
It didn't happen. I never ridiculed his story. I was quite emphatically specifically supportive of him and his traumatic experiences. AND I noted that while he's an expert on HIS story, he is literally not an expert on transgender folks since he is and never was transgender, by his own testimony.
Stick to the facts and quit making false claims."
Heyer uses his story to support his opposition to the lie of transitioning and transgender ideology in general. His opposition is what you oppose and thus you ridicule his story by focusing on what his tale implies, as if it isn't representative of what may be the vast majority of trans community. NOT an identical tale, but representative, as mental illness of some sort is more likely at the root of every damned one of them.
What's more, any freakin' tale told by pro-agenda trans people is evidence for you that what they say is true, so your hypocrisy and double-standards once again validate the premise of this post. You're so incredibly helpful in that regard!
April 1, 2022 at 2:16 PM
"Craig references an unknown site called ourduty.com which is written as if by an angry old cis white guy who is angry about his trans child with, as far as I can see, NO references to any actual expert opinion or actual data. He/they DO assert "many studies" support what they are saying but I see no links to support their claims. There are no references as to the writers' areas of expertise if they have any."
In the meantime, you reference unknown sites written by blatantly angry trans people who is angry with honest people who call them out on their bullshit. So it's a wash. At least the anger of someone like Craig's guy is justified. The anger of your deviants is not.
What's more, the dude is speaking as a parent of a child lured into a life promising nothing but suffering. He's not required to be something he's not just to satisfy your unreasonable demands. Not every opponent of tax policy is a freakin' economist, nor is everyone required to be to speak against what's obvious about any policy. I'm thinking of creating labels for every cheap rationalization you post in lieu of an actual argument. Many are logical fallacies which already have names. Others are more unique to you. They're all validation of the premise of this post.
"This website is ALL tangled up in red flags."
Only to liars intent on promoting falsehood. You've not posted one piece of evidence without red flags easily exposed by me and others in countervailing links I produce in response.
"Here's one response to ourduty...
https://transsafety.network/posts/our-duty-uncovered/"
Hey...look at that...an angry trans person criticizing someone who hasn't bent the knee!!
"So, again, do you all have any data-driven support for your claims?"
Not merely asked and answered, but you've had actual science or professional perspectives on the many and sundry flaws in what you regard as "data-driven" support for the lies of the LGBT activist. It's not even an occasional thing. It's every time you try to present "data-driven support" for those lies. You've never produced a single thing which hasn't been easily countered, after which you default to your standards petulant name-calling, straw men and other white flags of surrender.
"If not, you'll have to excuse the rational adults who write you off as anti-science cranks and conspiracy theorists."
Once again, we see "rational" defined by Ducky Dan as "anyone who agrees with me and the 'experts' I cite". You have no understanding of "rational". You do, however, continue to validate the premise of this post.
April 1, 2022 at 2:18 PM
"Craig...
"how about if your do your own research."
I have. That's why I recognize a crackpot "source" when I see one."
That's funny.
"WHO is Richard Jordan? WHY should anyone listen to his conspiracies and empty claims?"
Doesn't as much matter who he is as much as what he says. One should listen because he likely (I haven't studied his site any more than you have) is presenting more truth than any you ever present for consideration. But your way is to simply dismiss on the basis of opposing opinions and positions, not on the basis of factual information. Facts aren't important to you as the ideology you favor.
April 1, 2022 at 2:39 PM
"From reviewing the website (based out of UK), I would guess that it's an organization made up of extremely conservative parents - possibly conservative Catholic parents - who hate that their children are transgender and are doing whatever they can to "fix" the "broken" world. Perhaps also suffering from narcissism and a messiah complex."
It's not a "guess", Ducky. It's a blatant attack, suggesting the motivations of the people in the organization is more important that the facts of the matter. What's more, your "guess" is irrelevant and worthless, particularly as you use that "guess" to rationalize dismissing them, like a good little liar is wont to do. What these people "suffering from" is the intense sadness of seeing their children succumb to delusion and the influence of other disordered purveyors of falsehood. They understand what truth is and see their children rejecting it as if they were Louisville leftists. It is their duty as parents to save their children from such crap. You don't understand true parental duty because you're a lying lefty who is of the world, rather than merely in it as these parents seem more likely to be.
April 1, 2022 at 3:29 PM
"I think part of the problem with modern conservatism is that they have become so emotionally fragile and afraid of losing power that ANY criticism of them - even polite, factually correct, comments dealing with the reality of a situation - is considered an attack or ridicule."
That is some world-class projection right there! Well done, Dan. Typical and still again a validation of the premise of this post.
Marshal...
"would be...as you damned well know, you liar...are those reps who are activists for this disordered cause."
Again, THINK about it. Medical experts and mental health experts are private businesses typically unassociated with the government. How in the world would I know that's what you or Craig meant. I still don't know if that's what Craig meant. It's a vague and cryptic term, as you all tend to use which is why you all come across as conspiracy theorists.
These vague accusations of some weird conspiracy amongst the government are precisely what the problem is with much of modern conservatism and Qanon. Ginni Thomas.
These nut jobs keep spreading dangerously and stupidly false claims about government conspiracies and sex conspiracies and sex orgies and none of it is factual or real.
So no. I did not know what Craig was talking about when I used that term or you if you're using it. How could I?
April 1, 2022 at 9:51 PM
"Here's a link to actual experts talking about data and science and not fear mongering and propaganda-izing. Jordan and his ilk are not even close to being credible...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/political-minds/202012/new-book-irreversible-damage-is-full-misinformation%3famp"
Dan pretends he's found "expert" opposition to Abigail Shrier's book. Yet the dude who speaks is one for whom I've provided at least two links from experts shredding his positions. Thus, this is just another crappy hit piece by a LGBT activist.
One of the main problems Dan and Turban have with Shrier is her citations of trans people with regrets as well as parents of trans kids. These are exactly the people never presented by asshats like Dan and the activists like Turban! And now they bristle at one who presents their side of the story. Amazing these people expect to be taken as honest people!
And like Dan, Turban regards those experts in the field who oppose his poorly supported position as "outliers". What these dumbasses ignore is the reality of of how much we now know about any field of science is the result of an "outlier" whose research and conclusions based on them were apart from the "consensus" opinions of "experts". Indeed, it's absurdly common in the annals of scientific history.
At this point it's pretty much a given that should Dan provide "actual experts talking about data and science and not fear mongering and propaganda-izing", he's providing merely more activism and not actual data and science any honest person of science would regard as meritorious.
Marshal...
"His opposition is what you oppose and thus you ridicule his story by focusing on what his tale implies..."
??
I oppose him saying he speaks for all trans people because he factually doesn't. He was NEVER transgender according to him. But other people are.
That's not ridicule to point out he's only speaking for himself and not anyone else. Just because in HIS confusion, he transitioned when he wasn't transgender does not mean NO ONE IS transgender.
That's just reality. Here again, I think you all consider people disagreeing with your opinions and pointing out factual actual mistakes = ridicule or attacks. It's just reality, man. Develop a little bit stiffer backbone and thicker skin. Disagreement is not attack.
Marshal...
"What's more, any freakin' tale told by pro-agenda trans people is evidence for you that what they say is true, so your hypocrisy.."
It's literally not hypocrisy to say that 9095% of transgenderfolk who say they are transgender are able to speak for themselves and this guy can speak for themselves. That's consistency.
I'm not saying this guy has to remain a woman if he transitioned. That's for him to decide. It's his personal business. The same for all transgender folks. It's their business. Not yours. Get the hell out of their pants, you deviant pervert.
The difference between me and you is I think people should be able to decide for themselves. You want to force your opinions on other people. How damnably sick.
Marshal...
"As your kind ruthlessly imposes policies and laws which force honest people to live as if the lies of your kind are truths."
That's literally what you and the fastest in Texas are advocating. Forcing your opinions on families against their will. To hell with that.
April 2, 2022 at 11:02 AM"
"Marshal...
"So I read this link and naturally found it wanting. But hey...I'm not expert, right? So unlike you, I looked to see what actual experts say about this "study"
Let's think this through slowly, deliberately and rationally..."
That's funny...Dan again thinking he understands what "rational" means! ��
"1. It's a given that all the groups of experts are generally agreed on LGBTQ issues. The AMA, APA, AAP, Endocrine Society, etc, etc all acknowledge the reality of LGBTQ folk, their human rights and that there in nothing innately unnatural or unhealthy about being LGBTQ."
What's NOT "a given" is just how many of those who are members of these craven groups agree with what they espouse on this issue. Some have gone off to form their own organizations with like minded honest people, or people willing to engage without fear in the actual give and take of real scientific research. These people are disparaged as "outliers" or even "non-experts" simply because they disagree. But again, how many who remain with these organizations, like due to concerns about protecting their livelihoods, actually agree with the LGBT lies? Do you have an actual poll that can be trusted as totally discreet and accurate? I doubt one even exists.
"2. Given that reality, when someone cites a study or opinion that is OUTSIDE the dominant paradigm, it's a bit natural to want to investigate the claims and pedigree of the outliers."
If only you would do that and be honest about who is saying what and whether or not you're accurately considering it all. But the reality is you go no farther than to affirm or deny their "pedigree", but only to YOUR satisfaction, and then dismiss what they say without investigation. Thus, you again validate the premise of this post.
"3. But that's not what's happening with you. In your case, you read a report from a group within and in agreement with the main dominant scientific paradigm and you found problems AND you rightly noted, "but I'm not an expert." But what did you do... ?"
Leave it to you to falsely regard my flippant comment as worthy of response. I don't need to be an expert to know crap when I see it. But you dismiss whatever I say about this (or any other issue, for that matter) on the basis of my not possessing the "necessary" credentials. The point is that I deferred to those who have them. So go pound sand up your ass.
"4. You went in search of outlier views precisely because you, in your ignorance (no insult... just acknowledging what you acknowledged... that you're not an expert and you're an outsider to LGBTQ concerns), you sought out other experts to validate your feelings."
The views of more honest experts are hard to come by with search engines run by leftists who aren't keen on providing countervailing evidence for consideration by people seeking truth. You don't know any such people. But I don't think in terms of my "feelings". That's projection by you. I deal only in facts and evidence. There is none for your positions and "my" experts shred the claims of "your" "experts" because their claims are crap and not supported in the least.
"Is that not a perfect example of you actively trying to find support for your religious/political views instead of just going where the data and experts lead?"
No. But it's a perfect example of you actively trying to pretend you've got support for disorder. The data your "experts" provide do not support their conclusions. In some cases, they don't even attempt to insist that it does. But morons like you rush to present their research in that way. At this point in this discussion, as well as in past discussions, you've not come close to providing anything that is unassailable on at least one level or another. That's the fact of the matter, despite your petulant foot stomping to the contrary.
"That is... not that you've familiarized yourself with the issues in an unbiased manner and then made a conclusion, but instead actively sought SOME justification to validate your existing philosophy?"
More projection. I've actually done a lot to familiarize myself with BOTH sides of the issue, and it is your side which is lacking is evidentiary support. It is indeed my efforts to familiarize myself which affirms and confirms this fact. You go no farther than headlines and believe you've done your due diligence.
April 2, 2022 at 11:58 AM
"Glenn...
"NO one should be forced to accept people's claims to be the opposite sex."
Look, you can be a rude jackass all day long, if you want. You can embrace ignorance and an anti-science hostility if you want.
What you CAN'T do is actively cause harm."
Glenn's is a most reasonable position. There is only rudeness in how it is presented, and the mere expression of the position is not inherently rude. Your response, however, is intently rude and hostile. What's more, Glenn's position is not at all anti-science. That's just your desperation talking again as you embrace disorder and immorality and fear exposure. (Too late!)
Nothing in the expression of Glenn's position is the least bit harmful. You keep making this spurious charge without ever having produced the least bit of evidence that it is. We're just to assume it because you and those you enable insist as much. Sorry. Honest people of character (and those of us striving toward that goal) aren't easily oppressed into complicity by such crap.
"You don't think in your little bigoted head that Janey is actually a woman?"
If Janey possesses a Y chromosome, she's not actually a woman. See how science works? What's more, there's nothing the least bit bigoted by reminded Janey or her enablers of that absolute and unassailable fact.
"Don't think it. But keep it to yourself. Janey doesn't need to hear hostile bigotry from an angry old white gut."
Spoken like an angry old white guy who leans disastrously left. But it's exactly what Janey needs to hear. We call it "truth". You don't like truth. Thanks again for validating the premise of this post.
"You're free to think what you want. You aren't free to inflict harm on innocent bystanders."
As if any harm is inflicted upon expressing truth! What's more, I doubt Glenn approaches any of these people on the street to start in on them with the preaching of truth, so the only people who've had harm inflicted upon them are those who have been influenced into believing the way to address their disorder is to appease and enable it. Stop inflicting such harm on people in distress, Dan. It's not at all "embracing grace", but is lying.
April 2, 2022 at 12:10 PM
"Examples of stupidly false and unsupported claims abound..."
...from the leftist LGBT activists and enablers like you.
""Children and teens are brainwashed into it by parents and culture and teens often out of rebellion."
Prove it, you old liar."
Asked and answered, even if not to your petulant satisfaction.
""Biology IS science and says there are only two genders..."
Prove it, you old liar. Biologists say differently."
Asked and answered, even if not to your petulant satisfaction. Honest biologists affirm our position. Lying biologists perpetuate the lie you embrace more than true grace.
"Your limited understanding is fine for a 7 year old. But a grown adult should know better."
Your false understanding is fine for a liar, but a grown adult who dares claim a belief in the Risen Lord should know better.
""Dan provides "expert" testimony from people who are mentally deranged..."
Prove it, you old liar."
I did this when pointing out the many sources you've cited who are themselves disordered members of the LGBT community. The question of their mental state is the very issue not proven by those of that community or their enablers.
""The military accepting such nonsense weakens our military."
Prove it, you old liar."
While I don't have the time to find an article I just read in the last twenty four hours which validates this statement, it's inherently true and obvious with just the slightest amount of honest consideration. If you were capable of such, you would only need the slightest amount of intelligence to understand the truth of it. A separate topic for another time.
"I'm gonna start calling you boys Old Nick, because you lie and make up stupidly false claims so frequently and easily. Your father would be proud."
I'm gonna start calling you Mr. Projection, because you lie and pretend it's us who's been lying.
"Let me know if you even try to support your empty claims, Wormwood."
When will you, liar?
April 2, 2022 at 12:49 PM
"Glenn cited M Mackenzie who is, as far as I can tell, just a far right hack writer, prone to making false and unsupported claims with no expert scientific credentials."
"as far as I can tell"...that's funny. As if you actually "went far" to find out who this person is and what her credentials are. More importantly, her "credentials" aren't required for her to post her opinions about an important issue rife with lies and distortions by those who promote it...lies and distortions often perpetuated by "experts" with scientific credentials, as my expert sources have easily exposed.
"She said (again, with ZERO support... and I can't emphasize enough that this trend amongst modern Trump-servatives is just so banal and dangerous)...
"Transgender children are overwhelmingly raised by Godless leftists.""
This shot at Trump is Dan's lie he uses frequently these days. If he dislikes a conservative opinion, it is not "Trump-servatives" who express it. It's incredibly childish but emblematic of one who continues to validate the premise of this post so well.
"Clearly an unsupported and, I suspect, false, claim. Prove it."
I don't see how it is required that absolutely every expression of an opinion must be supported and thus, without said support can be written off as false. Dan's demand is compelled by his knowledge of his own position being false, and every opinion contradicting it must be proven with evidence he'd only reject for equally childishly petulant reasons, which are only excuses to dismiss them.
I will say, however, I prefer opinions being supported, but it's not like the basic premise isn't obvious here. The LGBT agenda is clearly contrary to the will of God as any honest student of Scripture can affirm. The question is how God-less a specific proponent of the LGBT agenda truly is. As a general statement, however, it is indeed true. Dan's a perfect example.
I'm going to ignore Dan's fake prayer to the God in Whom he doesn't really believe based on his history. It doesn't even make sense.
"Mackenzie also said...
"...that leads a child into such despair that he feels the only solution is to negate the self? …""
An observation of truth.
"If you actually LISTEN to LGBTQ people, they will tell you that itvis conservative and religious bigotry that pushes so many LGBTQ people into hiding that is the actual "negation of self.""
Yeah, Dan. We DO listen to such people as you would have us lend an ear. That's a part of how we come to far more truthful and accurate conclusions. Here, you want us to listen to the very people who are disordered in their self-perceptions and accept what they say as reflective of reality. Until you can provide the definitive evidence they are NOT disordered (a very tall order indeed!), that ain't gonna happen. I might as well take the word of a guy who thinks he Napoleon Bonaparte that he's actually the French dictator!
"Your collective words cause harm."
No they don't, except to disordered people who are forced to face reality by those words.
"Listen to LGBTQ people."
We do. It's part of how we know they're disordered.
"Listen to actual experts."
We do. They contradict what YOUR "experts" say and do so with superior evidence, arguments and criticisms.
"Or at the least, shut up and mind your own business."
No one is required to do as you demand simply because you lack the ability to prove they're wrong. Those with children influenced to indulge their disorder indeed are minding their own business. Those who are ordered to indulge the delusions of LGBT people or risk being sued, fired from their jobs, kicked out of universities, or have their businesses threatened are minding their own business. Try actually defending your position with fact rather than defaulting to this petty, childish bullshit.
"Your words are killing people."
A lie and a perfect example of an unsupported claim. Support it or apologize for daring to excrete it.
I think I'm caught up now. If not, tough shit. So I'll now go look at what's in moderation and no doubt find that Dan's inundated me with more petulant crap. I'll just allow the posting of all that lies in wait therein. I can't say if I'll have the time to respond to any of it, and after today, I won't be able to allow the posting of any new comments until sometime after Wednesday. Deal with it. Certainly some of it that I do allow will appear in between responses I've made over the last day or so, so don't presume I've not posted any of them. Notice that I haven't "Trabued" any comments, even any of Dan's which qualify for that according to the "rules" of his blog.
April 2, 2022 at 8:13 PM Delete
"Yes, I'm thinking she's the one with the American spectator. Which suggests that's her one credential, that she writes for a conservative magazine, apparently with no expertise in any field."
First, is the notion that this is an example of "thinking". That's hilarious!
Second is the flawed notion that she must be 40 years into a career in psychology, or biology or any other field to hold an logical, rational and reasonable opinion on the lies of the LBGT agenda. No one does. No one needs to be an "expert" in any field to know that one who has a diploma in a given field is a moron. You cite morons and liars. We cite honest people who clearly expose the flaws of your morons and liars. That's been proven every time I've posted a link. You just deny and dismiss without any thoughtful reason why.
April 2, 2022 at 8:14 PM
"Also, Marshall, by googling I did find your Link, which, as you said, added nothing."
I never said the other didn't add anything. I said both were the same with one being a condensed version of the other.
April 2, 2022 at 8:23 PM
Oh, this one's a gem! Check it out.
"Look, both of you, I know you don't want to listen to the experts. I know you think they're mistaken and that you know better."
You know nothing of the sort. You're just lying again because you insist on validating the premise of this post. We absolutely do listen to the experts, both the crappy ones you present, as well as the superior experts we present who destroy all the crap your crappy "experts" pretend supports the basic premises of the various sub-factions of the overall LGBT agenda. We don't "think" your crappy experts are mistaken. We've PROVEN they're mistaken, and thus we know better, especially we know better...FAR better...than you.
"But just slow down and think about it for a minute..."
Were we really moving too fast for you? No doubt that's too easy to do given how slow a thinker you are.
"WHAT IF they're right? What if hateful, bigoted, arrogant, presumptuous, belittling, demonizing words like you and many others do cause great harm?"
The problem here would be first supporting the opinion that speaking truth is "hateful, bigoted, arrogant, presumptuous, belittling, demonizing" as you and your kind so desperately need to portray it as being. That's a tough enough ask for you before you present these wacky hypotheticals which do nothing to alter reality.
"What if it's causing people to kill themselves ?"
If speaking the truth...which you falsely regard as "hateful, bigoted, arrogant, presumptuous, belittling and demonizing"...results in a disordered person offing him/herself, how is that "caused" by the expression of truth? That clearly is an indication the person is truly disordered, not that speaking the truth is responsible for their reaction to it. By your logic in asking this nonsensical question, no one must ever speak the truth lest some wackjob off himself after hearing it. That's absurd, but oh so Trabue.
"What if it's encouraging other people to beat up LGBTQ folk?"
It doesn't. Assholes do that on their own. And if the assholes weren't beating up LGBT folk, they'd be beating up other victims for asshole reasons of their own. This is an intentional lie assholes like you perpetuate to pretend that speaking the truth is a bad thing, and that those who speak the truth must stifle doing so, when the reason is that you and your kind find the truth inconvenient, thereby further validating the premise of this post.
"To wrong with kick their children out of their homes and churches?"
No one kicks out anyone for simply expressing they are deluded. They are cast out when refusing to abide truth and demanding their delusion should be regarded as true. When the reprobate refuses to repent, a church is required to cast them out so as not to spoil the congregation. The same is true of families. I would not cast out my own child for merely opening up about their delusional self-perceptions. No one does that.
"What if your words are causing great harm?"
IF my words caused great harm...and that's a massive, sun-sized "if"...I would apologize for the harm, but not shut up if the words were true. I'd simply find another way of expressing the truth which assholes like you and your kind would continue to blame for any harm allegedly caused by them.
"Why in the name of all that's holy Would you not at least shut up?"
You're not the least bit concerned with the Holy. So stop referencing it here.
"Why not just think to yourself, I think I'm right, but I don't have to say that to anyone else. I don't have to be rude to an LGBTQ person."
This supposes those like us actually walk up to LGBT people just to tell them how disordered and immoral they are. No one does this. However, there's film of LGBT assholes invading churches to tell Christians how wrong they are. Those like us speak the truth. You and your LGBT buddies...as well as lefties in general...don't.
"I don't have to tell them they're wrong or bound for hell because I disagree with you."
But should the subject come up, that is part of the truth we tell...not because we merely disagree, but because it is supported by Scripture.
"I can easily call them she and Mary if that's what they want me to call them?"
What I can do and what I should do are two different things. Unlike many, even among those who intelligently acknowledge the falseness of their delusions and the spiritual harm they inflict upon themselves, some agree to indulge them in their choice of pronouns. I refuse to perpetuate the lie and won't do it. The more who abide their demand, the more difficult it will be to restore the culture to one more in line with morality and reason.
"Why don't you just not be jackasses?"
We aren't. That's YOUR thing. Indeed, calling us "jackasses" for speaking the truth, suggesting we're doing what you say we're doing (when we're not) is just you being a jackass. It's also called "lying" and is more validation of the premise of this post.
"Keep your opinions to yourself? If you can't say something nice then shut the hell up? Why not do that? What if you are killing people? How guilty are you going to feel one day? "
You certainly aren't keeping your baseless opinions to YOUR self! Why must we keep our fact-based opinions to ours? You can't stop saying nasty things about us! Why can't we say truthful things about you? We're not killing anybody by speaking the truth. Enabling the disordered is what results in their suicides (as well as their disorder itself). It's telling that you accuse us of being at fault for what is truly your fault and you don't feel anything but the desire to pretend it's on us...like the liar you so well proven by your own words to be.
April 2, 2022 at 9:05 PM
"Marshal... "But will they tell me anything which is true beyond their insisting their delusion is reality?"
And this is one of the signs of white privilege... one of the signs of white male fragility."
Not at all. It's a sign of basic intelligence, honesty and logic. These are people who are delusional as evidenced by their insistence they're of the opposite sex their biology clearly demonstrates they are. The crux of their testimony is that delusion, and it is upon which all else they say is based. Others things amount to no better than heresay testimony. With this fact beyond debate, you choose to take this nonsensical "white privilege" angle as if that's not delusional, too. And tell me, genius, who is more fragile than one who would kill themselves when faced with the truth?
"Whole groups of People can testify to you... 90%, 95% of a group can testify to you about the harm being done. And yet in your arrogance, you think you can dismiss it as if it's nothing. To hell with that arrogance."
It's not arrogance. It's a legit response to allegations lacking evidence. I don't care how many people insist they've seen Elvis Presley in the last year. Numbers don't mean squat without evidence. Thus, it's not dismissing...which is what you do when unassailable evidence is actually provided for you...,it's setting it aside until evidence can be brought to bear. That's called "wisdom"...not "arrogance". You're just being an asshole again.
"Don't you see? Can't you recognize the great arrogance in telling them, all these people, that they are wrong?"
There's no arrogance to recognize in telling the truth. Doesn't matter how many tell a falsehood, Dan. Numbers don't make it true.
"What do you know About their lives?"
I don't need to know more than they're telling me to expect they can back it up, and lacking that common courtesy, to refuse to regard what they say as absolute truth. You certainly aren't doing that with those who've rejected that lifestyle, so cut the crap. None of it has anything to do with what's true regarding their delusional self-identity.
"The beatings, the the rejection by family and church, which, the teasing, the mocking, the debasement, the harm? What do you know, jackass? How long have you spent listening to gay listening to LGBTQ people?"
Again, none of that matters without evidence. You haven't provided any. Their testimonies are provided to promote their delusion above all else. That they may have been beaten means only they've been beaten. It doesn't mean their delusion is isn't a delusion. That they've been rejected by family and church means only they've been rejected by family and church. It doesn't mean their stories of why they were rejected were accurate and factual. They aren't the only people who suffer teasing, mockery, debasement or harm. There's several dead old Asian women in recent months. There's far more of attacks on Jews, on blacks by other blacks. But you keep running that crap as if it's an honest, legitimate defense of the lie their delusions are real. Jackass.
Who the hell are you? Go to hell, you blind guide."
I'm a person for whom truth, facts and evidence has actual value when determining public policy. Why do you ask? If I do go to hell, save me a seat by a window.
"Marshal...
"And will they tell me just how speaking the truth is harmful to them, beyond the difficulty in accepting the truth?"
You do not know the truth."
I not only know the truth, I've been presenting evidence in support of it constantly every time you try to defend, enable, promote and celebrate disorder and perversion.
"You have your own little Marshal-sized" [Dan expressing grace-embracing here]"opinions that you, in your diabolical arrogance, think trumps everyone else's understanding."
No, sad and pathetic fragile one...you angry white male leftist...I have my own fact-based opinions which call into question the veracity of the LGBT claims you accept as true without serious and honest scrutiny...because you favor perversion over righteousness.
"Again, to hell with that arrogance, that white privilege, that oppression. To hell with it, where that evil belongs."
There's no evil, arrogance, oppression and certainly no fictitious "white privilege" in anything I've said or defended in this thread (or any other). A bigger, brighter white flag you could not wave, little Ducky-Dan.
Here's a suggestion: Why don't you stop posting comments until you can provide "hard data" of the quality you demand of others at your blog? Then, when I shred that crap, too, as I've so easily shredded what you've provided thus far, take it like a real man would or bring better evidence you should have brought in the first place.
April 2, 2022 at 9:22 PM
"Marshal... "You should actually read and watch what my links have provided."
I've read your little links."
Nothing in any of your responses indicates you've done more than give anything a cursory look, thereby graciously allowing you might have looked at all...which I doubt.
"There's nothing there. You know there's nothing there."
And this is evidence you've not looked at all, because there's much in each and every link I present for your edification...something of which you're in so desperate need.
"If there was something there, you could easily just show it to me. You're not showing it to me because it's not there. You can't support your stupid false claim."
This is hilarious and no one but you would be so Trabue as to try to run this level of crap. Not only do you demand I present evidence, you apparently need me to virtually take you by the hand and point out the already easy to see "somethings" you falsely claim doesn't exist. What an inveterate liar you are!!! None of my claims are false and you're absolutely and completely unable to prove otherwise, and lack the wisdom to even know how to try. Cut the crap, loser.
"I was willing to allow that maybe such evil existed somewhere, because people are bad sometimes."
Well, there's your problem, Sally. You're looking for evil. But that's all coming from your side of the divide, so just look in the freakin' mirror and there you'll find it.
"But the fact that you can't point to it emphasizes the likelihood that there is no such link and there are no such people."
My posting my links is me pointing to truth and facts and evidence, you pathological liar. Pretending you can't see it is just another lie. I recently said you make Trump look like Honest Abe. That was clearly an understatement.
April 3, 2022 at 3:02 PM
"Marshal...
"would be...as you damned well know, you liar...are those reps who are activists for this disordered cause."
Again, THINK about it. Medical experts and mental health experts are private businesses typically unassociated with the government. How in the world would I know that's what you or Craig meant."
How about by using that vaunted "God-given reason" you've claimed you possess? It ain't that hard, Skippy, for anyone truly so possessed of it. What's more, there's far more ties by your "experts" to leftist government than you have the honesty to acknowledge.
"It's a vague and cryptic term, as you all tend to use which is why you all come across as conspiracy theorists."
To you, maybe. Not to honest people.
"These vague accusations of some weird conspiracy amongst the government are precisely what the problem is with much of modern conservatism and Qanon."
So you desperately need to believe. But then, you know nothing about what conservatism is, so how would you know?
"Ginni Thomas."
Ah...I see you've jumped on the "Bullshit About Ginni Thomas Train". I'm not the least bit surprised. It's another wonderful validation of the point of this post.
"These nut jobs keep spreading dangerously and stupidly false claims about government conspiracies and sex conspiracies and sex orgies and none of it is factual or real."
You mean about Russian collusion? Quid pro quo with Zalensky? Allegations against Matt Gaetz? If you want to bring up false claims in the political world, you're gonna lose.
"So no. I did not know what Craig was talking about when I used that term or you if you're using it. How could I?"
You're right. You're too stupid and dishonest.
April 3, 2022 at 3:07 PM
"Marshal...
"His opposition is what you oppose and thus you ridicule his story by focusing on what his tale implies..."
??
I oppose him saying he speaks for all trans people because he factually doesn't. He was NEVER transgender according to him. But other people are.
That's not ridicule to point out he's only speaking for himself and not anyone else. Just because in HIS confusion, he transitioned when he wasn't transgender does not mean NO ONE IS transgender.
That's just reality. Here again, I think you all consider people disagreeing with your opinions and pointing out factual actual mistakes = ridicule or attacks. It's just reality, man. Develop a little bit stiffer backbone and thicker skin. Disagreement is not attack."
Reciting what you've read from disordered people about Heyer isn't truly worthy of response, except it stands as more proof of what I continually say about your dishonesty...you take whatever you read which might agree with your position and insist it is then true. I haven't read Heyer's books. I've read a few articles, seen a few interviews and nothing matches what you and your kind say about him. But you lie and/or distort (same thing) what he says.
When he says he was never "transgender", it means no one is. Your "sources" leave that part out. And he doesn't base it on his own experiences alone.
At the same time, when you cite "LGBT folk" to whom you demand we listen, you don't worry yourself about whom they're referring, whether or not they speak only for themselves or those like them as well, so cut the crap. Indeed, you don't give the words of your "LGBT folk" the same level of scrutiny you give those of the other side of the issue. You just accept their every utterance like the good chump you are. On this side of the divide, we consider both sides of an argument with equal scrutiny because it's truth about which we care, not ideology.
What's more, you've proven in this thread alone who the true spineless and fragile soul is, and it's clearly you and your kind. When faced with evidence you can't overcome, you default to personal attacks. We simply seek out flaws in the evidence presented against our case, and find them for you to resolve. The only thing you've accomplished in this thread is to validate the premise of this post.
April 3, 2022 at 3:10 PM
"Marshal...
"What's more, any freakin' tale told by pro-agenda trans people is evidence for you that what they say is true, so your hypocrisy.."
It's literally not hypocrisy to say that 9095% of transgenderfolk who say they are transgender are able to speak for themselves and this guy can speak for themselves. That's consistency."
Wow. What it's not is a response having nothing to do with the point of the statement you actually copied and pasted!! I wasn't referring to how many say what. I was referring to your holding up what they say as fact simply because they say it, that it stands as evidence their delusions are true, and that you don't take that attitude with anything which says the opposite by those who went through similar experiences. The only consistency of note is your consistency of missing the point and defending disorder and immorality on the weakest grounds.
"I'm not saying this guy has to remain a woman if he transitioned. That's for him to decide. It's his personal business. The same for all transgender folks. It's their business. Not yours. Get the hell out of their pants, you deviant pervert."
There's that default, again, as if you're actually speaking about the reality of our position. None of us here in the blogs on this side of the issue cares if some deluded adult chooses to butcher his own body in a vain attempt to appease his delusion as if by doing so the person is actually "transitioning" from one sex to the other. None of us. We oppose allowing kids to take any steps toward that disordered goal, and we oppose crafting legislation and public policy which reflects the lie that anyone can truly be the sex opposite that which one's perfectly functioning body clearly indicates that person is. Policy based on lies does not serve any society, as we see with every lie based leftist policy ever enacted in this country. Being a liar, you lefties pretend the cause of the problems created by those lies is something other than appeasing the lie.
"The difference between me and you is I think people should be able to decide for themselves. You want to force your opinions on other people. How damnably sick."
The difference between me and you is you're a defender of disorder and perversion and wish to force everyone else to be one, too, and I defend the right to refuse to bend the knee to disorder and perversion without punishment of any kind. You do NOT think one should be able to decide for themselves whether or not to enable the disordered. You demand they must and have clearly expressed that perversion... because you're damnably sick.
WHAT evidence that I can't overcome? You haven't presented ANY. You've offered I think THREE Scientists (in one letter) who disagreed..., who hold different opinions than the 90-95% (estimate...) of scientists. And even those scientists in their one letter said that it doesn't mean that parents should force their child to be straight or CIS gender. And they said that in their opinion the the data from the study did not insist upon the conclusions. But they weren't saying that the conclusions were wrong. Just that the study was sloppy, in their opinion.
In short, you've offered nothing but you saying that the experts are wrong. We don't care what you think, Marshal. We don't care that you don't understand biology or science or gender. That's on you.
But back to that letter from those experts. They said that it did not mean they were saying that parents should force the children to not be transgender. Do you agree with them on that point? Or are you only cherry picking little bits of what they say to agree with?
Marshal... "When he says he was never "transgender", it means no one is."
PROVE IT, You intellectually lazy ignorant bigot. Don't tell us something. Prove it. Support your stupid-ass claim if you can. And then, when you can't, admit that you can't support your stupidly false claim. Then apologize. Then crawl back under your rock.
April 3, 2022 at 3:12 PM
"Marshal...
"As your kind ruthlessly imposes policies and laws which force honest people to live as if the lies of your kind are truths."
That's literally what you and the fastest in Texas are advocating. Forcing your opinions on families against their will. To hell with that."
That's literally another intentional lie by you. The Texas law protects minors from making irreversible decisions made by them and enabled by adults who should know better. There is no harm inflicted upon any minor by guiding them to wait until they're adults before they butcher themselves and live a life they'll regret. As I've said more than once already in this blog, government is not acting outside its prerogative to remove a child from its home for reasons of abuse and neglect. Enabling a minor in his/her delusion clearly qualifies.
April 3, 2022 at 7:54 PM
"WHAT evidence that I can't overcome? You haven't presented ANY. You've offered I think THREE Scientists (in one letter) who disagreed..., who hold different opinions than the 90-95% (estimate...) of scientists. And even those scientists in their one letter said that it doesn't mean that parents should force their child to be straight or CIS gender. And they said that in their opinion the the data from the study did not insist upon the conclusions. But they weren't saying that the conclusions were wrong. Just that the study was sloppy, in their opinion."
A good example of your intellectual bankruptcy. Try to follow along here. I'll use small words. I posted evidence which showed the problems with the evidence you provided as if your evidence proves the claim that there's such a thing as transgendered people. I've provided evidence that the studies used for that purpose is woefully flawed and thus unworthy a basis for public policy. Thus, it does show that parents are fools who allow or enable their kids to transition. And conclusions cannot be asserted as correct when the studies upon which they are based are flawed. That's not how science is done...unless you're a disorder defending leftist for whom quality of scientific research isn't important if the conclusions drawn from it support an agenda.
"In short, you've offered nothing but you saying that the experts are wrong."
In short, you're intentionally lying again. What I've offered directly exposes the flaws of the studies and subsequent opinions of LGBT agenda supporting "experts" you pretend are unassailable without exerting the slightest amount of scrutiny because you like their conclusions. You've done nothing to show how my sources are flawed in anything they've done in the responses to your studies. So cut the crap with your dismissive "Nyuh uh" crap. Save that for your blog where lies thrive. This blog is only concerned with facts and evidence and the truth those facts and evidences reveal.
"But back to that letter from those experts. They said that it did not mean they were saying that parents should force the children to not be transgender."
No, because what they said was "We agree with Turban et al.’s (2020) position that therapies using coercive tactics to force a change in gender identity have no place in health care." That doesn't reduce their letter to a treatise against what is not actually being done by anyone those like me would support...submitting the disordered to treatments to which they don't consent. THAT is what is meant by "coercive tactics". On the other hand, withholding risky treatments to enable transition based on the bad science they're rebutting in their letter is NOT a form of coercion by any stretch of the imagination.
"Marshal... "When he says he was never "transgender", it means no one is."
PROVE IT, You intellectually lazy ignorant bigot. Don't tell us something. Prove it. Support your stupid-ass claim if you can. And then, when you can't, admit that you can't support your stupidly false claim. Then apologize. Then crawl back under your rock."
No, no, no, you lying putz. YOU made a claim about Heyer based on the words of disordered people. I've never heard him say the things your sources have said and thus what I have heard is what I've said. YOU prove YOUR shit for a change you lying asshat. As I said, the baseline is that there are only two sexes and thus two genders. Heyer is but one of many who affirm that and who truthfully state there are no transgender people. There are only the disordered who believe themselves to be what they are not.
Keep in mind whose blog this is, asshole. You don't get to dictate a damned thing here. And you don't get to just dismiss the evidence I've presented as being lacking without so much as a single word which supports that bullshit claim. If you've no evidence, take a hike. I'm gonna Trabue every additional comment you try to post if it doesn't do what you demand of others at your blog. Fair is fair. I'm extending no more grace to you which you never extend to anyone at your blog. Dickhead.
I hope you're not still trying. I just deleted your last without posting because it failed to do what I now demand of you. I know it likely came before you could see the demand, but more of the same lame crap you've been trying to use to pretend I've not provided just isn't worth posting. Shit. You don't even speak of what I've referenced in an accurate manner when you do respond. I have little hope you'll do more than continue to validate the premise of this post, which is that truth is not important to lefties like you, and you especially, you lying sack.
Marshal... " I just deleted your last without posting because it failed to do what I now demand of you"
That I support what I've said? Unlike you, I HAVE. Your inability to understand my support is not evidence that I have not supported what I've said.
Marshal... "YOU made a claim about Heyer based on the words of disordered people."
PROVE THEY ARE "disordered."
You can't because they are NOT. It's an empty and stupidly false claim by a bigot. As are all of your unproven, stupidly false claims.
IF you could prove it, you would have. You haven't because you can't.
What YOU said was...
""Marshal... "When he says he was never "transgender", it means no one is."
Are you suggesting that this NON-expert believes that no one is? So what? He's literally not an expert on transgender people. Or are you saying that YOU believe no one is transgender? If so, prove it.
This guy is your source. I went out there and read what he's said in multiple places and what others have confirmed. He's YOUR source. I'm just telling you what he's said.
This is NOT evidence. Evidence is provable, supportable. NOT just empty claims.
What about that are you not understanding.
IF this guy says "no one is transgender," THAT is an empty and stupidly false claim.
If YOU say it, it's STILL an empty and stupidly false claim. It's not evidence. It's just empty words.
HOW is that evidence?
Are you saying that it's evidence that SOME people who have transitioned have had regrets? Yes, that part is true. Some TINY percentage of people have had regrets (and by the way, from all that I have read, Renee Richards is NOT someone who regrets transitioning, that would just be another stupidly false and unsupported claim from you), no one is disputing that. BUT, the other reality is the vast majority of people who've transitioned report that it helped their lives.
That is the data we have available, as a point of fact. It is NOT evidence that there are no transgender people.
And I'm not dictating how you do things on your blog. I'm telling you if you keep making empty and stupidly false and anti-expert false claims on your blog or in your life, you will be written off as just another Trump-style conservative bigot crackpot. In fact, you already come across that way and are written off by people interested in adult conversations. I spend way too much time trying to save you from yourself.
Now, we'll see if you try to support your claims. Here's a hint: What you're saying and the empty claims you're making do NOT support your allegations. They just factually don't.
Post or don't. I don't care. I've wasted too much time sowing pearls to swine.
Marshal...
"As I said, the baseline is that there are only two sexes and thus two genders. "
Also Marshal...
" And you don't get to just dismiss the evidence I've presented as being lacking without so much as a single word which supports that bullshit claim. If you've no evidence, take a hike. "
The evidence, once again, that disproves your ignorant, non-expert hunches. You may not agree with the experts, but you can't say that the experts don't exist or that they don't make their case and that they are not clear on their testimony.
Fact: Biologists and scientists disagree with this dumbed down grade school understanding.
"Actual research shows that sex is anything but binary
...Contrary to popular belief, scientific research helps us better understand the unique and real transgender experience. Specifically, through three subjects:
(1) genetics,
(2) neurobiology and
(3) endocrinology."
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/
and...
"AMA affirms medical spectrum of gender"
https://www.healio.com/news/primary-care/20181115/ama-affirms-medical-spectrum-of-gender
and...
https://cadehildreth.com/gender-spectrum/
and...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5824932/
...and I could keep going with information and data and explanations from scientists, doctors, biologists, etc that undermine your non-expert understanding. How much data/proof/expert testimony do you need?
And does it matter? If I found that 99.99% of doctors and biologists affirmed that sex/gender was not as simple as "do they have a penis or vagina?" and you found 1 in a million who affirmed your bigotry, you'd go with that one in a million outlier, wouldn't you?
And if you couldn't even find ONE expert, doctor, biologist who would affirm your view, you would STILL say that the experts are ALL lying and that you know better, wouldn't you?
Dan continues still. He does nothing but repost that which has been shown as not what was requested. I don't care who affirms the lie. I want that which proves the lie is fact. And when I provide rebuttal to such lame attempts by Dan, he dismisses it without basis. He appeals to numbers, not facts and evidence. He appeals to "experts" who conclude as he likes, not to facts and evidence. There is no evidence confirming the lie of a "gender spectrum" which justifies the LGBT agenda for the purpose of public policy. He assaults Heyer for reasons not related to why he was initially mentioned on the pretense that his story isn't evidence...which was not the purpose of bringing him up.
For Dan's last two comments, I will hold them in moderation while I decide whether they deserve publication. I can't see any justification for doing so at present, as they are just variations on his "Nyuh uh" response. He insists he's brought the evidence I requested. My links in response show the problems with accepting them as such, and from there Dan once again indulges his lame avoidance and deflection tactics rather than producing either better evidence, or any reason to reject the objections of my responsive links. I'm more than tired of this dance, but assured that Dan has well validated the premise of this post.
I will be unable to respond in any way to any attempts by anyone to post to this blog over the next few days. This means nothing will be published in that time, whether they're worthy of it or not.
They are LITERALLY SCIENTISTS attempting to EXPLAIN THE DATA TO IDIOTS like you who make these stupidly false and ignorant claims. That you can't/don't want to understand it is not evidence that the support has not been provided.
OK. I'm back. I have less than two weeks before I must shut down my desk top for the big move, after which I can only cross my fingers that my ability to use it will be sooner rather than later than I'd prefer. We'll see how much will be done in that very limited time. For now, I've seen three comments from Dan which I'll go ahead and post, even though I believe he's still failed to fulfill my request. Indeed, it seems he doesn't even have the comprehension skills to understand it, despite it being a quite simple request at that. He's included more links, one of which I couldn't get to open as yet, another which seemed of a type Dan likely didn't read. That one I intend to study more deeply than I have, but since, unlike Dan, I did begin to do so, I've already found a couple of things which demonstrate it to be another failure to fulfill the aforementioned request. Nonetheless, I begin with a more general response to the three:
April 3, 2022 at 11:50 PM
"Marshal... " I just deleted your last without posting because it failed to do what I now demand of you"
That I support what I've said?"
No. But perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough the thousands of times I've made the request, so I'll attempt once again:
You're to provide definitive proof that "transgenderism" isn't a mental problem, but as normal as the average person.
That's pretty specific, I think. If you're still confused, let me know. In the meantime, you haven't supported much of anything, and I couldn't begin to recall where you might have even supported "what you've said"...whatever the hell you mean by that. Nothing you've brought thus far stands as a fulfillment of that request. A study pointing out what is believed to be contributing "evidence" simply because some biological differences in the brain just doesn't cut it without the researcher drawing that line between those differences and the condition, nor without any means of demonstrating those differences existed from the womb, rather than develop afterwards. I can go over other problems with what you've presented, but you clearly didn't listen the first hundred times, and I doubt you even know what's in most of the links you provide. The fact is not one of your studies come with such a claim, but rather carry caveats most of which are appeals for more research because the studies to which you link DON'T prove the claims of the activists and low intellect enablers like you.
"Unlike you, I HAVE." Your inability to understand my support is not evidence that I have not supported what I've said."
It's not a question of my ability to understand...which is not at all in question...but that what you bring isn't even a response to the request. So how can it be evidence of any value? READ THIS NEXT BIT CLOSELY: I've never questioned the possibility of some biological connection between this...OR ANY..."orientation" or overwhelming compulsion. That's not at issue now, either. But that's the best your "evidence" can possibly accomplish...to affirm what isn't in question. But you again validate the premise of this post by trying to suggest that any of that should be enough for the rest of the world to accept the fantasies of these unfortunate people and thus policy should be enacted to that end. No. They need help the psychological community no longer seems willing to provide for THESE delusions.
"Marshal... "YOU made a claim about Heyer based on the words of disordered people."
PROVE THEY ARE "disordered."
You can't because they are NOT. It's an empty and stupidly false claim by a bigot. As are all of your unproven, stupidly false claims.
IF you could prove it, you would have. You haven't because you can't."
It's self-evident for starters. Normal people accept who and what they are, where their biology has clearly demonstrated. Because you believe strongly you're a toadstool doesn't mean you are one, nor should anyone play along.
More importantly, that's square one. It is you and those you worship, venerate and endorse who say differently without definitive proof and asshats like you just buy in. Normal, rational and honest people can't because it's so self-evidently untrue. Thus, it is incumbent upon you and your kind to prove they are not disordered. It's the request on the table you're required to fulfill.
"""Marshal... "When he says he was never "transgender", it means no one is."
Are you suggesting that this NON-expert believes that no one is? So what? He's literally not an expert on transgender people. Or are you saying that YOU believe no one is transgender? If so, prove it."
It's far more expert on the subject than either of us, and likely more so than most who believe they're truly the sex opposite the one they were born. But again, it's up to you to prove they're normal, and you've not brought any evidence that confirms that. As one of my links demonstrated, his father was born with a deformed hand. He's not the only one who was born that way. No one tries to pretend it's normal or that they should be treated as such. Responsible medical people help him cope with it. Not for your treasured LGBT people. It would be like forcing the rest of us to pretend it's normal for a person to be born with limbs deformed or missing. It's not. Neither is it normal for a one is not the sex one's biology clearly indicates one is.
"This guy is your source. I went out there and read what he's said in multiple places and what others have confirmed."
Really? You read his books and articles? You've watched video interviews of him telling his tale or speaking about his work in the field? I call bullshit. I would wager you've only read what pro-LGBT sources have said he said in their typical self-serving way. Your sources are wholly unreliable because they are living the life and are more biased than even your usual lefty political sources are.
"This is NOT evidence. Evidence is provable, supportable. NOT just empty claims.
What about that are you not understanding."
I'm not understanding why you say such crap as if that's how YOU operate.
"IF this guy says "no one is transgender," THAT is an empty and stupidly false claim."
Listen to the voices, dude. Don't question them! What the hell's wrong with you????
"If YOU say it, it's STILL an empty and stupidly false claim. It's not evidence. It's just empty words.
HOW is that evidence?"
Go back to where I first brought him up and copy/paste where I stated doing so was intended to be evidence of anything. You won't do it because you'll find you're totally distorting the reason why I brought him up, again validating the premise of this post.
"Are you saying that it's evidence that SOME people who have transitioned have had regrets? Yes, that part is true. Some TINY percentage of people have had regrets (and by the way, from all that I have read, Renee Richards is NOT someone who regrets transitioning, that would just be another stupidly false and unsupported claim from you), no one is disputing that. BUT, the other reality is the vast majority of people who've transitioned report that it helped their lives."
There is no long term study that I've found which debunks reports of how many express regret. One of my links addresses this by clearly demonstrating the study of yours to which it responds has no such research, as all the people were still in the early years of their transitioned selves. Far too soon to see how it will work for them. In addition, all work which contradicts the agenda...regardless of what "truth" is being contradicted...is suppressed, and that includes stories of regret. It does not serve the activists that such stories are widely known, so to the extent they are able, they seek keep such stories from the general public, instead publicizing the "feel good" stories of those who just got their boobs last week and oh, how happy they are!!!. This is typical leftist crap we see in other areas of life. The Hunter Biden laptop story impacted an election by not being allowed to see the light of day before election day. And again, the premise of this post is validated.
As to the part I emboldened, Richards has stated that "she" dissuades every one who seeks his advice about transitioning. How is that not regret??? But you're a punk for the cause, so you lap up everything your LGBT sources tell you, like a good sheep.
"That is the data we have available, as a point of fact. It is NOT evidence that there are no transgender people."
The data we have available does NOT prove that "transgender people" exist. There are only those who wish to transition to the opposite sex. But having done so, a man is still a male just like he was before he "transitioned" (and a woman still a female). Adding and eliminating body parts doesn't change that.
"And I'm not dictating how you do things on your blog."
Yes, you most certainly are. It's the same crap you give me at your blog of lies while telling me "my blog, my rules".
"I'm telling you if you keep making empty and stupidly false and anti-expert false claims on your blog or in your life, you will be written off as just another Trump-style conservative bigot crackpot. In fact, you already come across that way and are written off by people interested in adult conversations. I spend way too much time trying to save you from yourself."
I haven't begun making empty and false "anti-expert" claims anywhere. You just default to that crap when my logic and reason expose your falseness. The only people who write me off are asshats like you who think there's such a thing as a "Trump conservative" while not knowing anything about conservatism in the first place. "Adult" conversations don't include deleting everything one finds difficult to overcome, as is the case at your blog.
What's more, I'm already saved. He who saved me is Truth. Truth is something with which you're clearly unfamiliar, so you couldn't possibly save me even if you really cared to. What you care about is validation for your lies. I'm not your huckleberry.
"Now, we'll see if you try to support your claims. Here's a hint: What you're saying and the empty claims you're making do NOT support your allegations. They just factually don't."
No, Bucky. You're to support YOUR claims. All I've been doing here is demonstrating the fact that you haven't yet done so. Man up, Sally.
"Post or don't. I don't care. I've wasted too much time sowing pearls to swine."
That's funny.
April 4, 2022 at 1:10 AM
"Marshal...
"As I said, the baseline is that there are only two sexes and thus two genders. "
Also Marshal...
" And you don't get to just dismiss the evidence I've presented as being lacking without so much as a single word which supports that bullshit claim. If you've no evidence, take a hike. "
The evidence, once again, that disproves your ignorant, non-expert hunches. You may not agree with the experts, but you can't say that the experts don't exist or that they don't make their case and that they are not clear on their testimony."
Unfortunately, you haven't provided any evidence which confirms the premise that the "transgendered" aren't disordered. To date, I've not read one link of yours where that shows up in the conclusion of any study or articles by any of your "experts". One would think if such evidence exists, that confirmation would be somewhere within it. I haven't even seen it suggested in any study that the study in question hints at such a thing. So as regards what your "experts" say with regard to any biological finding, no, I don't "disagree" with anything other than any claims the findings don't suggest. Thus, their "testimony" isn't confirmation I've been demanding those like you to provide. Hell...y'all ain't done it to prove homosexuals are normal!!
"Fact: Biologists and scientists disagree with this dumbed down grade school understanding.
"Actual research shows that sex is anything but binary
...Contrary to popular belief, scientific research helps us better understand the unique and real transgender experience. Specifically, through three subjects:
(1) genetics,
(2) neurobiology and
(3) endocrinology."
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/"
No it doesn't do anything of the kind. These pro-LGBT "experts" simply present their findings and assert a conclusion the findings themselves can't indicate. And you've presented that link already and it was found lacking already. Redundancy doesn't help your cause. I would also insist that there is no consensus view with this issue anymore than there is with "climate change", though I suspect careers are more at risk for those who express their disagreement over this bullshit issue.
""AMA affirms medical spectrum of gender"
https://www.healio.com/news/primary-care/20181115/ama-affirms-medical-spectrum-of-gender
https://cadehildreth.com/gender-spectrum/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5824932/
...and I could keep going with information and data and explanations from scientists, doctors, biologists, etc that undermine your non-expert understanding. How much data/proof/expert testimony do you need?"
I need the definitive study which concludes in a manner similar to this: "Thus, we have proven that "gender" is a spectrum. None of these do, though I have to study a couple of them more closely. Of those I've done a cursory look, there is no such confirmation. I'll get back to you, unless you want to copy/paste such a confirmation and tell which link presented it, in which case I'll right to it and show you why you're wrong again.
"And does it matter? If I found that 99.99% of doctors and biologists affirmed that sex/gender was not as simple as "do they have a penis or vagina?" and you found 1 in a million who affirmed your bigotry, you'd go with that one in a million outlier, wouldn't you?"
First of all, you probably couldn't get 50% to affirm such a thing if they could submit their opinions without any risk to their careers.
Secondly, if my one in a million presented a stronger case explaining why I'm right in my clear view of the obvious, as well as shown why your 99.99% were basing their "affirmation" on more crappy research...99.99% of those guys just buying in to what the few supposedly found rather than actually doing research of their own, then yes, I'd go with the honest, intelligent guy and not all the LGBT activists fouling the fields of science they claim to represent.
"And if you couldn't even find ONE expert, doctor, biologist who would affirm your view, you would STILL say that the experts are ALL lying and that you know better, wouldn't you?"
Of course I've done that already, so it's a moot point. But I love this hypothetical crap you like to trying pulling..."So if you found out God wants you to cut your legs off, you'd probably STILL not believe He prefers legless people!" Leave that bullshit at your blog.
April 4, 2022 at 8:43 AM
"They are LITERALLY SCIENTISTS attempting to EXPLAIN THE DATA TO IDIOTS like you who make these stupidly false and ignorant claims. That you can't/don't want to understand it is not evidence that the support has not been provided."
If LITERAL SCIENTISTS can't explain themselves to the laymen in a way the laymen can understand, then maybe the data doesn't really mean what they wish it meant.
And again, I haven't made any false claims. You haven't proven any claim I've made is either stupid or ignorant. That's just your default position when you've lost. Nothing you've presented has been beyond my understanding insofar as failing to proven the premise of the LGBT activist. But your attempts...and theirs...to pretend it proves that premise serves only to prove the premise of this post. You seem to think you can just throw out any old piece of crap and because it came from someone you worship as an "expert", then by golly, it's settled. Sorry, Skeeter. It doesn't work that way.
Here's something you can try...find proof that there's some scientifically proven reason why one who believes himself to be a tree slug shouldn't be recognized by all of humanity as a tree slug and no amount of medications or surgery should be provided such a person.
Marshal... "You're to provide definitive proof that "transgenderism" isn't a mental problem, but as normal as the average person."
Why? YOU are the outlier. YOU are the ones who is saying that ALL these experts and the individuals themselves are wrong. You hold the anti-science view. If YOU want to convince others, YOU will have to make some case stronger than, "I don't think it's natural, to me..." nonsense.
I don't know how to help you.
Transgender people are just rational, normal people same as anyone else. It happens naturally in the world. As scientists have pointed out, gender is not the same as what is between your legs when you're born. It's more complex than that. I've pointed to the links explaining it in a variety of ways.
What else can I do?
Look, suppose that a guy named Art made the claim:
"Conservative Christians are mentally ill and deviant. They are perverted and dangerously disturbed in their minds."
And if someone rational responded,
"Wait... no experts are saying this and there are no studies demonstrating this to be factual. It's not so."
And Art responded: Then PROVE IT. Provide definitive proof that "conservative Christian-ism" isn't a mental problem, but as normal as the average person."
How would anyone respond to it? The evidence is that they just self-evidently are. IF Art wants to make the case that this group that exists in the world is disturbed and he's going to believe that until someone proves otherwise... what proof could be offered to him? There are no studies showing "conservatism" isn't a sickness, because no one rational is making that charge (although, a case can be made...).
You're asking me to prove a negative when YOU are the one making the outlier charge. It's up to YOU to prove that LGBTQ (or just Transgender) people are disturbed.
And, "Because I REALLY don't like the idea of two guys kissing or a person born with a vagina wearing men's clothes and wearing a beard... it ain't natural!" That is not a scientific case or support. That's literally bigotry and ignorance.
Again: If YOU are the one making outlier claims contrary to all the main scientific groups and vast majorities of the experts, then YOU are the one who has to support the charge, not the other way around.
"But... but... but, they had a penis when they were born!" is NOT evidence.
Marshal... "If LITERAL SCIENTISTS can't explain themselves to the laymen in a way the laymen can understand, then maybe the data doesn't really mean what they wish it meant."
1. But I understand them, and I'm a layperson.
2. I also understand, sometimes, that what they're talking about is beyond my knowledge base, when it comes to science, but that doesn't mean that I reject it just because it's over my head!
Look, here's an example:
"Nearly everyone in middle school biology learned that if you’ve got XX chromosomes, you’re a female; if you’ve got XY, you’re a male. This tired simplification is great for teaching the importance of chromosomes but betrays the true nature of biological sex."
Okay, I certainly get the grade school simplification XX/XY thing. But there's more...?
"Why? Because biological sex is far more complicated than XX or XY (or XXY, or just X). XX individuals could present with male gonads. XY individuals can have ovaries. How? Through a set of complex genetic signals that, in the course of a human’s development, begins with a small group of cells called the bipotential primordium and a gene called SRY."
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/
Oh, there's more to it than just XX/XY. There's the "Bipotential Primordium and a gene called SRY..." Okay, I understand that much. There's more to it. This person says. But wait, what is they're lying? How come I never heard of BP and SRY??
I google BP and SRY and see this link that says the SRY gene has just been discovered in the last ~20 years, so that explains why even my high school and college science classes said nothing about it. Ok, well, I don't expect that scientific understanding ended with my school years, so no problem there. They've learned more. Good enough.
Beyond that, I recognize that this particular information...
"The gonads emerge on the ventro-medial surface of the mesonephros by thickening of the coelomic epithelium of this region in both males and females between 10.5 and 11.5 d.p.c. (8–18 tail somites (t.s.), counted according to Hacker et al., 1995)."
...is written beyond my level of easy understanding, not being a scientist.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925477399003275
Checking another source, I read this abstract...
"Sex differentiation in mammals occurs in three steps. The first is the establishment of chromosomal sex at fertilization, followed by the differentiation of the gonad into an ovary or testis, and finally the establishment of the phenotypic sex of the embryo and adult, which is regulated by the gonad. Disruption of any of these stages gives rise to sexual ambiguities that include 46,XY pure gonadal dysgenesis, 46,XX true hermaphroditism, and variable degrees of intersexuality."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16474549/
Again, this is teetering towards being beyond my scientific knowledge, but I get the gist: There's a possibility of stereotypical male, stereotypical female AND varying degrees of intersex.
I get the conclusion but not necessarily all the science. But that doesn't mean that the science is wrong or that these people are lying.
At this point (and after reading other similar scholarly level papers that were over my head), I googled "transgender science for dummies."
cont'd...
I found this abstract:
"Our study is the first to show a female brain structure in genetically male transsexuals and supports the hypothesis that gender identity develops as a result of an interaction between the developing brain and sex hormones."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7477289/
So, I can "get" that - they're positing that there are biological differences between a male brain and a transgender woman's brain... so, there could be further biological factors at play.
I found this abstract:
"Some of the first biological evidence of the incongruence transgender individuals experience, because their brain indicates they are one sex and their body another, may have been found in estrogen receptor pathways in the brain of 30 transgender individuals...
Basically -- and perhaps counterintuitively -- these genes are primarily involved in estrogen's critical sprinkling of the brain right before or after birth, which is essential to masculinization of the brain.
Variants investigators identified may mean that in natal males (people whose birth sex is male) this critical estrogen exposure doesn't happen or the pathway is altered so the brain does not get masculinized. In natal females, it may mean that estrogen exposure happens when it normally wouldn't, leading to masculinization."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200205084203.htm
And that, I understand just fine. In nature, in reality, trans women may well not have had this estrogen exposure, resulting in the gender dysphoria.
And I found this article...
"Furthermore, biology is not as straightforward as the proposal suggests. By some estimates, as many as one in 100 people have differences or disorders of sex development, such as hormonal conditions, genetic changes or anatomical ambiguities, some of which mean that their genitalia cannot clearly be classified as male or female.
For most of the twentieth century, doctors would often surgically alter an infant’s ambiguous genitals to match whichever sex was easier, and expect the child to adapt. Frequently, they were wrong. "
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07238-8
In short, I see article after article, study after study that sometimes are a bit over my head, but generally they all inform us that there are distinct biological differences that mean that gender is NOT just as simple as the naughty bits you were born with.
And I fully get that this is an emerging science, with much still unknown. But given that it's unknown and given that YOU don't know and science does not support your grade school XX/XY understanding, why would we limit ourselves to what we learned in grade school?
That was a very brief attempt to review what I've been pointing to you for a while now. Sorry if you're still not understanding, but that you don't understand doesn't mean that the science or transgender people are wrong.
Embrace a bit of humility.
April 7, 2022 at 10:38 AM
"Marshal... "You're to provide definitive proof that "transgenderism" isn't a mental problem, but as normal as the average person."
Why? YOU are the outlier. YOU are the ones who is saying that ALL these experts and the individuals themselves are wrong. You hold the anti-science view. If YOU want to convince others, YOU will have to make some case stronger than, "I don't think it's natural, to me..." nonsense.
I don't know how to help you."
I just told you how. Provide the evidence which confirms the condition is not a disorder. I haven't even really read your three most recent comments (of which this is response to the first) and already I can see you've again failed in that challenge.
More importantly, I'm no outlier here. I'm one defending the long-held understanding of the obvious, and your "experts" are trying to abuse science and research to overturn that understanding in their attempt to enable the LGBT agenda. And now you're just piling on more which fails in the same way. It doesn't matter how many "experts" there are perpetuating falsehood. That doesn't make me an "outlier". It makes me honest in observing their research doesn't constitute proof the condition isn't disorder. In fact, it actually proves the point. They all begin by affirming what's supposed to happen in human development and then go on to show the results of when that plan goes awry...just like any other physical deformity. It's just that with this issue, given they're all activists for the cause, they dishonestly deny admitting it's deformity or abnormal development. To them, because a person was born with three arms, it's normal. It's a lie, which validates the premise of this post.
"Transgender people are just rational, normal people same as anyone else."
That's what's been at issue for decades. To date, no data or "science" has proven that to be the case. Clearly, to honest people, there is nothing either "rational" (a word about which you have no understanding) or normal about it. As is the way of leftists, you abuse language to further your agenda.
"It happens naturally in the world."
All manner of dysfunction, abnormalities and aberrations "happen naturally" in the sense they happen in the natural world. This reality doesn't make any of it normal or in line with biological purpose or intent...and don't give me crap about what biology intends as if you don't believe there is such a thing.
"As scientists have pointed out, gender is not the same as what is between your legs when you're born. It's more complex than that. I've pointed to the links explaining it in a variety of ways."
As YOUR scientists pervert reality to point out. Gender isn't even a medical term as the definition of the word I provided clearly indicates. There's nothing complex about it, but rather, YOUR scientists intent to conflate dysfunction and abnormal development as what biology intended in order to enable the activist agenda. Not a one of your links I've had the time to peruse have done more than assert this absurd claim and then just as absurdly, assert they've proven anything beyond the fact that abnormal development occurred and why. That's NOT proof that the condition isn't disordered.
"What else can I do?"
Clearly, nothing at this point. By now, if such evidence as I've requested existed, you wouldn't have bothered with all of that which you've offered which doesn't qualify. But now you're just piling on more and more research and expecting me to not read it any more deeply than you have and simply accepting you've successfully provided what was requested. Sorry. Lying is your thing. I won't do it intentionally as you and your sources do.
"Look, suppose that a guy named Art made the claim:
"Conservative Christians are mentally ill and deviant. They are perverted and dangerously disturbed in their minds."
And if someone rational responded,
"Wait... no experts are saying this and there are no studies demonstrating this to be factual. It's not so.""
That's hilarious since you have indeed presented a link to that which says pretty much this very thing...that there are studies which prove conservatives are addled in some manner and thus you did so as if it's to be accepted as reality. Your proven inability to create a logical analogy has failed once again, so I'll not respond to the rest of it. You make a shit analogy and then act like it's supported your position...which I get is to be expected given your position is shit, too.
"You're asking me to prove a negative when YOU are the one making the outlier charge. It's up to YOU to prove that LGBTQ (or just Transgender) people are disturbed."
No. The opposite is true. The fact is that the male/female reality is the given. YOU and YOUR perverted "experts" are the outliers who haven't proven their position contradicting the reality of the disorder inherent among the LGBT community and within their claims. YOU and YOUR perverted "experts" haven't proven a damned thing which contradicts this obvious reality. They've NEVER throughout human history been regarded as "normal" until perv enabling "scientists" (at least some of whom were perverted themselves) began trying to "prove" through flawed studies they're "just like us". The fact that a leftist controlled media and psych community refuses to allow equal time to true scientific debate doesn't equate to consensus of any kind. It's one group stifling the work of opponents and morons like you buying in because you aren't moral enough to think.
"And, "Because I REALLY don't like the idea of two guys kissing or a person born with a vagina wearing men's clothes and wearing a beard... it ain't natural!" That is not a scientific case or support. That's literally bigotry and ignorance."
What I like or don't like about the behaviors...which is based on actual Judeo-Christian teaching you reject because you're not Christian....doesn't enter into it. The point remains regardless of my own position on any given behavior. These are disordered people and their behavior is the outward manifestation of it. Thus, aside from my religious beliefs based on accurate and true understanding of the clearly revealed will of God, I don't like it BECAUSE it's abnormal, disordered and as such should not be falsely regarded otherwise just because moronic fake Christians from Louisville have LGBT friends and/or family members. True compassion for these unfortunates requires honesty those on the left are incapable of providing.
"Again: If YOU are the one making outlier claims contrary to all the main scientific groups and vast majorities of the experts, then YOU are the one who has to support the charge, not the other way around."
There's no "vast majority" which can make a lie true. Thus, I will delete any further attempts to use this bullshit argument. Your "experts" have proven nothing that contradicts the obvious fact these people are disordered, or you would have produced that evidence. You have not.
""But... but... but, they had a penis when they were born!" is NOT evidence."
Hardly the alpha and omega of the truth of the objections to your perversions, but about as good as can be expected of liars like you.
April 7, 2022 at 4:10 PM
"Marshal... "If LITERAL SCIENTISTS can't explain themselves to the laymen in a way the laymen can understand, then maybe the data doesn't really mean what they wish it meant."
1. But I understand them, and I'm a layperson."
No you don't. You simply accept what they say without truly digesting any of it. Again, I don't think you really read and scrutinize any of it due to your desire that it be true. You're too concerned with posturing as a compassionate Christian when you're neither. You're just a partisan hack and a punk for the sexually immoral. If you were honest, nothing about that would change except that you'd stop pretending you're a Christian.
"2. I also understand, sometimes, that what they're talking about is beyond my knowledge base, when it comes to science, but that doesn't mean that I reject it just because it's over my head!"
One needn't even bother with the mechanics of malfunction, mutation and abnormalities in order to understand the conclusions forced upon these biological explanations don't hold water. Again, if those abnormalities can be regarded as normal, so then can a hand deformed from birth due to other processes not developing as they're supposed to develop. But only those regarding the LGBT community are treated this way just to promoted the agenda, not as proof of the premise they're "just like us".
"Look, here's an example:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/"
The irony here is that THIS is phony science, because it's simply speaking to the mutation which occurs. It doesn't negate the fact that XX and XY chromosomes determine the sex of a person, and thus the person's "gender" as well. If you have XY chromosomes, your lack of balls doesn't mean you're not a dude. You're just a dude with no balls, which is patently obvious. This is the basic problem with all your "evidence" which doesn't prove the premise. Developmental abnormalities doesn't mean normal by definition. Thus, all of your "evidence" actually supports the fact of this condition being a disorder.
"Oh, there's more to it than just XX/XY. There's the "Bipotential Primordium and a gene called SRY..." Okay, I understand that much. There's more to it. This person says. But wait, what is they're lying? How come I never heard of BP and SRY??
I google BP and SRY and see this link that says the SRY gene has just been discovered in the last ~20 years, so that explains why even my high school and college science classes said nothing about it. Ok, well, I don't expect that scientific understanding ended with my school years, so no problem there. They've learned more. Good enough.
Beyond that, I recognize that this particular information...
"The gonads emerge on the ventro-medial surface of the mesonephros by thickening of the coelomic epithelium of this region in both males and females between 10.5 and 11.5 d.p.c. (8–18 tail somites (t.s.), counted according to Hacker et al., 1995)."
...is written beyond my level of easy understanding, not being a scientist.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925477399003275"
Well, it's not beyond mine. This entire link describes functions in more detail than had been known given info provided is newly discovered. But none of it...NONE OF IT...stands as "evidence" the LGBT person isn't disordered. NONE. OF. IT. Indeed, as I read through it quickly, stopping at any point where anything akin to "evidence" might be located, I found constant use of the word "mutation" and variations of it. No "mutation" indicates natural development, otherwise it's not a mutation. This link isn't even a "nice try", but it does further validate the premise of this post. Given this link doesn't do any more than give more insight into the reproductive process...more specifically to the development of what was reproduced...and given there is no attempt to assert info provided is intended to rationalize the claims of LGBT activists, you're lying by presenting it as evidence it does...again validating the premise of this post.
"Checking another source, I read this abstract...
"Sex differentiation in mammals occurs in three steps. The first is the establishment of chromosomal sex at fertilization, followed by the differentiation of the gonad into an ovary or testis, and finally the establishment of the phenotypic sex of the embryo and adult, which is regulated by the gonad. Disruption of any of these stages gives rise to sexual ambiguities that include 46,XY pure gonadal dysgenesis, 46,XX true hermaphroditism, and variable degrees of intersexuality."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16474549/"
From your quote comes this bit of obvious validation of my position:
"Disruption of any of these stages gives rise to sexual ambiguities that include 46,XY pure gonadal dysgenesis, 46,XX true hermaphroditism, and variable degrees of intersexuality."
Disruption causes sexual ambiguities which result in that which is not normal development. Disordered development. Thanks for the help.
"I get the conclusion but not necessarily all the science. But that doesn't mean that the science is wrong or that these people are lying."
There's no conclusion in anything preceding this idiocy other than the fact that mutations occur instead of normal development at times. This is nothing anyone has said is wrong about the science presented, or that anyone is lying about these mutations, malfunctions and aberrations inhibiting normal development. The lie is from you activists...and those without the scientific community...who use these findings to promote, defend and enable the disordered urges and behaviors of LGBT people as normal and "just like us". That's where the lie comes in as you well know and could attest if you weren't just another lying lefty.
I'm out of time. I will be more closely scrutinizing any additional comments you attempt to post for the evidence I now demand of you. If there's more like this which does not even try to make the connection between simply describing developmental processes and assertions mutations aren't disordered, I won't post them, so make sure you save what you attempt to post so anything you think goes to that demand can be considered apart from any additional crap you've added to it. I haven't the time and I'm running out of the inclination to deal with anymore crappy attempts to prove disorder is normal. Bring only that which actually does that or don't bother.
Marshal... "Disruption causes sexual ambiguities which result in that which is not normal development. Disordered development."
That is literally not what it means. You are factually mistaken.
You proclaiming that "Disruption does not equal normal Development and therefore transgender people are disturbed or wrong, somehow..." does not make it so. It's just an empty, empty headed, baseless claim made by you with no support from any science. In short it's your stupid misunderstandings and not science that's the problem here.
The fact remains: YOU are the outlier here. YOU are the one contradicting all the experts. We don't have to prove that the experts are right, YOU have to prove that they're mistaken. YOU are the outlier.
If you want to put it in science terms you won't understand, you are the disrupting force, the disturbed one. The onus is on you to support any stupidly false claims you make with BETTER scientific data.
And you can't. We see that you can't because you never have even tried.
Transgender Ideology debunked:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYF00xTGS7o&t=116s
April 7, 2022 at 4:28 PM
Not only do the links Dan presents in this comment not qualify in the least as evidence he's obligated to provide, there's within them validation of the premise of transgenderism as disorder.
"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7477289/"
An abstract of a study is not evidence which disproves transgenderism is disorder. And as you didn't make the effort to provide the actual study, you're lying by daring to post this abstract as evidence of anything.
"Variants investigators identified may mean that in natal males (people whose birth sex is male) this critical estrogen exposure doesn't happen or the pathway is altered so the brain does not get masculinized. In natal females, it may mean that estrogen exposure happens when it normally wouldn't, leading to masculinization."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200205084203.htm"
This is evidence of deformity/abnormality and why it occurred, similar to that of the man born with a deformed hand. It thus is evidence of my position, not yours. You even imply without intending this very reality:
"And that, I understand just fine. In nature, in reality, trans women may well not have had this estrogen exposure, resulting in the gender dysphoria."
So the abnormal exposure led to disorder. Thanks for the help.
"
And I found this article...
"Furthermore, biology is not as straightforward as the proposal suggests. By some estimates, as many as one in 100 people have differences or disorders of sex development, such as hormonal conditions, genetic changes or anatomical ambiguities, some of which mean that their genitalia cannot clearly be classified as male or female.
For most of the twentieth century, doctors would often surgically alter an infant’s ambiguous genitals to match whichever sex was easier, and expect the child to adapt. Frequently, they were wrong. "
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07238-8"
Which speaks to disorders of development. This means development occurred in a manner that is not normal, which means what develops is also not normal. "Ambiguous genitals" is deformity and doesn't even correlate to "orientation" or gender confusion, though it may impact one's perception of one's self. Thus, disorder.
"In short, I see article after article, study after study that sometimes are a bit over my head, but generally they all inform us that there are distinct biological differences that mean that gender is NOT just as simple as the naughty bits you were born with."
You're seeing article after article which describes what leads to deformity, dysfunction in development and other abnormal outcomes by which activists pretend it legitimizes the false claim that a man can in reality actually be a woman. Yet, none of that which you've presented support that false conclusion at all. It does, however, validate the premise of this post. What it doesn't do in the slightest is justify the fascistic demand that honest people must disregard truth and play along with the delusion of gender confused people, or does it justify policy which seeks to force such complicity.
"And I fully get that this is an emerging science, with much still unknown. But given that it's unknown and given that YOU don't know and science does not support your grade school XX/XY understanding, why would we limit ourselves to what we learned in grade school?"
Because this "emerging science" has not brought us anywhere closer to the false claims you defend than has anything we learned in grade school. None of it supports in the slightest the claim there are more than two genders or sexes. None of it. In the meantime, known science affirms that reality more than ever before while attempting to use explanations for abnormal development to defend your falsehood. That is to say, if the developmental process is not moving along as it is meant to move along, it still requires as a basis the fact that there is an intend path development must follow. That path is to develop either a male or a female, not anything in between, and even abnormal development doesn't result in something other than either of these two possibilities...only abnormal representations of them.
"That was a very brief attempt to review what I've been pointing to you for a while now. Sorry if you're still not understanding, but that you don't understand doesn't mean that the science or transgender people are wrong."
There's nothing I'm misunderstanding here, and nothing in any of your attempts comes close to proving otherwise. And what's so glaringly wrong about the "science" you present is the attempt to assert it legitimizes the notion that the transgendered aren't disordered. That's just a plain lie and none of the research contradicts that reality. Thus, my position is not a matter of arrogance or humility. It's a matter of honest, facts, prove and the truth. Embrace those things rather than the need to accuse me of arrogance for doing so myself.
April 7, 2022 at 10:09 PM
I know I keep saying it, but I'm far more gracious than to be a Trabue in response to such abject failure to comply with requests. However, this is the last time I will suffer Dan's "Nyuh uh" responses and failures to cough up actual evidence contradicting the reality that transgenderism (and "gender spectrum") is disorder.
"Marshal... "Disruption causes sexual ambiguities which result in that which is not normal development. Disordered development."
That is literally not what it means. You are factually mistaken."
This is absolutely what it means to honest people not beholden to a corrupt LGBT agenda. And "ambiguity" in this context absolutely means an abnormality and disordered development. Normal development has no ambiguity caused by disruptions. Only a liar would say otherwise. But that's how you roll.
"You proclaiming that "Disruption does not equal normal Development and therefore transgender people are disturbed or wrong, somehow..." does not make it so."
Except that your source does and I'm just pointing it out. It might be a typo on your part, but the reality is your source reveals that disruption equals AB-normal development, which may result in disordered perceptions of one's self. I've not used the word "disturbed". Why did you suggest I did? Because you're a liar trying to imply a more negative connotation to my position. If my position is wrong or immoral, it doesn't need you trying to enhance that with words I never used. Fortunately for me, my position is true and you need to falsify my expressions to make it seem otherwise.
"It's just an empty, empty headed, baseless claim made by you with no support from any science."
Except that the science you provided absolutely affirms my position. It is thus based on science directly, and science you were nice enough to provide for the purpose. You're a pip, even if you are a lying sack.
"In short it's your stupid misunderstandings and not science that's the problem here."
The problem here is your dishonesty, your devotion to disorder and immoral behavior and your hatred of truth...a most blatant validation of the premise of this post which you've commandeered to promote disorder, immorality and falsehood.
"The fact remains: YOU are the outlier here. YOU are the one contradicting all the experts. We don't have to prove that the experts are right, YOU have to prove that they're mistaken."
The fact remains: The amount of people who believe a lie doesn't make the more true. I haven't contradicted any experts who've actually proved your position is correct. Indeed, most of what you've present affirms my position regarding the transgendered being disordered and does so expertly.
But even more factual is that the starting point is that there are only two genders and it is up to liars like you and those like you in the medical/psych communities to prove otherwise. As your links so clearly show, they've yet to come close to doing so. What's more, I've presented quite enough which shows your experts have failed.
"If you want to put it in science terms you won't understand, you are the disrupting force..."
Well, sure I am! I'm disrupting the promotion of the lies you've swallowed like a cheap whore! That's a good thing, to stand in the way of such nonsense as acting as if falsehood is true is destructive to a society. Those like you have done quite enough damage to our culture and the nation has suffered greatly for it. It's the consequence of the leftist side of the aisle having rejected truth for so long.
"The onus is on you to support any stupidly false claims you make with BETTER scientific data.
And you can't. We see that you can't because you never have even tried."
Again, it's really on you and yours to prove your claims regarding the LGBT agenda, which has never happened ever. In the meantime, I've provided many links which prove the flaws in the many lame studies activists and enablers are quick to embrace simply because of the conclusions those studies don't actually compel.
It's crystal clear at this point, Dan, as it has been about 100 comments ago, that I'll never get anything substantive out of you, because there's nothing substantive which exists to support your insistence that LGBT people are normal and "just like us, except..." Thus, this thread is pretty much done. I'll leave it open for comments on the wholly unlikely possibility that you'll present the definitive evidence required of you. But I'll neither hold my breath nor post anything which falls short.
Glenn,
It seems I inadvertently deleted, instead of posted, your comment with the Shapiro video. Please try again.
Transgender ideology debunked:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYF00xTGS7o
Way above I posted a link I attributed to JD Rucker, who simply posted this article in the Clarion News. It was actually written by John Conlin at American Greatness. My bad.
https://amgreatness.com/2022/03/26/my-dads-left-hand-and-the-insanity-of-transgenderism/
Post a Comment