Ironhold Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 33 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said: I don't know where this notion comes from that a considerable number of trans people support sexual deviancy. The human brain is hardwired to seek for patterns, and will even begin assembling patterns where none exists. In this case, there's enough in the way of controversial and horrific incidents involving LGBT individuals and children to where even a reasonable person could start forming a pattern. For example, for the past few years there have been incidents where drag shows not only invited young children (re: pre-teen and younger) to be audience but where these shows even had such young children *as performers*. Or we had the bit where the people in charge of Drag Queen Story Time for the Houston, Texas public library system didn't actually run proper background checks and so a convicted offender was able to work with the kids for about six months. Or we've had media that was clearly inappropriate for children being aimed at children. Et cetera. That's *on top of* a group of LGBT individuals who made a viral video in which they sang a song called "We're Coming For Your Children". Most people who are LGBT just want to live in peace, and are just as horrified about these events. But so long as they keep happening, they'll be a metaphorical bloody shirt. LDSGator and Vort 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said: Are you under the impression that they're not? Every trans people I know certainly would. Heck, if it's egregious enough, they might even skip the reporting part and go straight to the FAFO part. I don't know where this notion comes from that a considerable number of trans people support sexual deviancy. Maybe it's because you only think of trans people in terms of their sexuality? That makes sense since you seem to be under the impression that breeding is our most worthwhile pursuit as a species. Sometimes I wonder which side of this debate is the one sexualizing everything and everyone. Usually, a man in a dress is just a man in a dress. And while I've asked for data to support the notion that men in dresses are statistically more dangerous to women than men not wearing dresses, I have yet to be shown any. I appreciate you trying to approach this from a scientific standpoint, but you haven't provided data that there is a real, widespread threat to women from autogyenphilia, just that autogyenphilia exists. Did it ever occur to you that cis men and women might also get aroused by dressing in certain gender-normative ways? It's understandable if not, given your spiritual background. That's why it's so important for us to step outside of our echo chambers sometimes. "In the world but not of the world", or something like that. You can't convert people you don't understand. I do agree that porn addiction is a real problem in our society. I believe it's the primary driving force behind what people are calling the "male loneliness epidemic". Some of today's young men learned everything they think they know about interacting with women from porn. It's no wonder why they're single. Pretending it's a problem that only (or even mainly) affects the LGBTQ community is intellectually dishonest. My concern about autogyenphilia and other forms of abuse comes from the SanJose State volleyball team that was forced to share a dressing room. Also, Riley Gaines said she was forced to change in the same room with an aroused male swimmer. I have not found any official statement from the trans community that trans men should not be competing in women’s sports nor am I aware or efforts to keep all biological women safe. What I hear is that 10 trans should not be a problem even if thousands of biological women are inconvenienced. Does Riley Gaines have an accepted voice among your friends? You are correct, porn affects and warps everyone it touches – the more it touches the greater the problem. Also, I understand that not all individuals are capable of reproducing. Those that are capable but learn to disdain actual reproductive behavior are not sexually helpful or beneficial in an intelligent society. I do believe in agency but I do not believe in corrupting (educating LGBTQ+) children (under age 25) that have not developed the brain executive functions to discern what they learn. The problem is that children taught beneficial sexual behavior are extremely unlikely to behave otherwise. With very rare exception – it is my understanding that those involved with LGBTQ+ behaviors acquired a propensity in their youth – often using the argument that G-d made them that way. The Traveler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 5 hours ago, Phoenix_person said: So what does it say when a transgender woman competes in a woman's sport and loses? Because that happens all the time. It's only an issue when they win. Winning isn't the only issue. Women have been getting injured by bio males in such frequency that the UN finally called for a ban. The document is called "Violence against women and girls, its causes and consequences" https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n24/249/94/pdf/n2424994.pdf Section III (Manifestations of violence against women and girls in sports), item A (Physical violence), paragraph 7: "Female athletes are also more vulnerable to sustaining serious physical injuries when female-only sports spaces are opened to males,9 as documented in disciplines such as in volleyball,10 basketball11 and soccer.12 Instances have been reported where adult males have been included in teams of underage girls. 13 Injuries have included knocked-out teeth,14 concussions resulting in neural impairment,15 broken legs16 and skull fractures.17 According to scientific studies, males have certain performance advantages in sports. One study asserts that, even in non-elite sport, “the least powerful man produced more power than the most powerful woman” and states that, where men and women have roughly the same levels of fitness, males’ average punching power has been measured as 162 per cent greater than females. 18" The link will provide details to footnotes 9-18, if anyone is interested. Here's a really, REALLY good article about problems and good solutions: https://womeninsport.org/safe-and-fair-sport-for-women-and-girls/ Backroads, Carborendum, Vort and 2 others 2 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zil2 Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 (edited) Must keep mouth closed. The Lord cannot come soon enough. Edited January 22 by zil2 Carborendum 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ironhold Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 22 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said: Winning isn't the only issue. Women have been getting injured by bio males in such frequency that the UN finally called for a ban. The document is called "Violence against women and girls, its causes and consequences" The 2024 Olympics actually brought this attention to the fore. A boxer who was in the women's boxing competition was actually *banned* from at least one previous event because their testosterone levels (et al) were too high, but the Olympics allowed the boxer to compete. This person hit so hard that one of their opponents actually surrendered a few seconds into the match for fear that if it continued they'd be seriously injured. This comes *on top of* years of people pointing out instances in which people who had been middling competitors as male athletes declared that they were now transgender and started dominating the female divisions of the sports they were in, raising questions about how many were sincere. It's a very complicated issue, but too many people want to sweep it under that metaphorical rug. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 5 hours ago, Phoenix_person said: Don't be childish. This is pretty hilarious. Here you are, unable and now (apparently) unwilling literally even to define what a woman is after your ridiculous attempt was called out as circular and thus meaningless. Yet you call me "childish" because I use your exact same technique of simply asserting the meaning of words. Well, deal with it. For the purposes of this discussion, I am LGBTQ+++-*/ and BIPOC and lots of other letters. I am because I said I am, and you have no standing to dispute the central eternal truth (within this particular discussion) of what I said. I have proven you wrong through my very obvious use of your debate strategies. No coming back from this one, PP. You can't have it both ways. 5 hours ago, Phoenix_person said: Herein lies the crux of our disagreement. You believe that rights are ranked and that I think LGBTQ rights matter more than yours (or my own) as a cis man. I literally told you what I believed and you distilled it down to the above inaccuracy. But what you believe, as you yourself testify above, is that the rights of men who like to put their genitals in other men's rectums (which defines or at least exemplifies homosexuality) are more important (your words are "matter more") than mine. Think about that. If a man decides he wants to put his penis into another man's rectum, that desire makes that man's rights more important than mine. The mere desire to orally stimulate the genitals of someone of the same sex makes your rights more important than those of someone who lacks such desire. Please don't try to backtrack or claim that is not what you said. That is inescapably exactly what you said. Fortunately for me and despite my lack of homosexual desire as outlined above, for the purposes of this thread I am LGBTQ (because I said so), so therefore my rights are more important than yours. Thus everything you write can easily be waved away as the ignorant rantings of an unimportant cis-het whose opinions are worth less than the dog crap I scraped off the bottom of my shoe. Using your own logic and prioritization. Amazing. Wouldn't you agree that yours is actually a stupid and evil way of assigning the importance of rights? 5 hours ago, Phoenix_person said: It's interesting that you seem to think I would work so hard against my own self-interest. Your side laments the ignorance that drives vast swaths of people to vote, in your words, against their own interest, yet you think it interesting that I think the same of you? Interesting. 5 hours ago, Phoenix_person said: More rights for one group doesn't mean less for others. Except it very clearly does, else why would you assert that LGBTQ rights supersede my own? Were there no zero-sum situation, you would never make such an assertion. The very idea would never even arise. 5 hours ago, Phoenix_person said: And when it comes to trans rights, we're talking about things like being able to use a public restroom without being harassed. This is false. No one has been harassed for using a public restroom. Men are free to use the men's public restroom, and women are free to use the women's. When men call themselves women and then try to use the women's restroom, that's the issue. Which is not at all the problem that you claim. 5 hours ago, Phoenix_person said: Have you ever been chased out of a public restroom because someone didn't like your physical appearance? PP, you are shameless. Your utter mischaracterization of the issue would be laughable if it weren't so widely shared among your type. No one is being chased out of public restrooms because of how they look, though that might well be the clue. People are chased out of public restrooms for using the wrong gender restroom. 5 hours ago, Phoenix_person said: Have you ever had trouble finding work because of your gender or skin color? Are you serious? Yes, I, an old white man, have been denied promotion or seniority or a position for which I was better qualified, because the decision was made the hire the less-qualified person who was not an old white man. The "old" part has only become an issue in the last maybe ten years, but the "white man" part has been with me since at least graduate school. 5 hours ago, Phoenix_person said: You cheekily call yourself LGBTQ and BIPOC with zero understanding of what that actually entails and you're expecting me to take you seriously? I expect you to take me exactly as seriously as you expect me to take you. You are a man who openly tells me that the rights of people with homosexual proclivities matter more than mine. And you are apparently not joking. How seriously should I take you? 5 hours ago, Phoenix_person said: There are no rights (or privileges, because there's an important distinction) that LGBTQ and BIPOC people are seeking that white cis people don't already enjoy. They want the privilege of using a public restroom designed and set apart for use by the opposite sex. I neither enjoy nor want that right. 5 hours ago, Phoenix_person said: I assume you believe that it's your right to not be misgendered at work, yes? But what about the free speech of your coworkers? Don't they have a right to call you a woman behind your back (and also to your face)? I am sure some have called me much worse behind my back, and certainly have to my face. Some people are jerks. When their actions have risen to the level of harassment, I have complained. I have never yet gone looking for legislation designed to bolster others' acceptance of my delusions. 5 hours ago, Phoenix_person said: You just don't like that gender is being redefined Wow. Unbelievably, PP actually got it right for once. 5 hours ago, Phoenix_person said: You just don't like that gender is being redefined to fit a definition that clashes with your religion. It clashes with the accepted historical meaning of words. If I redefine "murderers" to include homosexuals, then I can claim that homosexuals are murderers and must be treated as such under law. Jail for 25 years to life? Death penalty? Hey, what can I say? They're murderers. Yes, I object to redefinition of words as a method of promotion of ugly societal change. You can call that "religious" if you want, but you would think the same if someone were trying to redefine your principles out of existence. 5 hours ago, Phoenix_person said: That does not mean that trans rights infringe on your religious rights. What are you talking about? You are openly and intentionally misstating what you implicitly assign as my position. That is dishonest, not too far from open lying. 5 hours ago, Phoenix_person said: If religious rights trumped all else, your church would still practice polygamy. Currently, it's religious beliefs that are the greatest barrier to trans people being treated with the dignity and respect they deserve as human beings. Your first statement above is bizarre, completely out of left field, context free, like saying, "If pigs had wings, we'd pick buckshot out of our bacon." The second statement is just another bloviating absurdity. You ought to move past the earnest middle-schooler stage and actually analyze what you write before sending it out for all to see. 5 hours ago, Phoenix_person said: https://www.diabetes.org.uk/our-research/about-our-research/our-impact/discovery-of-insulin Obviously, it was a choice for the insulin patent-holders to not profit from it. I wouldn't have thought lesser of them if that wasn't the case. The modern-day patent reality of insulin makes a strong case for reexamining our patent standards. https://time.com/6336840/patent-manipulation-insulin-prices/ I respect IP to the extent that it benefits the creators and major innovators of a drug. When was the last time the insulin formula was tweaked sufficiently enough to warrant renewal of patent protection? As for other pharmaceuticals, I understand the cost of developing and researching drugs, and I'm in no way trying to suggest that pharm companies shouldn't be able to recoup those costs and even turn some profit. The EO was put in place because companies like Eli Lilly got greedy with insulin pricing by keeping it in the FDA's Orange Book. In addition to curbing patent abuse, I think it's worth putting a cap on the profitability of medicine, especially unpatented ones, so that people like Martin Shkreli (whose name even the staunchest Republicans were cursing vehemently when he was in the news) can't abuse their distribution rights for obscene profit. The patent for Daraprim is long-expired, and demand isn't high enough to create a need for a cheaper generic version. I don't believe that medicine should be able to pay for a private jet for people who had no hand in the drug's development. And your point? We already agree that patent law is highly imperfect and that evil actors do unethical and sometimes malicious things for the purpose of getting money. So, what is it again that you're trying to establish? Still waiting for your evidence that the last 150 years of technological progress would have occurred (or perhaps been even better) without IP law. And for that non-circular definition of what a woman is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix_person Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 (edited) 39 minutes ago, Vort said: Except it very clearly does, else why would you assert that LGBTQ rights supersede my own? 39 minutes ago, Vort said: You are a man who openly tells me that the rights of people with homosexual proclivities matter more than mine. I don't know how many more ways I can tell you that this is not the case, and I no longer have the energy to try. Frankly, I have far better things to do with my day than spoon-feed you lessons on privilege. I honestly don’t know why I still waste my time here. 39 minutes ago, Vort said: Your first statement above is bizarre, completely out of left field, context free, like saying, "If pigs had wings, we'd pick buckshot out of our bacon." No, it's not. I was trying to make the point that even your church recognizes that religious freedoms under the 1st Amendment have limits, which is why they ended the practice of polygamy. I was attempting to use this example to cinvey the idea that religious rights aren't absolute and having to call a woman with a penis "she" doesn't infringe on anything. I probably could have made that point out better. But whatever. I'm not going to convince you and you're not going to convince me. Enjoy the rest of your day. Edited January 22 by Phoenix_person Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zil2 Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 21 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said: ... having to call a woman with a penis "she" doesn't infringe on anything. If it didn't, you wouldn't have used the word "having". Vort and SilentOne 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix_person Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 13 minutes ago, zil2 said: If it didn't, you wouldn't have used the word "having". If someone consistently called me a woman in the workplace, they could be disciplined for harassment. Does that infringe on their rights? Could they get away with it if they said that their religious beliefs clash with my own body image as a cis man? I just want my trans friends to have that same protection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zil2 Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 6 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said: If someone consistently called me a woman in the workplace, they could be disciplined for harassment. Does that infringe on their rights? Could they get away with it if they said that their religious beliefs clash with my own body image as a cis man? I just want my trans friends to have that same protection. A) Putting myself in the place you describe for yourself: I would rather be called anything and everything than live in a world where speech was compelled or banned. B) I would get a new job before submitting to compelled speech. C) If you think you can't get a new job, work harder, better, more honestly, with more integrity. You'll have no problem finding new work. The word "having", by definition, includes a willingness to use force, which means, by definition, taking away rights. Vort and Carborendum 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said: 1 hour ago, Vort said: Except it very clearly does, else why would you assert that LGBTQ rights supersede my own? 1 hour ago, Vort said: You are a man who openly tells me that the rights of people with homosexual proclivities matter more than mine. I don't know how many more ways I can tell you that this is not the case In this particular case, the fault is mine. My apologies. I missed the second "that" in the following: 9 hours ago, Phoenix_person said: You believe that rights are ranked and that I think LGBTQ rights matter more than yours (or my own) as a cis man. That was careless of me. Shame on me for not going over what I had read, spotting my error, and removing the false accusations. Yeah, that actually changes the tenor of the first part of your argument quite a bit. I think what I wrote later (and not on that particular topic of your wording) is still valid, but I freely concede I messed up in that initial thing, which really taints the whole response. It was a sheer misreading of what you wrote. Again, I am sorry about that. I'm usually a pretty close reader. Not this time. Phoenix_person 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 (edited) 1 hour ago, Phoenix_person said: If someone consistently called me a woman in the workplace, they could be disciplined for harassment. That's because you're not a woman. Honestly, it doesn't really matter how this particular debate goes, or any debate goes. Here's how the footnote of history will read: - The humans of planet earth have all shared the same definition for man and woman throughout recorded history. Outliers have always existed. - Somewhere in the early to mid 21st century, some folks thought they had a better definition, a better way to better include some of the outliers. - The other 99.9999999% of the population said "ok, persuade me". - Y'all made your best case. A couple of scholarly things about how gender is a spectrum. Many opinions advanced and arguments made about how thinking binary isn't the best way. Endless, endless nasty tricks involving intimidation tactics, algorithm boosting, appeals to emotion, accusations of bigotry, lobbying, high-pressure tactics. In a small handful of the 1st world nations, it was effective enough to swing elections and get policies changed. Folks didn't want to see themselves on the wrong end of "you can either have a living son or a dead daughter". Folks didn't want to be the victim of cancel culture. Folks all want to be thought of inclusive and loving and morally just, so they went along with it. Plus, after having spent endless millenia with a definition that was never questioned, nobody had a rapid response to any of it. - The notion, at its height, persuaded upwards of 8-12% of the world's humans, mostly found in the richest and most egalitarian nations. - The majority of humans never found the proposals and redefinitions convincing. The humans largely discarded the notion, and by 2027 there were no further serious threats to the traditional definition of sex and gender. Many humans did learn to be a bit more understanding of outliers. But the radical redefinition of words and culture to account for them never reached critical mass. Edited January 22 by NeuroTypical Vort, zil2, Carborendum and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 36 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said: That's because you're not a woman. Honestly, it doesn't really matter how this particular debate goes, or any debate goes. Here's how the footnote of history will read: - The humans of planet earth have all shared the same definition for man and woman throughout recorded history. Outliers have always existed. - Somewhere in the early to mid 21st century, some folks thought they had a better definition, a better way to better include some of the outliers. - The other 99.9999999% of the population said "ok, persuade me". - Y'all made your best case. A couple of scholarly things about how gender is a spectrum. Many opinions advanced and arguments made about how thinking binary isn't the best way. Endless, endless nasty tricks involving intimidation tactics, algorithm boosting, appeals to emotion, accusations of bigotry, lobbying, high-pressure tactics. In a small handful of the 1st world nations, it was effective enough to swing elections and get policies changed. Folks didn't want to see themselves on the wrong end of "you can either have a living son or a dead daughter". Folks didn't want to be the victim of cancel culture. Folks all want to be thought of inclusive and loving and morally just, so they went along with it. Plus, after having spent endless millenia with a definition that was never questioned, nobody had a rapid response to any of it. - The notion, at its height, persuaded upwards of 8-12% of the world's humans, mostly found in the richest and most egalitarian nations. - The majority of humans never found the proposals and redefinitions convincing. The humans largely discarded the notion, and by 2027 there were no further serious threats to the traditional definition of sex and gender. Many humans did learn to be a bit more understanding of outliers. But the radical redefinition of words and culture to account for them never reached critical mass. If only things were this simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted January 22 Report Share Posted January 22 (edited) 2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said: If only things were this simple. History always records oversimple accounts of events and things . (Also, history is written by the winners.) Edited January 22 by NeuroTypical Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted January 23 Report Share Posted January 23 21 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said: History always records things simply. (Also, history is written by the winners.) My point is that it won't be forgotten and over by 2027. And it leaves out the terrible social contagion and the effects of that. mirkwood, Vort and NeuroTypical 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carborendum Posted January 23 Report Share Posted January 23 12 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said: My point is that it won't be forgotten and over by 2027. And it leaves out the terrible social contagion and the effects of that. We'll know by 2027. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted January 23 Report Share Posted January 23 In other news, here's a reminder of some relevant history probably most of us had forgotten: Vort 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted January 23 Report Share Posted January 23 16 hours ago, Phoenix_person said: If someone consistently called me a woman in the workplace, they could be disciplined for harassment. Does that infringe on their rights? Could they get away with it if they said that their religious beliefs clash with my own body image as a cis man? I just want my trans friends to have that same protection. Well, hang on a second. If a teacher or a guidance counselor at my children’s school repeatedly told them that “to even ask if you are transgender means that you are indeed transgender”, and repeat that admonition even after my child protested that they thought they were mostly comfortable with their natal sex, and then continue to drag my child into a bunch of struggle sessions in which the child is badgered with questions such as “are you sure you’re not transgender? You seem transgender to me? Your bigoted parents are holding you back, aren’t they? Are you sure you aren’t transgender? You said you feel awkwardness about your body. That sounds trandgender. Don’t you see how great it is to be transgender? If you don’t come out and say transgender, you might hurt yourself in the long run. You might die! You’ll DIE!!! We don’t want you to die! Shouldn’t you just go ahead and tell everybody your transgender?” – not only would those school personnel not suffer consequences; but in many states, they would be hailed as providing “excellent mental healthcare“; and any efforts I as a parent made to learn anything about these conversations would be summarily shut down. And if my LGBTQ coworker made a habit of saying “JAG, you are so insistent on being ‘straight’ with your hetero marriage and your six kids and your conservative politics and your traditional religious values, that you simply must be a repressed gay man!” — I would be putting my job in real danger if I openly affirmed that “no, I’m actually quite sure I’m straight and that homosexuality is not for me.” And you and I both know that not one HR director out of ten, would subject my coworker to any kind of discipline for what they have been doing. It’s not about a truly universal right to “human dignity” by having your sexuality and your chosen gender expression be unquestioned. It’s about implementing a dizzying cat’s cradle of oft-incoherent rules (spoken and unspoken, and any one of which could result in your getting fired at the drop of a hat); tasking the enforcement of those rules to people who hate you and want to see you suffer; and then decreeing that a certain elite class of LGBTQ overlords is exempt from all those rules. Carborendum, Vort and zil2 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carborendum Posted January 23 Report Share Posted January 23 I really hate how much anti-semitism is coming from the Trump adminstration: Harvard settles two lawsuits alleging antisemitism | Fox News Quote Professor Ganz, who taught the course, likened a "Jewish state" to "White supremacy" and subjected the students to further discrimination by allowing pro-Palestinian students to voice vicious anti-Israel and antisemitic screeds in class while denying the Israeli students the ability to respond, the lawsuit claims. Quote "The recent settlement is real progress. But, there is a long way to go before Jewish, Israeli and Zionist students enjoy full equality on campus. The courts and the Trump administration need to hold Harvard’s feet to the fire," -- former Harvard Hillel Director Andrew Geraer. Quote As a Harvard Jewish student, I know Elise Stefanik is the right person to fight antisemitism at the UN | Fox News Yeah, he sure is putting those Jews in their place. Such Nazis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zil2 Posted January 23 Report Share Posted January 23 (edited) 4 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said: It’s not about a truly universal right to “human dignity” by having your sexuality and your chosen gender expression be unquestioned. It’s about implementing a dizzying cat’s cradle of oft-incoherent rules (spoken and unspoken, and any one of which could result in your getting fired at the drop of a hat); tasking the enforcement of those rules to people who hate you and want to see you suffer; and then decreeing that a certain elite class of LGBTQ overlords is exempt from all those rules. This. This is what I have observed. (Too many) LGBTQ+ people don't want to live their lives in peace and leave everyone else to do the same. They want revenge and they want to be the dictators of what we're allowed to think, say, believe, and do. They think the ends justify the means and there's no such thing as going too far - right down to calling for violence against a family of four (a couple and two minor children) as an appropriate response to the couple's pastor saying homosexuality is a sin and Christians ought not to participate in "Pride celebrations". (I witnessed this. The mob contained about 800 people.) Sorry, but you're (generic "you") going to have a hard time convincing me these folk just want to live in peace with the rest of us when 800 of them ganged up to say otherwise. Edited January 23 by zil2 Carborendum, Vort and askandanswer 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDSGator Posted January 23 Report Share Posted January 23 23 hours ago, Phoenix_person said: e. I honestly don’t know why I still waste my time here. Believe it or not, most of us like your posts. If we agreed on everything and just sat around telling each other how wonderful we all are it would be incredibly boring. NeuroTypical 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carborendum Posted January 25 Report Share Posted January 25 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zil2 Posted January 25 Report Share Posted January 25 On 1/23/2025 at 9:22 AM, zil2 said: (Too many) LGBTQ+ people don't want to live their lives in peace and leave everyone else to do the same. They want ... to be the dictators of what we're allowed to think, say, believe, and do. Well, this video sheds some light... Carborendum 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDSGator Posted January 25 Report Share Posted January 25 (edited) 2 hours ago, zil2 said: Well, this video sheds some light... What kind of LGBTQ people do you actually know? Because all of them that I know just want to be left alone. I’m genuinely curious. Do you only know radical ones? Do you hang out in Malibu or Cambridge? Not joking, I wonder wh there’s such a difference here. And talk to me about your actual, real life LGBTQ friends, not ones shown in conservative media. Do they (your friends) subscribe to this aggressive ideology? Edited January 25 by LDSGator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted January 26 Report Share Posted January 26 15 hours ago, LDSGator said: What kind of LGBTQ people do you actually know? I know several. One of them is indeed a radical. He has used the word to describe himself. He has used his platform to support, defend, and normalize radical change as the norm. His platform involves speaking to a small group weekly. I’ve heard him voice support for leftist violence on two occasions. Once was a vague allusion to hold on to hate so it can be put to good use later, once was an attempt to get the group talking about political violence as something that is occasionally justified. He’s urges anti-racism and pronoun use, and normalizing ppl being able to openly live their full authentic queer life. His preferred pronouns have moved about a bit, I think they’re currently them/he or something like that. He’s young, in his ‘20’s. He thinks he’s doing good things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.