⫸Trans and LGBTQIA+ Discussion⫷

[Eligiu]

Do people who are transphobic actually legitimately believe that introducing children to the concept of transgender people will trans all the kids?

Like, I didn't meet a trans person until I was 19 and suddenly my life made sense. I'd have been spared years of pain (and $12,000 in surgery) if I'd been told earlier.

Being around cis people constantly never turned me cis lol. Like being told coming out as trans would ruin my life and result in losing all family and friends and dying alone STILL didn't stop me being trans.

It's almost like we actually are just who we say we are? Mind blowing stuff.

 

[mal3volent]

I think the most honest answer here is that no, 20% of the human population is not lgbt. Yet I'm sure in classrooms all around the world you could find percentages much higher. It's a mixture of what @Ubi Sunt is saying, that previous generations were statistically underrepresented, so now that the world is woke everyone can be their authentic selves. But it also is most certainly social contagion, to what degree we don't know. It's impressionable young people trying to find themselves, trying to fit in, trying to rebel, trying to find their way through life. So you have to take all that into consideration. The answer is somewhere in the middle, as is often the case.

 

[The Shadow Self]

I think it's worthy of note to remember that there is far more to life, and any difference of opinion, than being "pro" or "anti" any given thing. In many ways it is a linguistic and cognitive trap to embrace this kind of dichotomous thinking. In the modern era, issues are often framed as pro or anti, as we all know, but the dialogue is always in the middle. Or it is supposed to be. The middle is often where a more nuanced set of positions or challenges can be assumed, taking into account, from a rational, reasonable and logical point of view, and actually discussing any relevant points related to the matter. That is the place that productive dialogue used to happen more frequently, but is now the exception rather than the rule. In the black and white world of dichotomous thinking, you are forced to adopt one of two positions, again, going "all in" with a total and complete acceptance or rejection of any given idea. However this does work phenomenally well in terms of dividing people, and of course the evidence of this is all around you.

I also think it's worthy to note the relative over-use of the "phobia" in that simply disagreeing with someone or something does not, however, make one "phobic", as it were. If one can have a healthy and well thought out set of ideas from an opposing viewpoint, and express them with good faith and intention, an open mind, and a reasonably compassionate attitude, and be OK with disagreeing without vitriol, anger, or hatred, then people are more likely to find some common ground.

And yes...I think it should be said that many people may happen to disagree with other's choices/positions, of course, but can still be fine with them being who they want to be and not turning it into a projection festival. But I am one of those people who actually tries to be a decent human being and really treat all people the same way, despite any "defining characteristics" that may be perceived. I try and do it out of decency and from a humanitarian perspective. I don't label other people, and I don't like being labeled based on superficial characteristics myself. I am not affiliated with any group or entity nor do have any desire to be, whether it is political ideology, religious affiliation, etc., and just consider myself to be on team humanity.

 

[Mr. Krinkle]

I believe he/she knows the definitions, and I believe he/she is being short sighted.

 

[Las Veghost grower]

Look, just don’t talk about sex with my kid and we’re all good, I find it really weird/disturbing how invested some adults are in trying to ensuring kids learn about sex really early on

 

[unodelacosa]

Children are INCREDIBLY easily influenced….

Yeah we all know this, but I guess you’re stating the obvious for effect here.

You know, no one chooses their sexual orientation. As a 100% straight man. I know I for one definitely could not choose to be gay, ya know? Not arbitrarily or at suggestion; neither as some fad nor probably if my life depended on it. Like if someone put a gun to my head and said, “suck my dick or I’ll blow your brains out”? Weather forecast said: dark, overcast, high chance of precipitating brains this evening.

I know that seems extreme and some people will argue it one way while others see it another way, but I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one who gets this feeling. Same as: I know lesbians who want exactly nothing to do with a man, sexually. And I know gays who find vaginas “repulsive”. Different strokes for different folks. As long as it’s between consenting adults, I don’t give a fuck, and I would appreciate the same sentiment be shown to us responsible, consenting, adult, drug-users. You feel me on that?

But my point is: it’s ok if other ppl are lesbian, gay, trans, bi, or … I guess I could’ve used the trendy acronym – and listen: I get it. I find that kinda shit obnoxious, too, especially as an outsider. But it’s new civil rights stuff right now. I feel it already becoming old hat, bland, passé..

nuff said,

What is? That kids are easily influenced? Well what about when there are multiple influencing factors? All one can do is guide a child, and do one’s best to set a good example. I sense you feel a ton of sudden stress from multiple angles and issues. Deep breaths —and do you have some outlets for this energy for yourself? If not, it’s wise to carve out some time for this very thing. Anything from a hobby or a craft, to full-on artwork or something else entirely like a local sport’s league can help relieve stress, you know?

we need to let kids be kids as long as possible not force adults political ideals on them

Yeah I've heard ppl say that policy should maybe also prohibit forcing religious dogma on children, particularly when they’re too young to defend themselves adequately against the suspensions of logic virtually every organized religion inevitably requires. Hence the word “faith” in the expression “faith in God”. Once an adult they would be free to subscribe to whatever dogmatic horseshit fits them best

Is scaring kids into religious/church compliance—to borrow a term from your buddy—with the threat of eternal damnation an example of letting kids be kids, or does it sound more like something is being forced on them? Sometimes ya gotta take the good with the bad, so to speak.

 

[Las Veghost grower]

I don’t push religion on my kid either, but I’m sorry being pro talking sex with kids is weird

 

[Eligiu]

It takes no effort to be a decent person to all people even if you don't 100% understand it but somehow a task that is impossible for so many people to achieve. It costs nothing. Really don't understand the drive to make other people miserable because people have uneducated opinions about stuff they don't fully understand but think the group affected by their opinion needs to hear even though it's negative.

Does anyone like hearing constantly negative incorrect opinions about aspects of who they are, with the inaccuracies of the opinion being due to the fact that the people sharing them are unable to possibly comprehend what they are discussing because as they aren't a member of the group, they won't be able to understand those unique elements of the life experience?

I sure don't go around telling black people how much more I know about being black than them as a white person. That actually would be a stupid thing to say.

For some reason though that isn't the case when it's cis people displaying their expertise on the trans experience

 

[Jabberwocky]

There's 8 billion people in this world.

We have about 60 years until we are gone, forever.

Your feelings are valid.

I'm out.

 

[Neuroborean]

All the talk about trans stuff has DEFINITELY contributed to many, many kids experimenting with gender identity. There was a school in Cali IIRC that had over 20% of students identifying as non-binary. Don't tell me that's a historical norm because of "hijra" which are intersex people who occupy a fraction of a percent of the population of India.

@Neuroborean

I'm not convinced that humans are more conscious than all animals. Where's the evidence?

We are more intelligent, but that's a different thing.

You can raise a human like an animal.

I think animals have a straight conscience, but the fact that they don't have language place their flow of conciousness into a continuity which makes impossible a lot of things.
I'm sure they have a bit of self-consciousness, they know they are, and they are themselves, but not to the point of being human, as I said, language and temporal display of language (culture/history) creates an entire new dimension that it's not animalistic.

 

[unodelacosa]

Does anyone know what the drag queen actually said to the kids?

This sounds like the set up of a joke. Like:

Q: what do you feed a gay horse?
A: Hayyyyyyyy

Q: who feeds the gay horse?
A: Hayyy Girl!

Q: what did the drag queen say to the kids?
A: “Non-compliance is the new hate.”

I suspect it is just the presence of a drag queen around kids that is upsetting people... But I don't think anybody would have a problem with Dame Edna.

No doubt. Whatever happened to straight men and women being secure enough in their sexuality to feel comfortable and unthreatened by gay ppl?

Teaching kids under twelve about drag queens, their many genders, sexual preferences/kinks Etc. It Seems super righteous to indoctrinated folx, but to us normies it’s creepy and insane.

Indoctrination runs both ways and there is no such thing as a “normal person”. I don’t personally care for the aesthetics of a man dressed as a woman — usually with ghoulish and/or clown-level makeup overkill — and I’ve never cared for campy comedy. I do not get nor care for the movie, Rocky Horror Picture Show, for example. Doesn’t mean I think it deserves an NC-17 rating or outright censorship.

Labeling it “creepy and insane” because you don’t care for it, feel threatened by it, and/or don’t understand it? This is a savage dismissal. But I respect your right to express, hold, and share your thoughts with us even when our opinions differ on some matters. Though I don’t think they do as much as you might think. I’m just tired of political fanboyism. All this equates to is gritting on the party you think you don’t like and voting _against_ that candidate usually for social policies that mean fuck all compared to their fiscal plans and how much more that will affect everyday Americans. (I don’t think I can get with the term “normies.” Sounds like an STD or an obnoxious phone pic habit.)

Ultimately the left and right wing are the same thing with similar agendas. No matter the side of the aisle, so to speak, I see a lot of members of Congress taking soft money bribes and exploiting the legislative loophole that SuperPACs were designed to exploit by legislation, not coincidentally, written by this very same watching body, Congress.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? ☜ Latin for: “who watches the watchers?”

Don‘t believe the dog and pony show. The only non-partisan U.S. president in history was George Washington who wisely stated his concern that bipartisan politics were too divisive and would lead to civil war eventually.

Here’s a challenge for anyone in any country. If you usually vote progressive/liberal, as a project pick out three conservative politicians in your country whose policies and philosophy isn’t that bad considering their party affiliation, or at least a few ppl in politics from opposing ideological camps, but still a tolerable person to you, and more or less reasonable if wrong about a few things.

If you lean to the right, do the opposite and find a few liberals you could probably deal with having in office if you had to. If your country’s political spectrum is too wide for this dualism, just pick a different group’s philosophy for study, I suppose.

If this seems impossible to anyone of any affiliation, they might be taking life too seriously. After all, no one gets out alive.

 

[Neuroborean]

Human sexuality and gender identity are a spectrum. The third gender has already been described going back as far as 2000 BC. Trans people were here before Jesus. Just sayin'.

The idea of gender itself is crooked nowadays,
it started seriously being talked about when 2 american anthropologists, Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict, both disciples of the jewish anthropologist Franz Boas and both bisexuals (if not just lesbians) started studying different people regarding gender roles. So they came with the concept of gender role, that it was used to understand the different roles assigned to the fact of being male or female in different cultures.

That means, they were NOT talking about gender being a spectrum, specially not sex being a spectrum, but only gender roles being flexible and variable, roles assigned traditionally and culturally to male/female in different parts of the world.
You may think I'm just playing with words but the difference it's brutal. There's no "third gender" because actually there's no genders on their own, there's sex and there's gender roles, but the latter is an abstract concept that doesn't apply to anything but to the fact of being male or female and their cultural significance of being this or that.
If there's a "third" gender it woud be being hermafrodite, which is not really what they mean.

It's better to be pretty serious about this, gender being flexible is absurd if we don't specify that we are talking about gender roles and not any kind of unspecified shit that it's not sex nor anything else.
There's males, there's females and there's hermafrodites. Then there's people who is attracted to males, to females or to goats who are dressed as transvestites with straw hats and bdsm boots. It's ok for them because sex doesn't say anything about their sex nor their "gender", it only talks about their sexuality... more or less normative or heterodox regarding different cultures.

If a man feels like a woman, you have to ask yourself, in what sense? Do you feel uncomfortable having a dick instead of a cunt or do you feel bad about gender roles that are contingent and cultural in nature?
The question is VERY important because the solution to it is very different and the problem is also very different (although most of them are not aware of it). From my point of view, the first case, the one who wants to get boobs and cut off his penis really has a problem (I'll leave it to you if it should be considered a psychological, social, genetic problem or a mixture of all) and honestly I don't find it funny having to spend my (scarce) money to solve a problem like this, since I consider that it is and always will be a small minority.

In the second case, it seems to me that the problem is more of a social nature, since gender roles are and always will be flexible to a certain extent, although they are neither good nor bad in themselves, but coexist in a certain balance, In general, when that balance does not exist (for example, the whole society becomes matriarchal or patriarchal, understood as normative) then everything becomes problematic. The solution to a "fully patriarchal society" (which in my opinion has never existed, but well..) is not a fully matriarchal society nor a society on which the gender roles assigned to men dissapear.

Neither is the solution for women to become more masculine and men feminine. Although apparently this should be so to "balance" the imbalance, everything indicates that it is not so. Western women (and probably no women in the world) do not like effeminate men and most men do not like a woman without femininity (or the characteristics associated with the female sex for millennia). This should not be confused with whether or not men are sensitive or women more or less independent and strong-willed. There's a lot of bullshit in the woke propaganda, because they use those contingent, historic qualities that only some people hang to to discredit completely the idea of western traditional masculinity or feminity.
The crappy propaganda of the system only manages to confuse people more and more and blur gender roles, destroying the possibility of understanding, and driving young people crazy. This ends the idea of community, family and love, which is what they really want, in my opinion.

 

[unodelacosa]

I don’t push religion on my kid either, but I’m sorry being pro talking sex with kids is weird

Yeah of course it is. I don’t envy anyone facing the awkwardness of the classic “birds & bees” speech, but let’s also recognize the outdated nature of both that euphemism and its persistence through to the 2020s. I also think that bc culture isn’t as prudish these days, this parent-to-child communication should be much easier compared to the last century.

It’s humbling to consider how much smarter the newer generations will inevitably be compared to us, if for no other reason then scientific innovations in the Internet era of communication technology or just: the Information Age. I was born during a time when color TVs weren’t ubiquitous and microwaves were a fresh technology. I had pagers/beepers as a teenager and young adult. My first cellular mobile phone was a Motorola StarTAC.

Today, kids don’t know a world without smartphones, constant internet access, and the constant safety net of spellcheck. Also, the ability to fact check things almost instantly is kind of a big deal. How it will ultimately impact these peoples lives will be interesting to observe. Well, at least for as long as we can anyway, lol.

Edit: Meaning to say, having these kind of tremendous advantages their entire lives, even from a very young age, has to have some kind of impact on the person’s intelligence. That said, I still think there’s something to be said for having been raised in an analog world still, learning to write cursive and do long division math, etc. Or at least that’s how I comfort myself as I get older each year, lol

 

[Buzz Lightbeer]

I'm not convinced that humans are more conscious than all animals. Where's the evidence?

Very very few animals are even able to recognize themselves in a mirror.

"Consciousness, at its simplest, is sentience or awareness of internal and external existence."

 

[Neuroborean]

Very very few animals are even able to recognize themselves in a mirror.

"Consciousness, at its simplest, is sentience or awareness of internal and external existence."

It's true, but I don't think animals are automats, they have some sense of self-existence/awareness even if it doesn't imply recognizition of that self.
Self-recognition probably needs language and time-consciousness to exist, but surely self-awareness is simpler than that and shared in more animals.
Maybe self-recognition implies some complex circuit between internal and external awareness on which language plays a role.

 

[unodelacosa]

Very very few animals are even able to recognize themselves in a mirror.

"Consciousness, at its simplest, is sentience or awareness of internal and external existence."

Though to be fair vision plays a huge role in so-called mirror intelligence in animals. It’s no wonder primates, birds, and other species with a detailed and acute sense of vision possess awareness of their own reflection. Compare this to the poor vision of the color-blind canine species and I think we can forgive this demerit of dogs for example, and yet they’re still one of the more intelligent non-humans on the planet.

It’s crazy to think of how canines have serotonin receptor subtypes in their brains that humans do not possess. And these 5-HT subtypes are evidently affected by LSD, yet we have no idea what that does in terms of the dog consciousness nor even what they usually regulate, just that they exist for dogs but not humans and LSD agonizes those receptor sites along with the shared 5-HT2A and 5-HT2C sites, for example.

 

[Droppersneck]

This sounds like the set up of a joke. Like:

Q: what do you feed a gay horse?
A: Hayyyyyyyy

Q: who feeds the gay horse?
A: Hayyy Girl!

Q: what did the drag queen say to the kids?
A: “Non-compliance is the new hate.”


No doubt. Whatever happened to straight men and women being secure enough in their sexuality to feel comfortable and unthreatened by gay ppl?


Indoctrination runs both ways and there is no such thing as a “normal person”. I don’t personally care for the aesthetics of a man dressed as a woman — usually with ghoulish and/or clown-level makeup overkill — and I’ve never cared for campy comedy. I do not get nor care for the movie, Rocky Horror Picture Show, for example. Doesn’t mean I think it deserves an NC-17 rating or outright censorship.

Labeling it “creepy and insane” because you don’t care for it, feel threatened by it, and/or don’t understand it? This is a savage dismissal. But I respect your right to express, hold, and share your thoughts with us even when our opinions differ on some matters. Though I don’t think they do as much as you might think. I’m just tired of political fanboyism. All this equates to is gritting on the party you think you don’t like and voting _against_ that candidate usually for social policies that mean fuck all compared to their fiscal plans and how much more that will affect everyday Americans. (I don’t think I can get with the term “normies.” Sounds like an STD or an obnoxious phone pic habit.)

Ultimately the left and right wing are the same thing with similar agendas. No matter the side of the aisle, so to speak, I see a lot of members of Congress taking soft money bribes and exploiting the legislative loophole that SuperPACs were designed to exploit by legislation, not coincidentally, written by this very same watching body, Congress.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? ☜ Latin for: “who watches the watchers?”

Don‘t believe the dog and pony show. The only non-partisan U.S. president in history was George Washington who wisely stated his concern that bipartisan politics were too divisive and would lead to civil war eventually.

Here’s a challenge for anyone in any country. If you usually vote progressive/liberal, as a project pick out three conservative politicians in your country whose policies and philosophy isn’t that bad considering their party affiliation, or at least a few ppl in politics from opposing ideological camps, but still a tolerable person to you, and more or less reasonable if wrong about a few things.

If you lean to the right, do the opposite and find a few liberals you could probably deal with having in office if you had to. If your country’s political spectrum is too wide for this dualism, just pick a different group’s philosophy for study, I suppose.

If this seems impossible to anyone of any affiliation, they might be taking life too seriously. After all, no one gets out alive.

Teaching young children about your sexual preferences, kinks, genders, positions, etc is creepy and insane to normal people. It just is what it is, I guess that makes me a prude to liberals

 

[Buzz Lightbeer]

Compare this to the poor vision of the color-blind canine species and I think we can forgive this demerit of dogs for example, and yet they’re still one of the more intelligent non-humans on the planet.

But dogs can recognize other dogs through vision? I can accept that they're more reliant on smell and sound, but show them a dog on TV and they'll know...

I can certainly forgive them for it though but the premise was that we aren't more conscious than animals

 

[nepalnt21]

We're not apes.

no man, we are not apes,

this is factually incorrect, but whatever you want to make believe.

we (humans) literally made up the word ape, and by definition (the definition we humans made up), we fit into what an ape is.

we belong to the superfamily 'hominoidea', which are the apes.

nobody else is here to classify us. we classified ourselves. we fit the word ape.

and if you consider that monkey is often used as a colloquial term for 'simian', well... hate to break it to ya - you're also by definition a monkey. don't worry, so am i.

words are fun.

and it's bizarre that you (neuroborean) want to exclude other apes from having consciousness; i mean, even corvids (who are dinosaurs, btw) have theory of mind.

and to bring it back home...

many animals (humans included) exhibit non- heteronormitive relationships, and the idea of not fitting into your born sex is very much not new, and pans many cultures.

we don't need to bury our heads in the sand on this one; society is going to change to accomodate these concepts, and it will be fine. chill, y'all, we (on the whole) do not want to groom your kids. i'd watch those churches (and temples, etc.), though...

 

[Neuroborean]

nobody else is here to classify us. we classified ourselves. we fit the word ape.

Exactly, and if you think deeply on that, you'll find the answer!

and it's bizarre that you (neuroborean) want to exclude other apes from having consciousness; i mean, even corvids (who are dinosaurs, btw) have theory of mind.

I didn't! if you read the thread entirely, my last posts, you'll see that I consider that most animals have self-awareness, but not other types of consciousness that are what makes human unusual. Conscience in the sense of self-awareness without formal recognition is not something strange in nature, even plants have some awareness through chemistry and roots/rhizomes.
We see things languagely