Do conservatives want to ban transgenderism for the same reasons they want to ban abortion?

[Anonymous]

I think so. I’ve come to realize that it’s all about “increasing the birthrate,” and that I’d people are changing genders, they may not be procreating anymore.

[Anonymous]

It’s all about imposing a twisted and medieval worldview of the roles of men and women on a modern populace that has cast both those views, and the religions that espouse them, aside.

In short, no one is buying the regressive trash they are selling and that is so fundamental to their concept of self, so they want to shove it down all of our throats. If they were smarter than a bag of rocks, they’d do some introspection about why no one is buying their garbage worldview anymore. Instead, they double down and get violent.

Some religions are just incompatible with freedom. Full stop.

[Anonymous]

I think it’s a culture of fear. They are so afraid of everything, it’s very odd. It’s small minded and they have a stunning lack of empathy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think so. I’ve come to realize that it’s all about “increasing the birthrate,” and that I’d people are changing genders, they may not be procreating anymore.

I don't think "banning transgenderism" would significantly affect the birthrate (in either direction). Just like being transgender is independent of your sexual orientation, it is also independent of your desire to have children.

However, most conservatives I know don't want to "ban transgenderism." They are concerned about conflicts with women's rights (preserving same-sex spaces, women's sports), and non-reversible medical treatments (surgeries, hormones) on children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No they simple feel that the mentally ill should not be able to harm themselves or others.

What someone wears under their graduation gown has no effect on you.

+1

So much for cons being concerned about "freedom" and "liberty." They want to force you to wear what they think you should wear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think so. I’ve come to realize that it’s all about “increasing the birthrate,” and that I’d people are changing genders, they may not be procreating anymore.

I don't think "banning transgenderism" would significantly affect the birthrate (in either direction). Just like being transgender is independent of your sexual orientation, it is also independent of your desire to have children.

However, most conservatives I know don't want to "ban transgenderism." They are concerned about conflicts with women's rights (preserving same-sex spaces, women's sports), and non-reversible medical treatments (surgeries, hormones) on children.

Oh come off it. Conservatives don't care about other people's children. Not in the way you imply. They like to control others and they think being loud and proud against transgenderism will buy them votes. That's about it.

Funny you don't see them working to ban non-reversible cosmetic surgery for anyone under 18. Why is that?

[Anonymous]

Republicans assume that as long as they keep low and moderate income bigots fired up about their prejudices against all forms of “wokeness” they can get their votes without ever doing anything for anyone other than their financial sponsors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Republicans assume that as long as they keep low and moderate income bigots fired up about their prejudices against all forms of “wokeness” they can get their votes without ever doing anything for anyone other than their financial sponsors.

They’re not wrong. Republican voters who aren’t rich aren’t getting anything out of voting for Republicans, but they’ll keep doing it.

[Anonymous]

They want to ban these things to appeal to evangelical voters and get their votes. It's a news cycle thing, the conservative politicians themselves mostly don't even care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s a culture of fear. They are so afraid of everything, it’s very odd. It’s small minded and they have a stunning lack of empathy.

This!

[Anonymous]

OP, yes. Part of the reason is absolutely a fear that teenagers will be sterilized with transgender surgeries and drugs before they have a chance to develop. And that this will cause a further decline in birth rates. Matt Walsh has repeatedly said on his podcast that he suspects the point of promoting transgenderism to kids is eugenics-- since there is a high rate of comorbidity between mental illness and identifying as gender nonconforming, it's a way for eugenicists to target vulnerable people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, yes. Part of the reason is absolutely a fear that teenagers will be sterilized with transgender surgeries and drugs before they have a chance to develop. And that this will cause a further decline in birth rates. Matt Walsh has repeatedly said on his podcast that he suspects the point of promoting transgenderism to kids is eugenics-- since there is a high rate of comorbidity between mental illness and identifying as gender nonconforming, it's a way for eugenicists to target vulnerable people.

Do you know what percentage of the population identifies as transgender? This is nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think so. I’ve come to realize that it’s all about “increasing the birthrate,” and that I’d people are changing genders, they may not be procreating anymore.

I don't think "banning transgenderism" would significantly affect the birthrate (in either direction). Just like being transgender is independent of your sexual orientation, it is also independent of your desire to have children.

However, most conservatives I know don't want to "ban transgenderism." They are concerned about conflicts with women's rights (preserving same-sex spaces, women's sports), and non-reversible medical treatments (surgeries, hormones) on children.

Oh so NOW conservatives are concerned about women’s rights. Give me a freaking break.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, yes. Part of the reason is absolutely a fear that teenagers will be sterilized with transgender surgeries and drugs before they have a chance to develop. And that this will cause a further decline in birth rates. Matt Walsh has repeatedly said on his podcast that he suspects the point of promoting transgenderism to kids is eugenics-- since there is a high rate of comorbidity between mental illness and identifying as gender nonconforming, it's a way for eugenicists to target vulnerable people.

Do you know what percentage of the population identifies as transgender? This is nonsense.

I don't understand your question. I'm answering OP's question and affirming that this is a concern among anti trans surgery advocates. Matt Walsh received the "homophobe of the year" award and therefore qualifies as a leading voice, and he specifically cites eugenics, birthrate, etc in his arguments.

Assuming you are just looking for more clarification, I'll offer that he thinks that pro trans advocates are marketing to kids and we will see increasing rates of trans identification. He also describes trans surgery on children as part of a wider agenda on the left to reduce birth by reducing marriage and birth rates, increase abortion, and then sterilize as many kids as possible through hormones and surgery.

[Anonymous]

It's all political theater to get votes from the right wing conservative Christian base.