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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish people would stop trying to ascribe motivations, especially malevolent ones, to people they disagree with.

Conservatives are not a uniform block, and are motivated by multiple factors. I think there are some who espouse conservative (or liberal) positions for personal power, wealth, notoriety, etc., regardless of how they may actually feel. I think the vast number of conservatives (like liberals) truly want to help people, they just have a different idea of how to do that. They may be wrong, but that doesn’t mean their intentions aren’t good. Engage them on the issues, but also listen. Nobody is 100% right, and in looking at things from a different angle, you might even be able to make your approach to a problem more effective. We need to stop blaming each other and start working together on solutions.

Ultimately, even if both sides walk away from an exchange convinced that the other side is wrong, we need to respect their right as Americans to be wrong. The beauty of our system is that when both sides are able to freely advocate for their positions, the majority will hopefully take us in a generally positive direction, and even when they don’t, we can try again until we do better.

Keep in mind that conservatives are individuals, just as liberals are, and there are many issues. While you may disagree with someone on one issue, if you stop treating them like the enemy, they may become a staunch ally on another issue.

One cannot walk away from something like this in an amicable way when the post literally above yours has a conservative calling someone a groomer.

If you notice, I tried to make my comments applicable to both sides. I think calling political opponents groomers in this fashion is deplorable. I’m inclined to think that was a troll, rather than somebody making an actual argument, but in either case, I reject those tactics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish people would stop trying to ascribe motivations, especially malevolent ones, to people they disagree with.

Conservatives are not a uniform block, and are motivated by multiple factors. I think there are some who espouse conservative (or liberal) positions for personal power, wealth, notoriety, etc., regardless of how they may actually feel. I think the vast number of conservatives (like liberals) truly want to help people, they just have a different idea of how to do that. They may be wrong, but that doesn’t mean their intentions aren’t good. Engage them on the issues, but also listen. Nobody is 100% right, and in looking at things from a different angle, you might even be able to make your approach to a problem more effective. We need to stop blaming each other and start working together on solutions.

Ultimately, even if both sides walk away from an exchange convinced that the other side is wrong, we need to respect their right as Americans to be wrong. The beauty of our system is that when both sides are able to freely advocate for their positions, the majority will hopefully take us in a generally positive direction, and even when they don’t, we can try again until we do better.

Keep in mind that conservatives are individuals, just as liberals are, and there are many issues. While you may disagree with someone on one issue, if you stop treating them like the enemy, they may become a staunch ally on another issue.

One cannot walk away from something like this in an amicable way when the post literally above yours has a conservative calling someone a groomer.

If you notice, I tried to make my comments applicable to both sides. I think calling political opponents groomers in this fashion is deplorable. I’m inclined to think that was a troll, rather than somebody making an actual argument, but in either case, I reject those tactics.

It's not trolling. A lot of people on the right have been convinced of some really crazy things by propaganda. It's how someone goes into Comet Pizza to find the basement that doesn't exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think conservatives just really, really like talking about kids' genitals. Which -- given their selection of a pedophile to be a long-time Speaker of the House and their religious supporters' endemic problem with sex abuse by priests, ministers, and youth pastors -- makes a lot of sense.

This from the crowd that thinks it's really, really important to have drag queens reading to kids and performing in front of kids.

What connection does your brain make between drag shows and children's genitals?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the Holocaust Museum in Berlin earlier today. Homophobia, anti-trans, and anti-abortion are all linked:



Republicans are gleefully skipping down a well-trod path.

So the only way to not be a Nazi is to be in favor of performing sex changing surgeries on minors?

I thought you supported “parents rights”? Maybe just let parents figure out what is best for their kids. None of your business

Parents don't have unlimited rights. Conservatives are actually pretty consistent on this. You can't kill a 5 month old fetus, you can't have your teenage daughter's breasts removed, etc. But, you are dodging here. You allege that in order to not be a Nazi, you have to be in favor of minors having surgeries to remove their genitals. That's a weird definition of Nazi. Nazis were famously all about grim experimental surgeries.

Do you have any verified statistics on how many of these surgeries are taking place on children? Because as you read the recommendations by the American Academy of Pediatrics on gender affirming care that’s not a course of treatment that is normally recommended at that age.

I don't think there are any reliable statistics because it's unregulated and experimental. It's not even a medical specialty-- any surgeon can declare themselves a transgender surgery specialist-- there's no professional organization or licensing requirements.

In any case, you're responding to my statement that being concerned about minors getting transgender surgeries isn't really at all like being a Nazi, and your response is non-sequitur.

What are your medical qualifications and experience in witnessing such surgeries?

I think you're obliquely implying that in order to oppose transgender surgeries on minors, you must be a surgeon with at least adjacent experience operating on transgender youth. Is that what you're trying to say? If so, I reject that on its face. The flip side would also have to be true, that you cannot be an advocate of these surgeries either, so you also would be unqualified to have an opinion.

That's right, I am not advocating anyone get surgeries because I am not a medical professional. And even if I were, just as psychologists have a professional agreement not to diagnose people who are not their patients, I have nothing to say about patients whom I've never met. I leave it up to them and their doctors. That I can advocate for - patient privacy and the ability of a patient and their doctor to make the best decisions, not me as an outsider. You apparently feel you have the right to intervene in other people's lives, even though you are apparently admitting you don't even have any medical qualifications to have an opinion worthy of being heard.

You don't need to be a doctor to take issue with removing body parts from depressed adolescents. By your logic, we should just end democracy because it is too complicated for anyone but constitutional scholars.

As an aside, the left cannot make these claims after covid. Quite obviously, the mainstream view is that healthcare decisions can be of broad public concern.

Is transgenderism airborne? You really think people are that stupid that we can't differentiate between a public health emergency that killed more than 1,000,000,000 Americans and a private medical decision?

Look, if you want to be taken more seriously and prove your concern about minors and surgery, then you would also add cosmetic surgery and circumcision to your bans. But you don't. Just like you won't advocate to ban child beauty pageants that sexualize children far more than Dame Edna reading children's books to kids. Because this is juts a political point for you, and you don't really care. You people are not fooling anyone that you care truly and deeply about children and their well being. You don't care about slaughtered first graders enough to advocate for regulating the types of guns that make it easy to slaughter scores of them in a hot nanosecond. Why would we think you care about teenagers deep in mental distress over their bodies and gender?

Thank you for this. Conservatives' purported concern about children is so transparently false it's perverse of them to even pretend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wish people would stop trying to ascribe motivations, especially malevolent ones, to people they disagree with.

Conservatives are not a uniform block, and are motivated by multiple factors.

I want to agree with you. But someone is going to have to explain how firearm deaths as the leading cause of death for children is a matter to be shrugged at, maybe with vague gesture toward "mental health" and "enforcing laws" while elective surgery for transgender minors which, to the extent they're happening are exceedingly rare, are a screaming national emergency. What's the good-faith, non-malevolent view of children's well-being that permits this disconnect?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish people would stop trying to ascribe motivations, especially malevolent ones, to people they disagree with.

Conservatives are not a uniform block, and are motivated by multiple factors. I think there are some who espouse conservative (or liberal) positions for personal power, wealth, notoriety, etc., regardless of how they may actually feel. I think the vast number of conservatives (like liberals) truly want to help people, they just have a different idea of how to do that. They may be wrong, but that doesn’t mean their intentions aren’t good. Engage them on the issues, but also listen. Nobody is 100% right, and in looking at things from a different angle, you might even be able to make your approach to a problem more effective. We need to stop blaming each other and start working together on solutions.

Ultimately, even if both sides walk away from an exchange convinced that the other side is wrong, we need to respect their right as Americans to be wrong. The beauty of our system is that when both sides are able to freely advocate for their positions, the majority will hopefully take us in a generally positive direction, and even when they don’t, we can try again until we do better.

Keep in mind that conservatives are individuals, just as liberals are, and there are many issues. While you may disagree with someone on one issue, if you stop treating them like the enemy, they may become a staunch ally on another issue.

One cannot walk away from something like this in an amicable way when the post literally above yours has a conservative calling someone a groomer.

If you notice, I tried to make my comments applicable to both sides. I think calling political opponents groomers in this fashion is deplorable. I’m inclined to think that was a troll, rather than somebody making an actual argument, but in either case, I reject those tactics.

It's not trolling. A lot of people on the right have been convinced of some really crazy things by propaganda. It's how someone goes into Comet Pizza to find the basement that doesn't exist.

Grooming kids for elective transgender surgery is the latest iteration of Satanists sacrificing babies that caused such a panic in the eighties. At some point in between, it was kids being kidnapped, raped and tortured in the Comet Pizza basement (and elsewhere) to extract their adrenochrome. There's a real desire to believe there are shadowing, lurking hordes of would-be kitten burners in our midst.

[Anonymous]

The governor of Mississippi wants to protect kids from woke ideas, but seems unbothered by the abysmal maternal and neonatal mortality rates in his state. Go figure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish people would stop trying to ascribe motivations, especially malevolent ones, to people they disagree with.

Conservatives are not a uniform block, and are motivated by multiple factors.

I want to agree with you. But someone is going to have to explain how firearm deaths as the leading cause of death for children is a matter to be shrugged at, maybe with vague gesture toward "mental health" and "enforcing laws" while elective surgery for transgender minors which, to the extent they're happening are exceedingly rare, are a screaming national emergency. What's the good-faith, non-malevolent view of children's well-being that permits this disconnect?

They don’t always go together.

For example, I’m pro-life. To me, that means:

I oppose abortion.
I support gun control.
I am pro-environment.
I oppose the death penalty.
I still wear a mask and social distance.
I believe in vaccinations, and I think prisoners should have been a prioritized group.
I support universal healthcare.

I’m sure whatever side you’re on, you probably disagree vehemently with me on some of those issues, but we probably agree somewhere. Moreover, I think my positions are fairly consistent, at least based on my sincere beliefs on these issues. I’m not trying to spark a specific debate on my positions to derail the thread. If you want to tell me how wrong I am on any or all of these, please start a new thread and I’ll be happy to explain my positions further.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish people would stop trying to ascribe motivations, especially malevolent ones, to people they disagree with.

Conservatives are not a uniform block, and are motivated by multiple factors.

I want to agree with you. But someone is going to have to explain how firearm deaths as the leading cause of death for children is a matter to be shrugged at, maybe with vague gesture toward "mental health" and "enforcing laws" while elective surgery for transgender minors which, to the extent they're happening are exceedingly rare, are a screaming national emergency. What's the good-faith, non-malevolent view of children's well-being that permits this disconnect?

They don’t always go together.

For example, I’m pro-life. To me, that means:

I oppose abortion.
I support gun control.
I am pro-environment.
I oppose the death penalty.
I still wear a mask and social distance.
I believe in vaccinations, and I think prisoners should have been a prioritized group.
I support universal healthcare.

I’m sure whatever side you’re on, you probably disagree vehemently with me on some of those issues, but we probably agree somewhere. Moreover, I think my positions are fairly consistent, at least based on my sincere beliefs on these issues. I’m not trying to spark a specific debate on my positions to derail the thread. If you want to tell me how wrong I am on any or all of these, please start a new thread and I’ll be happy to explain my positions further.

NP. It's not a tit for tat, position by position issue. It's about consistency, who you vote for, and what that party stands for. The republican party is abysmal in its record of actually "caring." Not just about children, anyone really, but they like to "but but the children" all over the place. It's hypocrisy and the more we point it out the better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish people would stop trying to ascribe motivations, especially malevolent ones, to people they disagree with.

Conservatives are not a uniform block, and are motivated by multiple factors.

I want to agree with you. But someone is going to have to explain how firearm deaths as the leading cause of death for children is a matter to be shrugged at, maybe with vague gesture toward "mental health" and "enforcing laws" while elective surgery for transgender minors which, to the extent they're happening are exceedingly rare, are a screaming national emergency. What's the good-faith, non-malevolent view of children's well-being that permits this disconnect?

The conservative care about own community more than others. Teenage firearm deaths mostly not conservative community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish people would stop trying to ascribe motivations, especially malevolent ones, to people they disagree with.

Conservatives are not a uniform block, and are motivated by multiple factors.

I want to agree with you. But someone is going to have to explain how firearm deaths as the leading cause of death for children is a matter to be shrugged at, maybe with vague gesture toward "mental health" and "enforcing laws" while elective surgery for transgender minors which, to the extent they're happening are exceedingly rare, are a screaming national emergency. What's the good-faith, non-malevolent view of children's well-being that permits this disconnect?

The conservative care about own community more than others. Teenage firearm deaths mostly not conservative community.

The states with the highest gun deaths are all red states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish people would stop trying to ascribe motivations, especially malevolent ones, to people they disagree with.

Conservatives are not a uniform block, and are motivated by multiple factors.

I want to agree with you. But someone is going to have to explain how firearm deaths as the leading cause of death for children is a matter to be shrugged at, maybe with vague gesture toward "mental health" and "enforcing laws" while elective surgery for transgender minors which, to the extent they're happening are exceedingly rare, are a screaming national emergency. What's the good-faith, non-malevolent view of children's well-being that permits this disconnect?

Textbook whataboutism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish people would stop trying to ascribe motivations, especially malevolent ones, to people they disagree with.

Conservatives are not a uniform block, and are motivated by multiple factors.

I want to agree with you. But someone is going to have to explain how firearm deaths as the leading cause of death for children is a matter to be shrugged at, maybe with vague gesture toward "mental health" and "enforcing laws" while elective surgery for transgender minors which, to the extent they're happening are exceedingly rare, are a screaming national emergency. What's the good-faith, non-malevolent view of children's well-being that permits this disconnect?

The conservative care about own community more than others. Teenage firearm deaths mostly not conservative community.

The states with the highest gun deaths are all red states.

Look into who shot.

Mostly AA people. AA people conservatives?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The governor of Mississippi wants to protect kids from woke ideas, but seems unbothered by the abysmal maternal and neonatal mortality rates in his state. Go figure.

The governor of California wants to give kids the right to have body parts cut off, but seems unbothered by the abysmal homelessness, housing crisis, piss poor educational system, gang violence, sky-high crime, illegal immigration crisis, drug abuse, and collapsing public health system in his state. Go figure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The governor of Mississippi wants to protect kids from woke ideas, but seems unbothered by the abysmal maternal and neonatal mortality rates in his state. Go figure.

The governor of California wants to give kids the right to have body parts cut off, but seems unbothered by the abysmal homelessness, housing crisis, piss poor educational system, gang violence, sky-high crime, illegal immigration crisis, drug abuse, and collapsing public health system in his state. Go figure.

Under 18 cannot have body parts cut off. GTFO.