Biden Education Sec. on What's Best for Children

[Mims44 2,033]

On 5/28/2023 at 12:31 PM, homersapien said:

That is BS. 

Transsexuals are transsexuals regardless if they avail themselves of treatments or therapies that make it easier for them to deal with it.

You sound as if a transsexual who takes hormones or has surgery actually becomes the gender they feel themselves to be, when in fact they are still transsexuals - just ones who have made physiological and/or anatomical modifications to better approximate their self-conceptualized gender.

I don't know if your problem is in your thinking or in your writing.

 

Not in the context of the argument. If they are not transitioning then it's no different than some soldiers saying 'Call me Ace!" or "Call me Tex". It's just a "Call me Lisa".

It doesn't matter in that context at all.

On 5/28/2023 at 12:41 PM, homersapien said:

Assuming transsexuals meet the physical and social requirements for service in the military - or functioning as a civilian member of society - there are no logical reasons for the military - or anyone else - for "being against" transsexuals.

This is regardless of whether or not they are "transitioning" (which presumably means living as the gender they self-identify as).

You sound as if you are desperately searching for rational or objective reasons to justify your opposition to transsexuals, when all you've really got is your "phobia" (prejudice) against them.

Perhaps there is a word I'm not familiar with to separate those that simply say "call me Lisa" and those that are looking for surgery, taking hormones, etc.

 

 

I'm actually interested now. If I keep my same clothes, my long beard, everything the same. But say "I'm a girl now, call me Mary" And the person sitting beside me goes through surgery, takes all the injections, changes their wardrobe, their voice, everything about themselves. Would we both just be transwomen? Is there no differential in identifying language between someone who changes literally nothing but a name and someone who changes absolutely everything? 

[I_M4_AU 9,045]

3 hours ago, Mims44 said:

I'm actually interested now. If I keep my same clothes, my long beard, everything the same. But say "I'm a girl now, call me Mary" And the person sitting beside me goes through surgery, takes all the injections, changes their wardrobe, their voice, everything about themselves. Would we both just be transwomen? Is there no differential in identifying language between someone who changes literally nothing but a name and someone who changes absolutely everything? 

J K Rowling attempted to say a trans woman in not a woman and she was cancelled.  The trans community insists if you say you are a woman, no matter what phase you are in, you are a woman.  Not agreeing with this is discriminating against trans people.

One only has to look at Lia Thompson, the male Penn swimmer that took the Covid year off, and during that time *he* started cross sex hormone therapy that allowed *him* to compete as a female, therefore, she is now a woman.  If you’ll remember Riley Gaines could not complain that Lia was allowed in their locker room with fully intact male genitalia.  Homer is out of touch with the LGBTQsfkldslfa coalition in this situation.

This is one of the reasons 20% of kids identify as LBGTQ because there is no consequences for doing so and they are seen as social heroes by their peers.  The trans movement amount to a social contagion that Target and Kohl’s are playing up to and promoting.  Sexualizing our children in not what America wants, IMO.

[homersapien 12,307]

6 hours ago, Mims44 said:

Not in the context of the argument. If they are not transitioning then it's no different than some soldiers saying 'Call me Ace!" or "Call me Tex". It's just a "Call me Lisa".

It doesn't matter in that context at all.

Perhaps there is a word I'm not familiar with to separate those that simply say "call me Lisa" and those that are looking for surgery, taking hormones, etc.

 

 

I'm actually interested now. If I keep my same clothes, my long beard, everything the same. But say "I'm a girl now, call me Mary" And the person sitting beside me goes through surgery, takes all the injections, changes their wardrobe, their voice, everything about themselves. Would we both just be transwomen? Is there no differential in identifying language between someone who changes literally nothing but a name and someone who changes absolutely everything? 

Seems we are getting further and further away from my request for clarification/confirmation of your post that suggested transsexuals are illegitimate or "acceptable".  (See below)

Mims44 1,547

Posted Friday at 09:33 AM

On 5/25/2023 at 9:53 PM, I_M4_AU said:

When has drag queens been a minority?  There is an organization known as Gays Against Groomers and they are in line with what I have been saying.  LGB of the coalition are being hijacked by the T of the group.  You don’t seem to be able to separate the letters.

It provides legitimacy in the mind to lump together accepted peoples with unaccepted.

It's why articles are written of how the Army is completely against the LGBT community, when the reality is the LGB are fine. But if the reporting was done truthfully and they stated the issues that arise from the T's then you wouldn't get a bunch of brain dead morons all riled up for their turn at virtue signaling.

Some of the really bad articles (one poster here loves them) will even lump Trans community and black people. It would be hilarious if it wasn't for all the lemmings following the stupidity.

 

homersapien 10,158

Posted Friday at 12:24 PM

Are you suggesting that transsexuals are - or should be -  "illegitimate" or unacceptable?

---------------------------

 

While I can fully understand why you would want to evade my question,  I am not interested in following you down another rabbit hole until you do.

 

[Mims44 2,033]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

Seems we are getting further and further away from my request for clarification/confirmation of your post that suggested transsexuals are illegitimate or "acceptable".  (See below)

Mims44 1,547

Posted Friday at 09:33 AM

It provides legitimacy in the mind to lump together accepted peoples with unaccepted.

It's why articles are written of how the Army is completely against the LGBT community, when the reality is the LGB are fine. But if the reporting was done truthfully and they stated the issues that arise from the T's then you wouldn't get a bunch of brain dead morons all riled up for their turn at virtue signaling.

Some of the really bad articles (one poster here loves them) will even lump Trans community and black people. It would be hilarious if it wasn't for all the lemmings following the stupidity.

 

homersapien 10,158

Posted Friday at 12:24 PM

Are you suggesting that transsexuals are - or should be -  "illegitimate" or unacceptable?

---------------------------

 

While I can fully understand why you would want to evade my question,  I am not interested in following you down another rabbit hole until you do.

 

I responded to that the first time you brought it up. And you responded to it.

Quote

 

Not sure if you are being intentionally obtuse to sway the point of an argument? Maybe you were bored?

 

But yes, that was exactly my point. LGBs require no hormonal treatment in order to be who they are. The T's do require medications/injections for transitioning. But the articles made about the T's and the pushback from the military lumps them all into LGBT in order to make the reader think that there is no logical reasons for being against people transitioning except "phobias".

Not bored enough to rehash it, but I believe you were apart of the last conversation about it. People, regardless of WHY are not generally allowed in the military if they require medications for their mental, physical, or emotional health. As great as the US is in logistics, they can not guarantee these medications in a warzone, so people that require them are generally not accepted. 

 

To give another example, If I say a born and grown man should not be able to instantly compete against women in a weightlifting competition as soon as they announce a change in gender.

If someone elses argument against that point starts with "Mims44's stance is an attack on the LGBT community..." that is being disingenuous as there is 0 problems with the LGB community in my stance. But people will lump them all together in order to try and bring legitimacy to a person whose life has been spent 99% being male now competing vs people who have spent 100% of their life being female. And I don't think Ts should be acceptable in that scenario.

 

 

 

I tried to use the words acceptable and legitimate in my response to hopefully clear this up a bit. I get this forum is filled with snide and snark, but I legit tried to explain this. Hope it helps.

[homersapien 12,307]

2 hours ago, Mims44 said:

I responded to that the first time you brought it up. And you responded to it.

To give another example, If I say a born and grown man should not be able to instantly compete against women in a weightlifting competition as soon as they announce a change in gender.

If someone elses argument against that point starts with "Mims44's stance is an attack on the LGBT community..." that is being disingenuous as there is 0 problems with the LGB community in my stance. But people will lump them all together in order to try and bring legitimacy to a person whose life has been spent 99% being male now competing vs people who have spent 100% of their life being female. And I don't think Ts should be acceptable in that scenario.

I tried to use the words acceptable and legitimate in my response to hopefully clear this up a bit. I get this forum is filled with snide and snark, but I legit tried to explain this. Hope it helps.

You were referring to service in the military in the post in question.

And no, you didn't respond to my question.

[homersapien 12,307]

2 hours ago, Mims44 said:

I responded to that the first time you brought it up. And you responded to it.

 

Well to recap, the question was do you consider transgenders were illegal/unacceptable?

You responded: 

"But yes, that was exactly my point. Transgender require ...blah blah blah".

Frankly I didn't think you really considered the significance of my question, so I didn't accept it literally. (I cut you some slack.)

Perhaps that was my mistake.

Edited May 31, 2023 by homersapien

[Mims44 2,033]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

You were referring to service in the military in the post in question.

And no, you didn't respond to my question.

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

Well to recap, the question was do you consider transgenders were illegal/unacceptable?

You responded: 

"But yes, that was exactly my point. Transgender require ...blah blah blah".

Frankly I didn't think you really considered the significance of my question, so I didn't accept it literally. (I cut you some slack.)

Perhaps that was my mistake.

I feel like you aren't accepting the answer provided because you are awaiting a one and done answer. "IE: all trans are sub humans" or IE" all trans are equal in everyway"

 

And you dislike that I am providing my thoughts against the two extremes.

[homersapien 12,307]

10 hours ago, Mims44 said:

I feel like you aren't accepting the answer provided because you are awaiting a one and done answer. "IE: all trans are sub humans" or IE" all trans are equal in everyway"

 

And you dislike that I am providinng my thoughts against the two extremes.

First, it's not for me to "accept" or reject your answer.  I just think you are being evasive.  I also think you missed an opportunity to re-phrase your point in a way that wasn't so directly prejudicial.

[I_M4_AU 9,045]

Interesting:

 

No insurance, no gender transition treatments for patients under 18.

[Mims44 2,033]

On 5/26/2023 at 9:33 AM, Mims44 said:

It provides legitimacy in the mind to lump together accepted peoples with unaccepted.

It's why articles are written of how the Army is completely against the LGBT community, when the reality is the LGB are fine. But if the reporting was done truthfully and they stated the issues that arise from the T's then you wouldn't get a bunch of brain dead morons all riled up for their turn at virtue signaling.

Some of the really bad articles (one poster here loves them) will even lump Trans community and black people. It would be hilarious if it wasn't for all the lemmings following the stupidity.

On 5/26/2023 at 12:24 PM, homersapien said:

Are you suggesting that transsexuals are - or should be -  "illegitimate" or unacceptable?

On 5/27/2023 at 9:03 PM, Mims44 said:

Not sure if you are being intentionally obtuse to sway the point of an argument? Maybe you were bored?

 

But yes, that was exactly my point. LGBs require no hormonal treatment in order to be who they are. The T's do require medications/injections for transitioning. But the articles made about the T's and the pushback from the military lumps them all into LGBT in order to make the reader think that there is no logical reasons for being against people transitioning except "phobias".

Not bored enough to rehash it, but I believe you were apart of the last conversation about it. People, regardless of WHY are not generally allowed in the military if they require medications for their mental, physical, or emotional health. As great as the US is in logistics, they can not guarantee these medications in a warzone, so people that require them are generally not accepted. 

Then further;

Quote

If someone elses argument against that point starts with "Mims44's stance is an attack on the LGBT community..." that is being disingenuous as there is 0 problems with the LGB community in my stance. But people will lump them all together in order to try and bring legitimacy to a person whose life has been spent 99% being male now competing vs people who have spent 100% of their life being female. And I don't think Ts should be acceptable in that scenario.

So I answered it with a definitive YES, then gave an example.  You didn't get that I said YES so I provided another example.

Instead of lumping T's in with other people rejected for being dependent on medication; diabetics for example. The argument lumps them together with LGBs who are allowed in the military. The LGBs are legitimate combat candidates. The Ts are not. Lumping them together in this instance is disingenuous to the reasoning and logic for having rules not allowing people needing medication/treatments to serve.