Marjorie Taylor Greene posts anti-transgender sign across hall from lawmaker with transgender child

No offense taken.... certainly volume will be the issue... I don't know the numbers either, but I can't imagine you could set up competitive leagues in any sport made up entirely of TG athletes... If it happened, the "districts" for those sports would have to be so large as to set up travel issues...

But some small version of that might have to occur in some sport as a test case.... I'm just not sure of the sport best suited. but I would imagine team sports would be much harder..... perhaps track and field? Tennis? Dunno..

 

Honestly that is the only viable solution to this in my opinion. No one likes it though, the trans athletes want to be on the team they identify with while the anti-trans groups do not want them recognized at all.

 

Yes I should have been more specific.

While we should demand that government treat everyone equally under the law, people are under no such obligation and we all treat others in different ways and have every right to do so. No person is under any obligation to treat everyone equally and no one DOES treat everyone equally. A wise person may give everyone the benefit of the doubt and treat them with respect and equality when they first meet others. But once people start to reveal who theyare and what they are like we always choose to treat some people different than others.

 

Which is usually a politically correct lie and hypocrisy.

 

It is not complex, it is a fallacy and you did not dumb it down. You demonstrated lack of intellectual ability to prove your claim which is a false claim.

 

You started there are only two and then stated their are deviations.
Which means there are more than two...

Glad we could have this talk.

 

Yes and that is fact an abberation does not equal a spectrum. Such as a dog born with three legs due to s genetiic defect does not equal a whole new kind of dog.

Glad to have schooled you on science

 

There are a few things we need to be honest about and unpack.

First here is the sign.



(1) CNN's headline continues to confirm they are not a news organization, but a propaganda machine for the Left. That is not anti-Transgender. That is Pro-Science.
(2) If another member of congress can put up their clear propaganda, then what is wrong with another sharing a fact?
(3) There is no disputing the science, except extremely rare outliers like hermaphrodites. The statement is Scientifically factual.

 

I agree that people do not treat each other equally, but there are certainly laws to protect some groups from overt discrimination. The prejudices are still there. They just to be more discreet about doing it.

 

And those laws are contradictory evil and need to be repealed and abolished.

People need to be left alone to their own choices good or bad.

 

Like I pointed out on another thread, on what basis is he asking her this question? The example he cites is in London, what does that have to do with us here in the US, in spite of erroneously framing that example? He starts off with this nonsense of genital mutilation, trying to blur the line between drug therapy and surgery. It's a hit job of every misconception about this issue, which is why Levine offered to sit down with him to go over the nuances of dealing with children who have sexual dysphoria.

 

The example he gave was in London, but he is also going by what she has advocated for in the past.

 

Understood, but this is the way of progress. There has always been opposition to anti-discrimination law. The law always wins out, and the slippery-slope predictions of the opposition never materialize.

No one's beliefs are being challenged. Whether one believes in gender identity, gay marriage or inter-racial marriage, for that matter, does not amount to being a threat to you or me.

Regardless of what we believe, if we want to operate a business or work for the government, we can't discriminate based on gender identity. Nobody cares about gay marriage anymore. A year from now nobody will care about this either.

 

Ah, a dog example! Great lets use that since you seem to comprehend it.

Lets go for baby steps. Is the following an accurate representation of your statement:
Some dogs are born with fewer than four legs?
If yes, is the statement “dogs are only born with four legs” accurate?

 

Which is? Link please.

 

Sorry, but there are ONLY two sexes. Even a "true" hermaphrodite (don't know why you said "true") still has only two sexes. Male and Female. That is scientific fact. You claiming that science says there is a spectrum is BS. It says no such thing.

And gender is linked to sex so closely that it is essentially the same. It is just words being put to use to describe a persons sex. Like "chair" is used to describe a single occupant object that has a back and you're able to sit on. There are many variations of how chairs look. But they are all still just chairs.

 

Intersex is just another word for hermaphrodite.

 

Watch the video in post 39. If that is not enough here she is speaking on transgender issues.



In it she advocates for exactly what Paul asserts.

 

Read the thread perhaps.

 

I used “true” because that was what was referenced in the medical journal I was reading. There are other variations outside of “true” such as a more (or less) developed female genitalia on someone that presents as male or vise versa.

It depends on the publication being cited as well as the context and some of it disagrees quite substantially from what you are asserting as fact.

 

Yes, a lot of it disagrees because they use different criterion of what constitutes hermaphrodites, or I guess the politically correct term is "intersex" now a days. In the end they are still talking about the same thing. A person with the attributes of two genders. Two. Not one. Not three. Not a dozen. But two. Male parts and female parts. Be those parts outwardly physical or inwardly physical. They are still just talking about male/female attributes.

 

Absolutely. I still don’t understand why this is such an issue. I understand the sports issue but with the rest of it what is there such a movement meant to harass these people? It has been proven that the brains of trans people typically mimic that of their transition — how can people see that intersex people exist but not understand that perhaps people don’t “fit” in their body?

 

Thank you for the link...all 54 minutes of it!

It is indeed a very complex issue, one in which I feel for both the children who have it and their parents. Dr Levine clearly explains how this treatment is only done with a complete psychological examination AND the parent's consent for any patient 17 years old or under, with the exception of those who are emancipated or have no parents (street kids as she calls them).

Paul used the UK case to further a very transphobic view of this very specialized field of medicine. I've done a bit of research into the Kira Bell case he refers to, but considering we're talking about the NHS, something tells me there is a lot that gets lost in translation since their medical systems is setup completely different than ours. But what is Paul's intent in breaching this subject for Levine's confirmation? It certainly doesn't seem like he gives a chit about the issue, but granted that is my subjective take on the manner he asked the questions.

But I'm curious as to why so many right-leaning posters seem to automatically side with Paul?

 

I have no issues with Transgenders. If they want to have surgery to change their outward appearance to coincide with what they feel they are then more power to them. What I take issue with is when they** target children. I have no doubt that there are children that are transgenders in mind body and soul. But children are very malleable and can be convinced of darn near anything. Especially when they feel that they need to please their peers. Be accepted by their peers. Hormone blockers when used at an early age (particularly pre-pubescent) bring about a permanent outcome that cannot be changed. Cutting off a teen girls breasts is a permanent thing that can severely hinder her ability to breastfeed a child should she ever decide to de-transition and have kids. And there are many other issues.

If you, as an adult, want to be transgender then fine. Go for it. Leave the children out of it for ANY medically body altering drug. Wait until they are adults. Period.

The only other issue I have is that of sports.

Otherwise its live and let live. You'll notice that my issues are based on it affecting other people. I have no issue when it comes to adults private individual lives.

Forgot to add the reason for the **. "They" is referred to generally and is not specific to transgenders. It is meant to apply to anyone that accepts that their child is transgender at the drop of a hat. non-exhaustive example: Parents that wanted a boy but got a girl instead and that girl expressed a interest in in being a boy.

 

Figured you would rather have full context.

Bold: I won't speak for others but for me... It's because children are sacrosanct. Don't **** with children. Whether good intentioned or not, altering a child's body to such a degree, whether its through hormone blockers or otherwise, should NEVER be done. And NO parent has the Right to do so on behalf of the child.

A comment on the "complete psychological examination"....there is no such thing. Not really. A "complete" psychological examination only applies to how a person is right at that moment. But people change. Views change. Beliefs change. How people think change. And a childs psychological make up changes dramatically through out their childhood. Once one is an adult their psychological make up doesn't change as dramatically, but it does change, albeit at a slower pace.