Most Americans (71%) Oppose Transgender Agenda

I don't really have any vendetta against Transgender of any LGBTQ people. If you were offended, I am sorry about it. I was mentioning what other folks would say about LGBTQ and they read the bible. As for myself I will accept the LGBTQ like any other person and that's all I'm going to say.

 

Why would you even mention ‘injections’ if a child wants to change ‘sides’. You obviously have fallen for the rhetoric that a large number of parents of children who are questioning their gender would immediately have them started on injections to stop puberty. Nobody is ‘working’ on her gender identity. Do you think my nephew tells her to switch ‘sides’, of course not. We don’t actually sit around and talk about the gender change. It’s done, it all is the same but he has a new name and looks like a dude. As far as convincing her she is wrong — nope.

Last week we saw the Little Mermaid movie and my little one said she wanted to be a mermaid. Being a leftie parent and all that, I found a doctor who was willing to fashion her little legs into a mermaid tail and we moved down to the seaside to maximize her experience. Unfortunately, she decided two days ago she didn’t want to be a mermaid and now is furious at me because she finds it difficult to ‘walk’ to school. The doctor told her she couldn’t go back so now she’s stuck being a mermaid. Maybe, I should have waited to see if that’s what she really wanted and not pushed her into surgery the first moment she brought it up. Stupid lefty parent.

Now to stop being sarcastic.

If my little one told me she wanted to be a boy, my first thought would be ‘where did that come from?’. She’s a total girlie girl. Being halfway intelligent, if it was out of the blue, I would consider it one of her many things she wants to be (Frozen character shooting ice out of her fingers, Matilda, Little Orphan Annie, a fireman, an astronaut, a kitten). I have no problem with role play. If it turned into something that was affecting her happiness, quality of life, and so forth, I would try to get her some help to figure out her feelings. I sure as hell wouldn’t take her to some doctor to start injections to prevent puberty. I don’t believe a child of seven can make decisions that would affect the rest of their life and that could irreversibly damage her. As a parent, I don’t want to make a decision for her either. There are lot of ways a child can express ‘gender’ without resorting to medical interference. When she was older and truly understood the ramifications of surgery and so forth, if she still wanted to go forth with it and had counselling and a firm understanding of the ramifications, I would trust her to do what is best for her.

Any parents who allows a young child to get ‘injections’ to prevent puberty is probably a moron. Most children grow out of wanting to change their gender even though at the time they are sure they want to. Children have whims, children have strong beliefs and desires, they want what they want. Being children, it’s up to a parent to be sensible — let them explore. If they insist, let them try out being that gender. And go from there and get hormones/surgery if they understand what they are doing, what it means, and it’s mostly not reversible. Some will decide that is what they want because they have felt it for years; others will say it’s not for them. My nephew didn’t start any hormones until age 22 and now looks and sounds like a male.

So I hope at this point you understand that I am not against gender reassignment. I am clearly against hormone injections being given without a great deal of thought and education directed at both the child and the parents.

 

I don’t know why you persistently try to turn things into being about my feelings, but I’m not being defensive. I asking you to stop making assumptions about me that imply I am ignorant about the law and ramification of of overturning Roe.

as for your claim that you’re twisting my noodle, I have to admit. I recognize your user name from another website it’s called debatepolitics.com. A username like yours is not common.

I also looked up some of your previous comments on that forum, because I recognized you in over there, and you’re clearly saying that you think abortion is killing. You don’t represent yourself as a pro-choice person on that website. I think what’s going on is the right wing side of the court went way too far, and now people like you and Trix, are trying to over calculate, claiming your pro choice and you’re not.

Pro-choice support legal access to abortion. Legally, a pro-choice person recognizes a woman’s decision to abortion as hers alone, and it’s something a woman should discuss with her doctor not her state government. Pro choice doesn’t think people having an abortion is their business.

I don’t have to approve of somebody’s decision to have a an abortion. In fact, I might not approve of a woman’s decision to have an abortion, but she should have the legal right to do so.

Also, I’ve repeatedly said to you the danger women are being put in because they don’t have legal access to abortion, and you can’t address that in your responses. You’re not pro choice because of women safety. I suppose you’re a pro choice because Roe was overturned.

I used to work with a Neuro divergent individual and she also couldn’t tell the difference between emotions and facts. You remind me remind of her. Just because you’ve convinced yourself that your opinions are so valuable it doesn’t mean you’re speaking facts. You’re still just debating your personal beliefs and opinions here. There’s no reason to get so arrogant about it.

 

I think the other poster is sharing their opinion about how ridiculous your thinking is and it’s provoking shame in you.

 

You really can’t definitively tell gender based on bone structure. They’re better ways of doing it like a DNA sample. Trans people take hormones that changes their bone structure. If you just observe the bone structure, it’s not going to be clear. If an archaeologists analyzed my DNA, they could tell that I am not actually a blonde. I bleach my hair, so what who cares? Kim Kardashian had breast implants, etc. etc.

 

Four other posters happen to like how I replied. Win some, lose some.
It would be hard for anyone to provoke shame in me because they thought my thinking is ridiculous.

 

MLB Team Cuts Player After Anti-LGBTQ+ Controversy (msn.com)
It tells me that Major League Baseball has support of LGBTQ pride.

 

The pelvis is a dead give-away.

Male Vs. Female Pelvis: 15 Major Differences (With Diagram) - Viva Differences

 

Having read this false representation of my posts from elsewhere I'm inclined to think you really are looking for a fight with me. For now I have nothing more to say to you. But I will ask the courtesy of revealing what your user ID on DP is so I can check you out like you are doing with me.

 

I'm pro-choice. Abortion is killing. The whole point of an abortion is a dead fetus. You have to accept basic truths if you want to have any chance of winning a debate. Otherwise you've lost before it's started.

 

I’ve always been pro-choice so not quite sure from what dark place @Winter Sun is pulling her facts.

 

I likewise have always been pro choice. Had to do a quick search of my posts from DP regarding her statement about my position and came up empty handed. I think she must have me confused with someone else.

 

Some people have extreme views and believe that unless you support electively killing your fetus until the moment it's born that you're "pro-life." Most Americans are pro-choice, but have a cut off point. That says more about them than it does about you.

 

Even the SC (under the Roe decision) recognized that at some point the State had a legitimate interest in protecting the fetus. At the time it was decided the point of viability was at a later time than it is today, due to medical science. The question before the Court was when does the right of a person's choice end, not that the person had no choice. In other words the Court recognizes that choice is not absolute; there could (and should) be limits placed upon choices.

 

Technically Roe didn't use viability as a marker. Roe created a trimester framework, and the state's interest was regulated differently based on the trimester. Casey v PP is when the court effectively dismissed Roe and created the viability marker and expanded the rights of the states to be involved pre-viability.

 

I never said that you claimed to be pro life, I said you claimed that you considered abortion to be killing a baby. I don’t think you’re addressing anything I am actually saying. It’s like I’m not really having a conversation with you.

 

Never said that I believe abortion is killing babies either.

That's because you're addressing what you think I'm saying, instead of actually addressing what I do say. I'm not the problem here.

So, what's your handle on DP? Enquiring minds want to know. Are you trying to hide something?

 

Maybe we're not on the same page (or misunderstanding one another). The following seems to me to be a "marker" established by the SC.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54513499

 

Do you want me to post a screenshot of it? It’s somebody with the same username as you and they have a tiger avatar. I never really use my account over there. I briefly used my account and, but I do remember your username for some reason. I’ve never debated you over there or go into any big disagreement, so it’s not like I have some thing against you or this is personal between me and you. I promise you that. As I was reading some of your posts over there, I think you seem like a decent person, engages respectfully, but again, I don’t think I’ve ever engaged with you.

 

Not necessary, unless you want to "win"a point. I definitely don't recall ever saying it, other than as a hypothetical point. It doesn't fit my perspective.

I'll thank you for the compliment. I'm still interested in who you posted as. It would help me to get to know your POV better if I can look over your history of posting on DP.

 

I'm pro choice also. - Both the man and the woman can make a choice to have, or not to have, relations the may result in assembly of a third individual. I am also pro responsibility. You can't enjoy a right unless you take responsibility for your actions. Obseving your rights is my responsibility and observing my rights is your responsibility.

 

I was reading this exchange with Vegas. Like I said, I don’t think a lot of people who are calling themselves, pro-choice today, are pro choice, or even were pro choice before Dobbs.

I think some people are just redefining themselves and their labels because the court overreached. Roe has gained so much popularity and people are concerned, so it’s trendy to pretend you were always pro-choice, it’s just a virtue signaling IMO.

You’re taking a very moderate approached by saying, “the court did the right thing in overturning Roe but I’m so pro choice.” Before Dobbs, or pro choicer would’ve never wanted abortion rights overturn on a federal level. As a pro-choice person, it’s really hard to rationalize what you’re saying.

The reinvention I see reminds me of Sarah Palin running for VP, and a bunch of conservative men started getting really concerned about feminism and describing themselves as a feminist, because they cared about women’s rights and equality so much.

If you’re happy Roe is gone and women have to leave states to get medically necessary abortions, you’re not pro choice. I further suspect you’re not interested in fighting for Roe, or some thing better than Roe, to be encoded into law through Congress. You think Dobbs is good law, right?

https://debatepolitics.com/threads/abortion-insanity.434635/page-15

 

Most Americans (71%) Oppose Transgender Agenda

Most Americans oppose all political power grabs. This one is just a bit more insidious than most.

 

You wrote that he was not pro-choice.
Stand by what you write or concede that you have @Overitall's as well as my point of view on Womens' choice dead wrong.

What's your name over there, btw?

 

It's just more absurd gatekeeping. An unborn child is a legal term in many statutes. It's a correct term to use. It just offends people who prefer phrases like "a clump of cells," "parasite," and other dehumanizing terms.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/definit..._src=title:18:part:I:chapter:90A:section:1841