Something new about the Trans rights movement

Would similar logic not restrict a religious person from saying they believe I as an atheist am hellbound? Or that I as a bisexual person am a sinner for my homosexuality? They even say "abomination", but so long as it is kept within their own beliefs and utterances and not used to control my behaviour etc, society shuns them for it but doesn't make it illegal. That's part of free speech.

 

We undoubtedly agree on many things. Your position and presentation in this thread is a clear exception.

 

How significant a problem is this? I live in a very conservative part of the USA and nobody in the commercial world really gives a fecal material about sexual identity or orientation anymore. Don't give me some isolated anecdotal evidence. That doesn't establish a problem significant enough to warrant corrective legislation.

 

Narcissism is the official term for the personality disorder involved. It's a SCIENCE word.

 

Let me just say it again, louder for the hard of hearing:

All science has done at this time is observe changes. There is literally zero evidence or explanation for what CAUSED those changes. There is zero evidence for a genetic link, but plenty of evidence for the impact of stress hormones on neurochemistry, and thus the physical brain.

Your own links back this up. One is an emotive piece saying nothing much but "boo hoo", and the other actually closes with "it's not hard to imagine that this might blah blah blah". Nil evidence. Nil proofs. All just ideas and imaginings.

 

Who here has even once hinted that they would like to reduce the basic human rights (which we all share) of such individuals?

 

Of course nobody has, but in order to virtue signal you need to paint a villain to rage against.

 

Of course. If someone said "hey mister" to my face (I'm female), I'd find it funny but otherwise not important. If I had ongoing interractions with that person, I'd let them know I'm female as a politeness TO THEM, and leave it there. Beyond that is on them, not my problem.

 

Yup!

That is what happens when the FACTS are on my side!

 

Wrong AGAIN!

Gender DYSPHORIA is the term that you are UNAWARE of but don't let the FACTS stop you from being you.

 

Sorry to learn that you are hard of hearing.

As usual you are WRONG both about the SCIENCE because there have been NO CHANGES as far as REALITY goes, just an INCREASE in KNOWLEDGE instead,

The Scientific EVIDENCE establishes a basis for Transgenderism and the DEMOGRAPHICS are providing DATA confirming that it is MUCH more prevalent than originally understood.

 

Asinine non sequitur strawman response that does NOT address the CONTENT of my post.

Sad!

 

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!

Oh, the IRONY given that virtue signaling is EXACTLY what the OP did by RAGING against Transgender "villains" who are making him feel UNCOMFORTABLE.

 

Your position and presentation in this thread is a clear exception.

 

I uphold your right to your fallacious OPINION regarding Transgenders that they number "so few people that it can be addressed on a case by case basis" (#72) but the FACTUAL DATA supports my position, not yours.

 

You know what this reminds me of, and for the first time? Hippies used to rage in the 60's against "the establishment." It was unclear who specifically this referred to, though presumably all elected officials, all business owners, and all CEO's of publicly held corporations qualified. This is the reason, I think, that they said "the establishment," because when you got down to cases, no specific person was ordering them to get a haircut, learn the foxtrot, buy a Chevrolet, live in the suburbs, vote, listen to Glenn Miller, or wear a necktie to work. You had to report to the draft board and not smoke marijuana, so there was that, I suppose.

 

I'll say it again, so you know what to go away and research.

There is only OBSERVED CHANGES. There is zero knowledge of or evidence for the CAUSE of those changes. We have no way of knowing if they're genetic, or environmental. We are nowhere near solving this puzzle, and unfortunately we likely never will now that the science has been compromised by 'religion'. It's ****ing medieval.

 

Try again. Who here has argued for a reduction in the universal human rights we all share?

 

REPEATING your prior FALLACY does not make it any less FALLACIOUS.

 

Regurgitating your asinine STRAWMAN ignored because it is STILL a strawman.

 

I'm sorry to embarrass you further, but you are flat out wrong. Check the science. There is no knowledge whatsoever on what causes observed neurological changes. NONE. ZERO. All we we know is that there are changes present.

 

You guys claim people here want to deny certain people their basic human rights. That has been openly suggested, so no strawmen involved. Now show us an example of this denial of basic human rights. Just one will do.

 

Science DENIALISM on your part does NOT alter FACTUAL reality.

 

Your ORIGINAL bovine excrement STRAWMAN;

Hope that you did not HURT yourself MOVING those strawman GOALPOSTS of yours.

Sad!

 

The only basic human right I see being infringed is that of free speech. The trans lobby (and I feel bad calling it that because most trans people do not do this) is pushing to compel speech and even thought control.

I have a problem when Christian Conservatives try to do this. I have a problem when liberal "progressives" try to do this. It doesn't matter if I happen to agree with the belief is being forced or not. It is the forcing of it that I object to.