I don't mean to start a politics topic, but this would be a transgender topic. Will we be able to save them?

[Tacenda]

I know a lot of us have trans people in our families, extended families. 

How does this sit with you? Or with anyone, we all have decency, or is it slowly eroding? 

 

Edited September 20, 2025 by Tacenda

[Raingirl]

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I know a lot of us have trans people in our families, extended families. 

How does this sit with you? Or with anyone, we all have decency, or is it slowly eroding? 

 

I’m sure this will get shut down for being political, but Nancy Mace is a despicable person.  
 

Institutionalizing someone simply for being transgender is wrong on so many levels, I can’t even articulate how wrong it is. 

[Pyreaux]

The Congressional Equality Caucus's press release states that Representatives Nancy Mace and Ronny Jackson are "calling for transgender people to be locked up against their will and institutionalized." The phrase "locked up against their will" is the caucus's own interpretation to define "institutionalize", if that word was used. There is a common tactic in political rhetoric, to rephrase an opponent's words in the most unflattering light possible to highlight what one believes is the true, underlying intent.

My search for the exact, unedited quotes from Mace and Jackson using the term "institutionalize" does not immediately yield them.

One could argue that they were using "institutionalize" in a hyperbolic way, similar to someone who may say, "these people are crazy, they should be institutionalized," without literally calling for legal action. In this view, it's a way to express disapproval and to align with a political base that believes being transgender is a mental illness, even if they know involuntary commitment is not a viable option.

Institutionalization can be voluntary, where an individual seeks help and agrees to be admitted, or involuntary, where a person is committed against their will. In most jurisdictions, involuntary commitment is a high legal bar, typically reserved for individuals who are deemed a danger to themselves or others due to a severe mental health condition. Simply being transgender, even if considered a mental illness, does not meet this criterion.

Some transgender individuals may experience mental health challenges such as depression or anxiety, or gender dysphoria (the discomfort a person may feel about their born gender identity). However, the standard of care for these issues is therapy or support groups.

The Right to Self-Determination

People have a right to self-determination. This includes the right to define one's own identity, including gender identity. Our Western society tends to learn our LGBT lessons from Christmas films. In the film Miracle on 34th Street, the court must determine if the man is a danger to himself or others, or if he is simply a person with a different belief. The film's conclusion, that he is not a danger, and therefore should not be institutionalized, mirrors the legal standard for involuntary commitment.

Involuntary Institutionalization for a person simply because they are transgender would be a violation of their human rights and is not a medically or ethically sound practice. Though if they were saying there is a need for mental health care for transgender individuals to address any co-occurring issues of depression or anxiety, or gender dysphoria, then maybe voluntary institutionalize them, and involuntarily if they meant to stop self-harm or violence, or if they are underage, maybe. Because, I think I believe in parent's rights, even dumb parents.

Edited September 21, 2025 by Pyreaux

[Calm]

Too political…

Edited September 20, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

Too political…

Edited September 20, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

 

Tacenda, I should have sent this to you privately as too political.  Feel free to reach out in the future and I will try to remember to respond privately if I go political as well.  Sorry mods, been deleted.

Added:  you are maxed out on message space, I am guessing…

Edited September 20, 2025 by Calm

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I know a lot of us have trans people in our families, extended families. 

How does this sit with you? Or with anyone, we all have decency, or is it slowly eroding? 

 

I think it’s idiotic 

[rpn]

It will never cease to amaze me how and why people desire to control the entire world and every one in it, but only if they get to choose what is okay or not.   Can't help but wonder how our world could be better by teaching truth without putting down those who don't recognize truth at the moment.

[gopher]

Politicians are supposed to say stupid stuff.  Mace has been receiving death threats from transgender activists so she's not happy with them right now.

But I'm not sure the right is in the mood to be lectured by a left wing advocacy group.   Just a few days ago there was more proof that stupidity is bipartisan when a school board member said about Kirk, “Call me old-fashioned, but I remember when we used to be okay with shooting Nazis.”  She is out of job now.

Who is going to take the lead in restoring decency to our society?

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

 

Tacenda, I should have sent this to you privately as too political.  Feel free to reach out in the future and I will try to remember to respond privately if I go political as well.  Sorry mods, been deleted.

Added:  you are maxed out on message space, I am guessing…

I deleted quite a few messages, so it should go through now if you still want to send something. It was sad to see a few messages, such as Papa's. I wonder how he's doing. 

[bsjkki]

Original source. https://www.instagram.com/reel/DOroDsNkXWF/
 

 

[Stargazer]

Wow, way too political. Anticipating Nemesis's vengeful arrival in 3... 2... 1...

 

Edited September 22, 2025 by Stargazer

[Damien the Leper]

This rhetoric is maddening. Conditionalising our human worth is absolutely obscene and reprehensible. So much talk of "Christian" values and so little attention to the words of Jesus. It's too bad that the Beatitudes isn't the kick in the butt we need.

[Stargazer]

14 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

This rhetoric is maddening. Conditionalising our human worth is absolutely obscene and reprehensible. So much talk of "Christian" values and so little attention to the words of Jesus. It's too bad that the Beatitudes isn't the kick in the butt we need.

I'm not even sure what the OP is asking, and I definitely don't know what you're complaining about in connection with it. Clarification, please?

[Tacenda]

On 9/20/2025 at 10:28 PM, bsjkki said:

Original source. https://www.instagram.com/reel/DOroDsNkXWF/
 

 

I appreciate the video with Representative Mace and it showing the context of my topic post.  Good to see that she's probably the only one voicing the subject of this topic, which is to put the transgenders away in mental institutions. And she's obviously dealing with some things from her past and having been abused. I hope she will get some mental therapy for that if she needs it. 

I do agree this is too political, shouldn't have posted it since it's probably not something that will happen that of putting trans into institutions or in straight jackets etc.

I know a stalwart LDS family who has a son that transitioned to being female. I empathize with them, I'm pretty sure they worry for their daughter and the climate out there now. 

 

 

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

know a stalwart LDS family who has a son that transitioned to being female. I empathize with them, I'm pretty sure they worry for their daughter and the climate out there now. 

We have a transgender young woman in our ward, one of our most active, devout families, who are still active, still devout.  She has socially transitioned for a couple of years now, don’t know about any medical interventions.  I believe she is still attending as well, but going off of a friend’s report since it’s been awhile since I made it.

Edited September 24, 2025 by Calm

[Damien the Leper]

On 9/24/2025 at 3:00 PM, Stargazer said:

I'm not even sure what the OP is asking, and I definitely don't know what you're complaining about in connection with it. Clarification, please?

I'm speaking of the institutionalisation of Trans people. The institutionalisation isn't coming from a place of love but bigotry and false morality. 

[Stargazer]

10 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

I'm speaking of the institutionalisation of Trans people. The institutionalisation isn't coming from a place of love but bigotry and false morality. 

Ah, yes. Thanks.

Given the recent spate of fatal violence committed by trans persons, wouldn't it be reasonable for there being a legitimate concern that some members of that community may be dangerous both to themselves and others? Obviously blanket institutionalization of persons with gender dysphoria is ridiculous, but on a case by case basis there may be some justification for concern. Or do you feel there's no cause for concern?

Edited September 26, 2025 by Stargazer

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Given the recent spate of fatal violence committed by trans persons, wouldn't it be reasonable for there being a legitimate concern that some members of that community may be dangerous both to themselves and others?

Is their violence any more associated with their identity as transgender than others who have been violent whose identities are Christian, Antitheists, Republican, Democrats, etc?

If the same, do you see it as reasonable for there to a legitimate concern that some members of those various communities may be dangerous both to themselves and others?

If you see their violence as somehow significantly different in relation to their chosen identity, please explain why.

Edited September 26, 2025 by Calm

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Given the recent spate of fatal violence committed by trans persons, wouldn't it be reasonable for there being a legitimate concern that some members of that community may be dangerous both to themselves and others? Obviously blanket institutionalization of persons with gender dysphoria is ridiculous, but on a case by case basis there may be some justification for concern. Or do you feel there's no cause for concern?

Let me point out the idiocy of this comment.

There is always a significant level of violence by men against their partners (married or otherwise). Isn't it reasonable (using the same logic that you put forward) that we should all have a legitimate concern that men in our community may be dangerous - both to themselves and others?

There are a lot of problems with the current rhetoric against transgendered persons. Take your comments here. The biggest problem - especially in connection with the murder of Kirk, is that the killer wasn't transgendered. Violence is far more likely to be enacted on those who are transgendered rather than by those who are transgendered. The rhetoric is a smokescreen of sorts. It is clear that there is a link between transgendered people and mental health issues (this is, in fact, directly related to the core problem of gender dysphoria - the condition you mention). Preventing people from treating gender dysphoria doesn't make these mental health issues improve - it makes them worse (treatment - including transgender transitioning steps - does significantly reduce mental health concerns - it is well documented). So let's take a look at this for a moment. If mental health issues connected to gender dysphoria make people a danger both to themselves and others (your suggestion), then the best result would be to treat the condition, alleviate the mental health concerns, thereby reducing their risk to others and themselves. But that isn't what is suggested here. What is being suggested is that we prevent treatment - and because our prevention of that treatment places them at greater risk for mental health concerns, we need to then identify them, and institutionalize them (as necessary*) to prevent them from doing harm to others or to themselves. Where does any of this actually make sense? The reality is that when we repress a minority, when we take away their voice, when we dehumanize them, we increase the likelihood that they will view violence as an option of last resort. To then blame that violence on their underlying condition. It is not that dissimilar from the Nazis requiring a registry of all the Jews on the basis that the Jews presented a real threat to society. Part of the historical process of suppression of minorities is that when minorities are suppressed, to use their response to that suppression in a circular argument to justify the ongoing and continuing need for suppression. 

I can already see in your comments how effective this false narrative has become. Your suggestion is that we should use gender dysphoria as an indicator for potential violence. When you misrepresent transgenderism as the cause of the violence, you become part of the problem.

And to make a point to all of this, and because I am already at risk (of course) of being put on the FBI's potential list, my transgendered son is not a violent person. They have experiences significant intolerance. His response to much of this is to get clearance from his employer for a transfer to a European assignment if the need should arise. These attempts to turn transgender people into violent offenders are nothing more than a way to try and misdirect attention away from the violence that is being enacted on that group - a group that is subjected to violence and murder at a much higher rate than the rest of the population - and which is having trouble finding support and justice from the current administration.

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Ah, yes. Thanks.

Given the recent spate of fatal violence committed by trans persons, wouldn't it be reasonable for there being a legitimate concern that some members of that community may be dangerous both to themselves and others? Obviously blanket institutionalization of persons with gender dysphoria is ridiculous, but on a case by case basis there may be some justification for concern. Or do you feel there's no cause for concern?

 

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Let me point out the idiocy of this comment.

There is always a significant level of violence by men against their partners (married or otherwise). Isn't it reasonable (using the same logic that you put forward) that we should all have a legitimate concern that men in our community may be dangerous - both to themselves and others?

There are a lot of problems with the current rhetoric against transgendered persons. Take your comments here. The biggest problem - especially in connection with the murder of Kirk, is that the killer wasn't transgendered. Violence is far more likely to be enacted on those who are transgendered rather than by those who are transgendered. The rhetoric is a smokescreen of sorts. It is clear that there is a link between transgendered people and mental health issues (this is, in fact, directly related to the core problem of gender dysphoria - the condition you mention). Preventing people from treating gender dysphoria doesn't make these mental health issues improve - it makes them worse (treatment - including transgender transitioning steps - does significantly reduce mental health concerns - it is well documented). So let's take a look at this for a moment. If mental health issues connected to gender dysphoria make people a danger both to themselves and others (your suggestion), then the best result would be to treat the condition, alleviate the mental health concerns, thereby reducing their risk to others and themselves. But that isn't what is suggested here. What is being suggested is that we prevent treatment - and because our prevention of that treatment places them at greater risk for mental health concerns, we need to then identify them, and institutionalize them (as necessary*) to prevent them from doing harm to others or to themselves. Where does any of this actually make sense? The reality is that when we repress a minority, when we take away their voice, when we dehumanize them, we increase the likelihood that they will view violence as an option of last resort. To then blame that violence on their underlying condition. It is not that dissimilar from the Nazis requiring a registry of all the Jews on the basis that the Jews presented a real threat to society. Part of the historical process of suppression of minorities is that when minorities are suppressed, to use their response to that suppression in a circular argument to justify the ongoing and continuing need for suppression. 

I can already see in your comments how effective this false narrative has become. Your suggestion is that we should use gender dysphoria as an indicator for potential violence. When you misrepresent transgenderism as the cause of the violence, you become part of the problem.

And to make a point to all of this, and because I am already at risk (of course) of being put on the FBI's potential list, my transgendered son is not a violent person. They have experiences significant intolerance. His response to much of this is to get clearance from his employer for a transfer to a European assignment if the need should arise. These attempts to turn transgender people into violent offenders are nothing more than a way to try and misdirect attention away from the violence that is being enacted on that group - a group that is subjected to violence and murder at a much higher rate than the rest of the population - and which is having trouble finding support and justice from the current administration.

This is the reason for my post, safety of all our citizens in the USA. Thanks for this input Benjamin! I hope your son can get the assignment and it's a sad day for everyone, should be everyone, when they fear for their family's safety, in a "free" country.

[longview]

5 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Take your comments here. The biggest problem - especially in connection with the murder of Kirk, is that the killer wasn't transgendered.

Tyler Robinson is a homosexual co-inhabiting with a man who claims to be transgendered. Just imagine the two getting themselves worked-up to a feverish pitch with their continual consumption of leftist propaganda with their vile and violent hate speech against conservatives and patriots and traditionalists. It looks like the partner is making "himself" scarce so "he" won't have to deal with the crush of reporters.

In the wise words of @Stargazer found in his signature block:

"Advocating for the punching of Nazis is in principle no different from shooting Charlie Kirk because you believe he was a homophobe, transphobe, fascist, racist, sexist, or some other -ist. He was none of those things, but because elements of one side decided to label him as such, it gave license to a "true believer" to eliminate him. Christ said love your enemies, not punch them."

@The Nehor seriously needs to repent for advocating the punching of anyone. Especially if they are unjustly "mislabeled".

Edited September 26, 2025 by longview

[Calm]

Have you read the texts with his partner, Longview, that were in the charges?  They did not sound like the partner was even close to a feverish pitch, more expressing concern than inciting.  No ‘wow!  You struck a blow for LGBT rights!’  No reassurance he had done the right thing.  Shock and disbelief instead.  No idea he was going to do it.  Robinson is apologetic to them even. There is no indication the partner ever advocated for violence of any kind at this point.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c99g1e0z2ero

You are, imo, defaming the partner with only the evidence of them being transgender by suggesting they directly contributed to Tyler’s state of mind.

Throw the book at Tyler, but at this point we shouldn’t be assuming the partner was at fault in any way any more than the spouses and children of the MMM killers were inciting their husbands and fathers to go out and kill innocents just because they were Mormon and it was Mormons who committed the killings.

And what is wrong with not wanting to engage with reporters?  It is not just an inconvenience.  It is dangerous to put themselves out there.  They have a right to their privacy, they don’t owe the public their story.  Would you think it odd if Charlie Kirk’s widow, like many loved ones of victims and killers, had asked that her family’s privacy be respected and not give any statement to the press?  She and Charlie made a big effort to protect their kids’ privacy in the past.  I think it likely she will continue to do so.  If my husband or son (my daughter won’t touch guns) went berserk and killed someone intentionally, I wouldn’t be out in public saying anything either just because people were curious about what I could say or about me personally or were demanding I justify how I could live with a monster and not know it.

This young partner is going to be a target of hate and possibly violence for a long time now because of the actions of Robinson.  Doing nothing that makes them more recognizable or draws more attention is very, very wise, imo.

Quote

Christ said love your enemies, not punch them."

Nothing in there about it being okay to defame them though….

Quote

seriously needs to repent for advocating the punching of anyone

I don’t disagree with this if speaking of assaulting someone only for the reason of political ideology.  I also don’t think it appropriate to defame someone as advocating for violence without evidence of them of them doing so as you have done with the partner.  Have you considered how some might take that as justification to retaliate against the partner for Robinson’s behaviour?

Edited September 26, 2025 by Calm

[Stargazer]

On 9/26/2025 at 12:15 PM, Calm said:

Is their violence any more associated with their identity as transgender than others who have been violent whose identities are Christian, Antitheists, Republican, Democrats, etc?

I think it may be something to study, given the recent mass violence committed by transgenders. They've already certainly studied murders of transgender persons, of which there have been too many.

On 9/26/2025 at 12:15 PM, Calm said:

If the same, do you see it as reasonable for there to a legitimate concern that some members of those various communities may be dangerous both to themselves and others?

The standard talk in certain circles is that if we don't let everyone with gender dysphoria express themselves openly and if we don't support their delusion, then they will delete themselves. If that is true, then they are definitely dangerous to themselves. As for dangerous to others... 

On 9/26/2025 at 12:15 PM, Calm said:

If you see their violence as somehow significantly different in relation to their chosen identity, please explain why.

"Chosen identity"? Whatever does that mean? 

If a man chooses to become or identify as a KKK member then do you think that he might be significantly more likely to commit violence? How about choosing the identity of Antifa? 

As for sexual identity, with certain rare exceptions, people are born male or female. One cannot become the opposite from one's birth sex. One can certainly decide to present as the opposite, but this changes appearances only. And now, in our misguided attempts to be uber-tolerant, it is now illegal in Canada to misgender someone. Nowadays, more people are arrested in the UK for social media posts than apparently in Russia. This usually involves offending people by disrespecting Islam, transgenders, immigrants of both kinds, and saying bad words. 

 

[Stargazer]

On 9/26/2025 at 12:58 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Let me point out the idiocy of this comment.

There is always a significant level of violence by men against their partners (married or otherwise). Isn't it reasonable (using the same logic that you put forward) that we should all have a legitimate concern that men in our community may be dangerous - both to themselves and others?

There are a lot of problems with the current rhetoric against transgendered persons. Take your comments here. The biggest problem - especially in connection with the murder of Kirk, is that the killer wasn't transgendered. Violence is far more likely to be enacted on those who are transgendered rather than by those who are transgendered. The rhetoric is a smokescreen of sorts. It is clear that there is a link between transgendered people and mental health issues (this is, in fact, directly related to the core problem of gender dysphoria - the condition you mention). Preventing people from treating gender dysphoria doesn't make these mental health issues improve - it makes them worse (treatment - including transgender transitioning steps - does significantly reduce mental health concerns - it is well documented). So let's take a look at this for a moment. If mental health issues connected to gender dysphoria make people a danger both to themselves and others (your suggestion), then the best result would be to treat the condition, alleviate the mental health concerns, thereby reducing their risk to others and themselves. But that isn't what is suggested here. What is being suggested is that we prevent treatment - and because our prevention of that treatment places them at greater risk for mental health concerns, we need to then identify them, and institutionalize them (as necessary*) to prevent them from doing harm to others or to themselves. Where does any of this actually make sense? The reality is that when we repress a minority, when we take away their voice, when we dehumanize them, we increase the likelihood that they will view violence as an option of last resort. To then blame that violence on their underlying condition. It is not that dissimilar from the Nazis requiring a registry of all the Jews on the basis that the Jews presented a real threat to society. Part of the historical process of suppression of minorities is that when minorities are suppressed, to use their response to that suppression in a circular argument to justify the ongoing and continuing need for suppression. 

I can already see in your comments how effective this false narrative has become. Your suggestion is that we should use gender dysphoria as an indicator for potential violence. When you misrepresent transgenderism as the cause of the violence, you become part of the problem.

And to make a point to all of this, and because I am already at risk (of course) of being put on the FBI's potential list, my transgendered son is not a violent person. They have experiences significant intolerance. His response to much of this is to get clearance from his employer for a transfer to a European assignment if the need should arise. These attempts to turn transgender people into violent offenders are nothing more than a way to try and misdirect attention away from the violence that is being enacted on that group - a group that is subjected to violence and murder at a much higher rate than the rest of the population - and which is having trouble finding support and justice from the current administration.

OK, I'm an idiot.