Jump to content

How do you love your queer neighbor?


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

... People being upset that other people don’t have romantic interest in them is nothing new ...

:angry: Tell me about it!  I've spent my entire life being absolutely pi$$ed!! :angry: 

:rofl: :D :rofl: 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

... There is a delay in a lot of these things. The Left fights it out internally and largely reaches a consensus while the Right acts as if the controversy is still alive and well or that old junked ideas are still the goal of the left. The whole Leftists want hundreds of different pronouns and genders thing for example. There are really about 13 genders experts actually care about and many of those overlap or are replacement terms. There was a brief internet fad of people choosing their pronouns but it mostly died off as an insufferable fad. ...

:huh: :unsure: Umm ... yeah ... sure.  Okay. :huh: :unsure: 

Link to comment
On 4/7/2022 at 10:21 PM, kimpearson said:

... I think that is exactly why the Savior condemned so strongly lawyers, scribes, priests, pharisees and Sadducee's. ... [sic]

You seem to have trouble punctuating plurals properly (Oooh!  Alliteration! :D) so let me help you there:

image.gif.991c751c640eb71d9a70b6f4142cbdfd.gif... I think that i's exactly why the S'avior condemned s'o s'trongly lawyer's, s'cribe's, priest's, pharisee's and S'adducee's. ...

There!  All fixed!  Just add an apostrophe any time you see an "s," and you'll be good.  Punctuating words that contain the letter "s" is a lot more work than people realize, and, in some ways, it might look weird, but, trust me, it's proper:

One must have good s'ens'e to determine the occasion's when one should u'se apostrophe's.

[/PUNCTUATION NAZI MODE OFF] ;) :D 

Link to comment

Oh.  And how do I love my queer neighbor?  Exactly the same way I love my straight neighbor.  The subject never comes up, but if it did, I would probably simply shrug, wish the happy couple well if the occasion called for it (or do so mentally in any case), and go on about my day. 

I don't spend all day, every day upset that someone's life doesn't fit the paradigm by which I have chosen to live my own.  From where I sit, there are much more important things to worry about.  As worried as I might be about anything that might be considered some sort of a harbinger of societal decline, in my book, there are quite a few things happening now that concern me much more than gay marriage or gay relationships do. :unknw: 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

:huh: :unsure: Umm ... yeah ... sure.  Okay. :huh: :unsure: 

By that I don’t mean there aren’t people selecting pronouns from the options if that is what you are skeptical of that. That happens. I mean there aren’t many people making up new oddball ones like they are designing a custom t-shirt. There are some but they get eye rolls when they do it. If you meet one when in the wild do not show weakness but do not engage.

It is like dealing with someone who describes themselves as “a citizen of the world” to people or yet another person with a mixed ethnic background going abroad to ‘connect with their roots’ and tells you about it all the time and refers everything back to it as if their journey of self-discovery is amazing. I also hear they write endless papers about it in upper level humanities classes. I know a professor in a humanities field and he has grown to loathe those papers.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It would surprise people in other regions of the internet that there is somewhere I am considered progressive.

This is not a new thing. There have always been niche reactionary groups in progressive groups. In some darker gay male spaces you find a lot of misogyny. Same with lesbian spaces and misandry. I don’t want to suggest it is pervasive. It is not but these niche groups are out there. The TERFs are largely despised by progressives in general. The term though was coined way back in 2008. It is an old term. I guess it only hit a lot of the general public consciousness with the J.K. Rowling tweet scandal. It has been an internal battle within feminism with TERFs seeing trans-women as interlopers and the rest seeing them as women. There have been attempts to label the term TERF as a slur but since it is an accurately descriptive acronym it survives.

There is a delay in a lot of these things. The Left fights it out internally and largely reaches a consensus while the Right acts as if the controversy is still alive and well or that old junked ideas are still the goal of the left. The whole Leftists want hundreds of different pronouns and genders thing for example. There are really about 13 genders experts actually care about and many of those overlap or are replacement terms. There was a brief internet fad of people choosing their pronouns but it mostly died off as an insufferable fad. Most experts push for he/him, she/her, or they,their with the latter also trying to overthrow still technically being only plural. There are a few others some advocate for but the idea of everyone picking their own individualized pronouns to use and expect the whole world to know and use has been shot down as onerous and dumb. It survives only in the snowflakeist parts of the internet in a few toxic echo chambers in the same areas as you find the pro-anorexia people with a lot of crossover between these toxic ideas.

This whole gender thing is also leading to a general shift in the perception of sexuality which a lot of people don’t like (and many of them are homosexuals and transgender individuals). This paradigm which accepts a sense of fluidity in all gender specifics and sexuality and doesn’t explicitly acknowledge heterosexuality as an orientation. Saying you are heterosexual in this new paradigm might be like someone saying they are only attracted to brunettes. You might be more attracted to them generally but it would be weird to fixate on. I am not sure I like this new paradigm. I admit there are parts I like but there are also parts I find very concerning. It may die a stillbirth or it may spread. I suspect the latter but I am not sure what I hope for. The Church will have a lot of fun grappling with that one.

I am digressing a little bit here. The main point is that the Right’s caricature of the Left for the last few decades always seems to be about 5 to 20 years out of date which is why their propaganda rarely converts, it generally only supports a preexisting belief. A joke about hundreds of genders might make some people laugh but makes the Left roll their eyes at the old fossils mocking stuff that is not that relevant. A lot of the internal infighting that many are surprised about has already been fought and the winners pretty well decided. There are always some people still fighting the old fight but the intellectual battles are over so I don’t think these groups will impact the larger fight beyond giving some forces on the Right the idea that they have allies. They do but these allies are cut off from the mainstream. I am reminded of the time I was playing out a simulation of World War 1 and towards the end the Central Powers were losing pretty historically but then suddenly out of nowhere a fluke somehow made Mexico join the Central Powers. It had a morale impact in the game but was strategically meaningless and they still lost even with their new ally. I see this as being similar. The Left’s battles are elsewhere and would be more worrying to the Right if they had any idea what they were but both sides aren’t talking in the US. There isn’t much to discuss in any case. One ideology is mired in lots of divisions and has lost the support of virtually everyone with any real convictions and the other has abandoned all their old principles so who knows what they will turn into.

I apologize if I am being too abstract. It is very late.

As to counseling and medicating kids I am torn in half. The idealist in me wants to see children and their parents working together through difficult decisions about the child’s future. The pragmatist in me knows that requiring notification of parents when their child expresses any interest in gender nonconformity is going to lead to domestic abuse of some of the children. Quite a lot of domestic abuse. Way too much physical but a lot more emotional and verbal. More than I am comfortable with of all of them. I don’t know. I volunteered enough in CPS cases to know that many parents are horrible. Far too often love isn’t there and instead the child is seen as an extension of the parent that deserves no autonomy. There is a reason that there are whole communities of estranged parents bemoaning their cruel children that have thrown away the parent’s love. There are genuine cases where that happens but alarm bells go off in my head when I hear it.

On the other hand I don’t really trust schools and the government to help these kids. Even with the best of intentions the bureaucracy often screws things up and any programs to help children in difficult situations are always underfunded. God may not be kind to our generation when he asks how we treated the literal and defacto orphans. Perhaps the sad part is that we are saints in this area compared to most of history and that is in no way impressive. I would like kids experiencing this to have access to resources if they justifiably fear abuse but I see no practical way for that to happen. I expect that parents will win the fight and the children will be outed. Some few with good parents might get help but I think most will be battered physically, verbally, and/or emotionally to cure them. We have already seen the rise of transgender conversion therapies to cure these kids. They are going as well as the gay conversion therapies were and still are since they are still out there doing their thing. In short I hate both options. My heart leans towards allowing the kids to hide it from their parents. It will have negative consequences where parents who could have helped their children are kept in the dark but in most cases parents who genuinely love their children the children will not hide their problems from them until they get that bad. I also don’t want teachers acting as spies for parents nor do I want children thrown back into unhealthy home environments with even more susceptibility and “reasons” to be abused. I know that using the word “reasons” is wrong there but from the viewpoint of the abuser it is accurate though morally it is reprehensible.

Part of me thinks we need to redefine adulthood downward a few years and make the age of majority a more transitional thing. 21 was the original age in British common law but people younger than 21 were sitting in Parliament. Kids could legally indenture themselves which is probably a bad idea to bring back. I would like to see a more general transition ending maybe at 25 when the brain is supposed to be done. Maybe something that an 18 year old college student can’t be in debt for life because they made an idiotic school loan decision at 18? I know this is not happening. The “defend the children” defense brigade is literally being led by violently insane people so calls to reevaluate adulthood would be seen as an attack on parental rights.

Instead everyone is worried about the integrity of girl’s sport teams as if that is where the most harm is being done with governors and legislatures creating legislation and in at least one case changing the winner of an event at least in one state’s eyes. It would be funny if it weren’t a smokescreen to hide the real problems that are leading kids to lose all hope or to end their lives or push them towards abuse.

God help us.

Like!! Thank you for your service in helping children, Nehor!

Link to comment
13 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I'm surprised that she feels that way, totally surprised that she isn't empathetic to other's feelings, because she is in the same spot, with not being the so called norm. 

No need to feel surprised, she just believes what is true. She is a no nonsense kind of person, and I love her just as she is, it is the world that has gone mad, especially in women’s sports. Who would have ever thought, saying there are only two sexes, would be controversial? Especially on this website, where truth, and the defense of that truth has always been the goal.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It would surprise people in other regions of the internet that there is somewhere I am considered progressive.

This is not a new thing. There have always been niche reactionary groups in progressive groups. In some darker gay male spaces you find a lot of misogyny. Same with lesbian spaces and misandry. I don’t want to suggest it is pervasive. It is not but these niche groups are out there. The TERFs are largely despised by progressives in general. The term though was coined way back in 2008. It is an old term. I guess it only hit a lot of the general public consciousness with the J.K. Rowling tweet scandal. It has been an internal battle within feminism with TERFs seeing trans-women as interlopers and the rest seeing them as women. There have been attempts to label the term TERF as a slur but since it is an accurately descriptive acronym it survives.

There is a delay in a lot of these things. The Left fights it out internally and largely reaches a consensus while the Right acts as if the controversy is still alive and well or that old junked ideas are still the goal of the left. The whole Leftists want hundreds of different pronouns and genders thing for example. There are really about 13 genders experts actually care about and many of those overlap or are replacement terms. There was a brief internet fad of people choosing their pronouns but it mostly died off as an insufferable fad. Most experts push for he/him, she/her, or they,their with the latter also trying to overthrow still technically being only plural. There are a few others some advocate for but the idea of everyone picking their own individualized pronouns to use and expect the whole world to know and use has been shot down as onerous and dumb. It survives only in the snowflakeist parts of the internet in a few toxic echo chambers in the same areas as you find the pro-anorexia people with a lot of crossover between these toxic ideas.

This whole gender thing is also leading to a general shift in the perception of sexuality which a lot of people don’t like (and many of them are homosexuals and transgender individuals). This paradigm which accepts a sense of fluidity in all gender specifics and sexuality and doesn’t explicitly acknowledge heterosexuality as an orientation. Saying you are heterosexual in this new paradigm might be like someone saying they are only attracted to brunettes. You might be more attracted to them generally but it would be weird to fixate on. I am not sure I like this new paradigm. I admit there are parts I like but there are also parts I find very concerning. It may die a stillbirth or it may spread. I suspect the latter but I am not sure what I hope for. The Church will have a lot of fun grappling with that one.

I am digressing a little bit here. The main point is that the Right’s caricature of the Left for the last few decades always seems to be about 5 to 20 years out of date which is why their propaganda rarely converts, it generally only supports a preexisting belief. A joke about hundreds of genders might make some people laugh but makes the Left roll their eyes at the old fossils mocking stuff that is not that relevant. A lot of the internal infighting that many are surprised about has already been fought and the winners pretty well decided. There are always some people still fighting the old fight but the intellectual battles are over so I don’t think these groups will impact the larger fight beyond giving some forces on the Right the idea that they have allies. They do but these allies are cut off from the mainstream. I am reminded of the time I was playing out a simulation of World War 1 and towards the end the Central Powers were losing pretty historically but then suddenly out of nowhere a fluke somehow made Mexico join the Central Powers. It had a morale impact in the game but was strategically meaningless and they still lost even with their new ally. I see this as being similar. The Left’s battles are elsewhere and would be more worrying to the Right if they had any idea what they were but both sides aren’t talking in the US. There isn’t much to discuss in any case. One ideology is mired in lots of divisions and has lost the support of virtually everyone with any real convictions and the other has abandoned all their old principles so who knows what they will turn into.

I apologize if I am being too abstract. It is very late.

As to counseling and medicating kids I am torn in half. The idealist in me wants to see children and their parents working together through difficult decisions about the child’s future. The pragmatist in me knows that requiring notification of parents when their child expresses any interest in gender nonconformity is going to lead to domestic abuse of some of the children. Quite a lot of domestic abuse. Way too much physical but a lot more emotional and verbal. More than I am comfortable with of all of them. I don’t know. I volunteered enough in CPS cases to know that many parents are horrible. Far too often love isn’t there and instead the child is seen as an extension of the parent that deserves no autonomy. There is a reason that there are whole communities of estranged parents bemoaning their cruel children that have thrown away the parent’s love. There are genuine cases where that happens but alarm bells go off in my head when I hear it.

On the other hand I don’t really trust schools and the government to help these kids. Even with the best of intentions the bureaucracy often screws things up and any programs to help children in difficult situations are always underfunded. God may not be kind to our generation when he asks how we treated the literal and defacto orphans. Perhaps the sad part is that we are saints in this area compared to most of history and that is in no way impressive. I would like kids experiencing this to have access to resources if they justifiably fear abuse but I see no practical way for that to happen. I expect that parents will win the fight and the children will be outed. Some few with good parents might get help but I think most will be battered physically, verbally, and/or emotionally to cure them. We have already seen the rise of transgender conversion therapies to cure these kids. They are going as well as the gay conversion therapies were and still are since they are still out there doing their thing. In short I hate both options. My heart leans towards allowing the kids to hide it from their parents. It will have negative consequences where parents who could have helped their children are kept in the dark but in most cases parents who genuinely love their children the children will not hide their problems from them until they get that bad. I also don’t want teachers acting as spies for parents nor do I want children thrown back into unhealthy home environments with even more susceptibility and “reasons” to be abused. I know that using the word “reasons” is wrong there but from the viewpoint of the abuser it is accurate though morally it is reprehensible.

Part of me thinks we need to redefine adulthood downward a few years and make the age of majority a more transitional thing. 21 was the original age in British common law but people younger than 21 were sitting in Parliament. Kids could legally indenture themselves which is probably a bad idea to bring back. I would like to see a more general transition ending maybe at 25 when the brain is supposed to be done. Maybe something that an 18 year old college student can’t be in debt for life because they made an idiotic school loan decision at 18? I know this is not happening. The “defend the children” defense brigade is literally being led by violently insane people so calls to reevaluate adulthood would be seen as an attack on parental rights.

Instead everyone is worried about the integrity of girl’s sport teams as if that is where the most harm is being done with governors and legislatures creating legislation and in at least one case changing the winner of an event at least in one state’s eyes. It would be funny if it weren’t a smokescreen to hide the real problems that are leading kids to lose all hope or to end their lives or push them towards abuse.

God help us.

 There is a lot to digest here, but thank you for putting this together!

Link to comment
56 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Like!! Thank you for your service in helping children, Nehor!

Since you bring up “children”, schools are now trying to discuss and teach “transsexuality”, a word that did not appear in the dictionary not that long ago. Also some school systems are fighting for the right to teach about such, at an obscene age, including kindergarten. Things no one that age should hear or see. Also, to do so without the consent or knowledge of their parents. Citing the need of “protecting them from their parents”. Noting that these tender age children, somehow need protection from their parents. Not protection because of visible bruising, or broken arms, but ideas. As if children, of such a tender age, have made up their minds what they want, or need, beyond recess. while their main focus still remains on what beyond recess. Some teachers unions are also fighting to keep secret from parents that school doctors are recommending, where other doctors administer puberty blockers without their parent’s consent.   
 

Now things that we once barely spoken of, or thought of, have become mainstream conversation, where people are worn down until these ideas are their own. This then comes out in virtue signaling, as if these ideas were their ideas all along. BTW, the Church Handbook addresses “sex-change” decades ago, in the event someone had undergone such surgery were members. For instance, those who transitioned into a man, could not hold the Priesthood, but could attend Priesthood. Either way, we are being conditioned to call “good evil, and evil good, and run the risk of being banned from almost anywhere for not parroting that which we know to be false. John’s Hopkins who did the first “sex-change” operation, will no longer do so, due to the height number of suicides, of those who went through the process. The Scriptures remain true, as does the Church, no matter the changing norms of society, thus this is standard we will be judged. No matter the chatter, this is what will matter. Our God has not somehow changed with our changing norms, nor will he change. 

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

Since you bring up “children”, schools are now trying to discuss and teach “transsexuality”, a word that did not appear in the dictionary not that long ago. Also some school systems are fighting for the right to teach about such, at an obscene age, including kindergarten. Things no one that age should hear or see. Also, to do so without the consent or knowledge of their parents. Citing the need of “protecting them from their parents”. Noting that these tender age children, somehow need protection from their parents. Not protection because of visible bruising, or broken arms, but ideas. As if children, of such a tender age, have made up their minds what they want, or need, beyond recess. while their main focus still remains on what beyond recess. Some teachers unions are also fighting to keep secret from parents that school doctors are recommending, where other doctors administer puberty blockers without their parent’s consent.   

This is mostly false. It is the same hysteria that saw a book that had a child with two dads and extrapolated that to teachers teaching about the particulars of gay sex. Don’t believe the propaganda. Find out what specifically is being taught. Many of the people who stir up anger in this area have no qualms about telling bald-faced lies about what is happening.

If you read what I said I agree the ideal would be parents helping their children but the idea that parents are all good is empirically false. Sometimes the system has to protect children from their parents and a lot of these kids are going to need help and aren’t going to get it at home.

No one is giving puberty blockers to kindergarteners. Or if they are they are guilty of malpractice. You don’t take those until you start puberty. Puberty blocking drugs are a HUGE can of worms. 

The idea that you can hide it from your parents comes primarily from the bill in California which is, well, bad. I don’t mean just morally. It doesn’t work very well. Let us say Tim decides to get puberty blockers. He is 14. He goes to a doctor and gets them. The doctor bills Tim’s parent’s insurance. The bill supposedly blocks the parents from finding out through insurance but they know something happened. A normal medical procedure, an abortion, puberty blockers, whatever. In any case unless Tim’s parents are careless or have VERY comprehensive insurance they are going to find out. The only protection this really provides is being able to get an abortion with a parent’s consent at the time but your odds of hiding it are pretty low unless you can find a clinic that will do the procedure without asking for money. Not a ton of those out there. The UK had a weird court ruling on this that basically annoyed everyone but somehow had both sides convinced the other had won. It seemed a sane decision to me but I might be missing something.

There is a lively debate about the morality of puberty blockers and the emerging consensus is trending towards them being a bad idea. It is not a certainty yet but that is my general feel. I could be wrong. I specifically didn’t talk about that aspect in my response because I was more concerned with kids being outed for talking to counselors and teachers. I lean towards not allowing puberty blockers as an elective medical procedure unless there are valid medical reasons and not just psychological ones. I came to this conclusion based primarily on the potential long term side effects.

 

The whole thing is also used as a smokescreen to clean house of inappropriate books including stories of two boy penguins adopting a baby penguin, books about Rosa Parks and segregation, and anything any parent find at all questionable which means children’s education is at the mercy of the stupidest and most insane parent out there. The irony of course is that by the standards many of these book reviews use to decide whether the book should be allowed the Bible should be tossed out of schools. Not even a question. There are descriptions of rape and attempted homosexual rape. There are graphic descriptions of sex and sexual organs that do not teach about biology. It is just metaphor. The people who were originally whining about God being kicked out of schools may yet actually kick God out of schools themselves….because they are idiots.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The whole thing is also used as a smokescreen to clean house of inappropriate books including stories of two boy penguins adopting a baby penguin, books about Rosa Parks and segregation, and anything any parent find at all questionable which means children’s education is at the mercy of the stupidest and most insane parent out there. The irony of course is that by the standards many of these book reviews use to decide whether the book should be allowed the Bible should be tossed out of schools. Not even a question. There are descriptions of rape and attempted homosexual rape. There are graphic descriptions of sex and sexual organs that do not teach about biology. It is just metaphor. The people who were originally whining about God being kicked out of schools may yet actually kick God out of schools themselves….because they are idiots.

The best way to handle such issues is to ignore them.  Kids are not spending much time reading books anyway.  They are either playing video games, on TicTok, or Instagram.   If one ignores a book that contains offensive content, the book remains on the shelf collecting dust.   If a parent raises their kids right, the kids will see the nonsense ideas out there.  

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

The best way to handle such issues is to ignore them.  Kids are not spending much time reading books anyway.  They are either playing video games, on TicTok, or Instagram.   If one ignores a book that contains offensive content, the book remains on the shelf collecting dust.   If a parent raises their kids right, the kids will see the nonsense ideas out there.  

In addition if I am any indication the quickest way to get me to read something is to tell me it is forbidden or banned.

Or as the Reading Rainbow guy said (warning of some profanity):

 

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

The best way to handle such issues is to ignore them.  Kids are not spending much time reading books anyway.  They are either playing video games, on TicTok, or Instagram.   If one ignores a book that contains offensive content, the book remains on the shelf collecting dust.   If a parent raises their kids right, the kids will see the nonsense ideas out there.  

Agreed, but there are many teachers pushing the topic, very often, and also the books, with threats of failing grades. Or even worse, using peer pressure to both isolate and label the student as “Homophobic”, a word that is used far to often, and incorrectly in almost every example. A simple break down of the word, will clearly define it, but they just don’t care. Also, at any age, because of the misuse of the word, and it’s constant use, everyone does not want to label as “Homophobic”. Even my daughter who is Gay, is called Homophobic, for thinking it is unfair for a biological man, to compete in women sports. 

Link to comment

 I'm appreciating your posts @The Nehor.  Here's your Nehor score:

- Stuff with which I agree: 82.5%
- Stuff with which I disagree: 14.5%
- Stuff I can't for the life of me see how someone could know one way or the other, so I can't go along with you being so certain about it: 4%
- Extra category to make the math work: -1%

 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

There is a lively debate about the morality of puberty blockers and the emerging consensus is trending towards them being a bad idea. It is not a certainty yet but that is my general feel.

The percentage of children who resolve body dysphoria within several years is too high to justify handing out puberty blockers in anything but very few cases, imo. There may be enough psychological markers to eventually predict quite accurately whose dysphoria will resolve and whose won’t (I read one study a few years ago that claimed decent percentages for a start), but given the potentially irreversible medical issues created by puberty blockers, I believe as we start seeing more who detranstition in early or later adulthood and express regret for the choice, the more care will be taken by parents and doctors to be sure thorough assessment is done. I assume the research into the small subset it might help (just because dysphoria does not resolve does not equal early transitioning being better long term for mental health, though it may) will improve as well at the same time so diagnosis will be less of a gamble. At this point there is too little assessment and therapy prior to starting drugs in many cases, in part due to too many looking for treatment and not enough specialists, but also poor communication between doctors that could be helped with stronger, detailed guidelines on what assessments at all stages should involve. 
 

Quote

came to this conclusion based primarily on the potential long term side effects.

Yes, this needs to be publicized better so parents and kids who want solutions now for their kids’ suffering understand the costs better.  As a parent with a preteen and teen who was borderline suicidal, whose life has been completely upended by diabetes and complications with that and who withdrew from all but immediate family, it would have been too easy to grab almost anything promising a more normal life for her if we had the money to pay for it. I think with our backgrounds we would have been skeptical enough to protect her, but not all parents have the medical background or psychological training we did.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
6 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

Agreed, but there are many teachers pushing the topic, very often, and also the books, with threats of failing grades. Or even worse, using peer pressure to both isolate and label the student as “Homophobic”, a word that is used far to often, and incorrectly in almost every example. A simple break down of the word, will clearly define it, but they just don’t care. Also, at any age, because of the misuse of the word, and it’s constant use, everyone does not want to label as “Homophobic”. Even my daughter who is Gay, is called Homophobic, for thinking it is unfair for a biological man, to compete in women sports. 

This is also largely incorrect. That this is a pervasive problem is a lie pushed by those with an agenda. Many of the incidents they use to back up their claims have been investigated and found to have been taken out of context or twisted or just made up. Teachers are not hard at working labeling kids as homophobic. You don’t call a young kid homophobic. Partially because the teacher would get in a lot of trouble but also because you would explain it differently. It would be more like “Some kids have one dad or one mom or a dad and a mom or two dads or two moms. That is about the extent of it in elementary school unless you count what the kids are teaching each other.

Papa, they are trying to create hysteria. The sources pushing this narrative do not have any moral qualms about lying to you to convince you it is a horrible problem. Think about it. How would teachers do this? Parents would raise unholy hell if a teacher is labeling their kid homophobic. In higher grades they might correctly label certain views as homophobic. And no, “*****-phobic” words do not only mean fear. That is the root of the word but it can also include reactions other than just fear.

They are calling your daughter homophobic or transphobic? Because homophobia would have nothing to do with that.

Link to comment
11 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

Since you bring up “children”, schools are now trying to discuss and teach “transsexuality”, a word that did not appear in the dictionary not that long ago. Also some school systems are fighting for the right to teach about such, at an obscene age, including kindergarten. Things no one that age should hear or see. Also, to do so without the consent or knowledge of their parents. Citing the need of “protecting them from their parents”. Noting that these tender age children, somehow need protection from their parents. Not protection because of visible bruising, or broken arms, but ideas. As if children, of such a tender age, have made up their minds what they want, or need, beyond recess. while their main focus still remains on what beyond recess. Some teachers unions are also fighting to keep secret from parents that school doctors are recommending, where other doctors administer puberty blockers without their parent’s consent.   
 

Now things that we once barely spoken of, or thought of, have become mainstream conversation, where people are worn down until these ideas are their own. This then comes out in virtue signaling, as if these ideas were their ideas all along. BTW, the Church Handbook addresses “sex-change” decades ago, in the event someone had undergone such surgery were members. For instance, those who transitioned into a man, could not hold the Priesthood, but could attend Priesthood. Either way, we are being conditioned to call “good evil, and evil good, and run the risk of being banned from almost anywhere for not parroting that which we know to be false. John’s Hopkins who did the first “sex-change” operation, will no longer do so, due to the height number of suicides, of those who went through the process. The Scriptures remain true, as does the Church, no matter the changing norms of society, thus this is standard we will be judged. No matter the chatter, this is what will matter. Our God has not somehow changed with our changing norms, nor will he change. 

I heard this, but didn't believe it, do you have a reference? Also, I'm sure you've heard of humans born with both genders and then the doctor and parents assign a gender to the baby. Doesn't this make you wonder then how transgenders came to be? It's not like they sought it out, it's the way they were born, much like your dear daughter, IMO. 

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I heard this, but didn't believe it, do you have a reference? Also, I'm sure you've heard of humans born with both genders and then the doctor and parents assign it to the baby. Doesn't this make you wonder then how transgenders came to be? It's not like they sought it out, it's they way they were born, much like your dear daughter, IMO. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/standing-against-psychiatrys-crazes-11556920766

 

In 1975 Johns Hopkins hired him as director of its Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science and the hospital’s chief psychiatrist. Hopkins was famous for pioneering sex-reassignment surgery: In the 1991 film “The Silence of the Lambs,” Dr. Hannibal Lecter, played by Anthony Hopkins, refers to Johns Hopkins as one of the “three major centers for transsexual surgery.” 

As department head, Dr. McHugh encouraged a colleague to conduct follow-up research on patients who had undergone sex-change operations. The results disturbed him. Although most of the patients “were reasonably satisfied with the change, they hadn’t any improvement in any of their psychosocial issues that were the whole reason for doing it in the first place.” 

Worse, some of the patients became “suicidal and depressed and regretful.” There was not enough good evidence to determine before the fact which candidates for surgery would fall into either group. With no way to predict which patients would be hurt by the operations, Dr. McHugh decided he could not allow them to continue. He says shuttering the clinic was a matter of adhering to the Hippocratic Oath and the scientific obligation to ground conclusions in empirical evidence.

“Everybody should agree” that sex-reassignment surgery is “an experiment right now,” he says. “We’re doing an experiment. We have lots of publications that are telling us that the evidence base for these treatments is very low-quality.” There are “not enough subjects, not enough good results—not enough anything. Not enough comparisons . . . that would make it evidence-based.” He says the Institutional Review Board should oversee all such surgery. It doesn’t.




https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/long-shadow-cast-by-psychiatrist-on-transgender-issues-finally-recedes-at-johns-hopkins/2017/04/05/e851e56e-0d85-11e7-ab07-07d9f521f6b5_story.html

 

Edited by bsjkki
Link to comment
12 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

The best way to handle such issues is to ignore them.  Kids are not spending much time reading books anyway.  They are either playing video games, on TicTok, or Instagram.   If one ignores a book that contains offensive content, the book remains on the shelf collecting dust.   If a parent raises their kids right, the kids will see the nonsense ideas out there.  

This is one of the weakest posts I have seen.  Almost universally, queer kids and adults have spent huge amounts of time studying everything they can get their hands on related to their own brand of queerness.  I have yet to meet a queer person that is not very aware of most books, shows, podcasts, groups and movies that deal with queer themes.  This is the first step a queer kid will always take because they know they are different and they want to understand why.  Most young people today are very aware of the issues and many more read books than you seem to think.  They just might read their books on a Kindle, Ipad or smartphone.

11 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

Agreed, but there are many teachers pushing the topic, very often, and also the books, with threats of failing grades. Or even worse, using peer pressure to both isolate and label the student as “Homophobic”, a word that is used far to often, and incorrectly in almost every example. A simple break down of the word, will clearly define it, but they just don’t care. Also, at any age, because of the misuse of the word, and it’s constant use, everyone does not want to label as “Homophobic”. Even my daughter who is Gay, is called Homophobic, for thinking it is unfair for a biological man, to compete in women sports. 

I know who you are listening to get your supposed facts but I totally disagree with everything you said.  Most of the current generation has little or no negative views of their queer classmates and those who do have issues with queer classmates get upset because they are in the minority.  That is the pressure they feel.  There are not many teachers pushing the topic.  Most teachers try very hard to be neutral.  Now out of the 3.2 million teachers in the United States, I am sure you can find a few thousand that push the topic.  I am sure there are many more teachers pushing a white christen narrative on their students.  Your ignorance about the current usage of the term homophobic is unbelievable.   No one in the queer community or ally would ever call your gay daughter homophobic.  They would use the correct term which is transphobic.   It really doesn't matter what you think is the correct usage of a term.  Word's meaning are decided by the culture they are used in.   Even your term biological man is incorrect.  Transgender women's hormone levels are those of a woman not a man.  No transgender woman competing in sports has demonstrated a performance that exceeds the top women in that sport at the level the transgender woman is competing.  Most transgender women have breasts and many when old enough have vaginas.  Transphobic for most of us today means someone who believes transgender people are weird, shouldn't be allowed to change their gender or believes transgender individuals should be treated differently from other people such as in sports.

11 hours ago, Calm said:

The percentage of children who resolve body dysphoria within several years is too high to justify handing out puberty blockers in anything but very few cases, imo. There may be enough psychological markers to eventually predict quite accurately whose dysphoria will resolve and whose won’t (I read one study a few years ago that claimed decent percentages for a start), but given the potentially irreversible medical issues created by puberty blockers, I believe as we start seeing more who detranstition in early or later adulthood and express regret for the choice, the more care will be taken by parents and doctors to be sure thorough assessment is done. I assume the research into the small subset it might help (just because dysphoria does not resolve does not equal early transitioning being better long term for mental health, though it may) will improve as well at the same time so diagnosis will be less of a gamble. At this point there is too little assessment and therapy prior to starting drugs in many cases, in part due to too many looking for treatment and not enough specialists, but also poor communication between doctors that could be helped with stronger, detailed guidelines on what assessments at all stages should involve. 
 

Yes, this needs to be publicized better so parents and kids who want solutions now for their kids’ suffering understand the costs better.  As a parent with a preteen and teen who was borderline suicidal, whose life has been completely upended by diabetes and complications with that and who withdrew from all but immediate family, it would have been too easy to grab almost anything promising a more normal life for her if we had the money to pay for it. I think with our backgrounds we would have been skeptical enough to protect her, but not all parents have the medical background or psychological training we did.

You seem to be an educated poster.  Please do your homework.  Everything you have said above comes from the right wing propaganda machine.   The vast majority of of specialists in this field will testify that puberty blockers save lives.  They give kids a chance to mature and grow in understanding of their gender dysphoria before any surgical changes are made.   Many transgender teenagers become suicidal when their bodies start to change in puberty and the blockers bring them relief.  No child can receive puberty blockers unless they: 

  • Show a long-lasting and intense pattern of gender nonconformity or gender dysphoria
  • Have gender dysphoria that began or worsened at the start of puberty
  • Address any psychological, medical or social problems that could interfere with treatment
  • Have entered the early stage of puberty
  • Provide informed consent

Mayo clinic

The actual occurrence of detransitioning is not well documented but most current peer reviewed studies indicate it is in the low single digits percentage wise.  The whole medical field of transgender treatment is relatively new and one of the issues that is part of every transgender person's treatment is a careful approach to any changes.  I know many transgender people that only take hormones.  I know other transgender people that only change their hairstyle, dress and makeup.  I know of youth that after a time taking puberty blockers will decide to go off them as puberty blockers are not permanent.  Some decide they are really nonbinary and need no physical change.  Some stop to allow their genitals to develop enough so that certain types of gender change surgery can be performed.  Please before you form opinions, seek out some transgender folks and talk to them.  Talk to a gender specialist.  Look carefully at your sources because there are some so called medical people that are transphobic and twist science much like those who argue against climate change.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, bsjkki said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/standing-against-psychiatrys-crazes-11556920766

 

In 1975 Johns Hopkins hired him as director of its Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science and the hospital’s chief psychiatrist. Hopkins was famous for pioneering sex-reassignment surgery: In the 1991 film “The Silence of the Lambs,” Dr. Hannibal Lecter, played by Anthony Hopkins, refers to Johns Hopkins as one of the “three major centers for transsexual surgery.” 

As department head, Dr. McHugh encouraged a colleague to conduct follow-up research on patients who had undergone sex-change operations. The results disturbed him. Although most of the patients “were reasonably satisfied with the change, they hadn’t any improvement in any of their psychosocial issues that were the whole reason for doing it in the first place.” 

Worse, some of the patients became “suicidal and depressed and regretful.” There was not enough good evidence to determine before the fact which candidates for surgery would fall into either group. With no way to predict which patients would be hurt by the operations, Dr. McHugh decided he could not allow them to continue. He says shuttering the clinic was a matter of adhering to the Hippocratic Oath and the scientific obligation to ground conclusions in empirical evidence.

“Everybody should agree” that sex-reassignment surgery is “an experiment right now,” he says. “We’re doing an experiment. We have lots of publications that are telling us that the evidence base for these treatments is very low-quality.” There are “not enough subjects, not enough good results—not enough anything. Not enough comparisons . . . that would make it evidence-based.” He says the Institutional Review Board should oversee all such surgery. It doesn’t.




https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/long-shadow-cast-by-psychiatrist-on-transgender-issues-finally-recedes-at-johns-hopkins/2017/04/05/e851e56e-0d85-11e7-ab07-07d9f521f6b5_story.html

 

One doctor against thousands who have just the opposite opinion.  I am sure you can find 10 or 100 more who will say the same thing versus that thousands that will totally disagree.  Some doctors let their religious and moral viewpoints override science and facts all the time.  Do your homework and quit cherry picking.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, kimpearson said:

Everything you have said above comes from the right wing propaganda machine. 

I would be very surprised if the studies I was reading back then were from conservative researchers given they were very proactive in calling for developing more extensive and earlier treatments for those kids they saw as having persistent dysphoria as well as helping with coping strategies during youth for both those who likely would self-resolve and those who might be anomalies or not even while outside the persistent group.  They were really pushing for more going into the field rather than downplaying any need.  Methodology seemed pretty straightforward in the one I remember best, they simply contacted all the kids 10ish years after they had sought psychological treatment at national health clinics (the studies I found were British; if there were American versions, they were requiring a subscription) and assessed resolved versus persistent, including those who medically transitioned when adults (they hadn’t enough seeking medical transitioning in teen years to study that at the time iirc).  I can see a potential problem due to small numbers, my memory says they didn’t have much over 100, maybe 150 participants.  And they might have better assessment tools these days, relying less on self reporting and parental reporting to overcome stigma affecting adults more than children at the time as well as obviously more familiarity with puberty blockers.  My memory says the studies I was reading did not discuss these as it is likely they hadn’t been giving them long enough in large enough numbers to do long term analysis of ten years or more.

As far as possible irreversible effects, I phrased it that way mainly because I haven’t looked into that, but have concerns based on what I know of hormone treatments for adults as well as what I have seen based on other medications given kids screwing up them long term because of improper diagnoses, too high of dosages, or not taking into account other issues as such as happened with my daughter whose sleep disorder was highly accelerated in severity because the one and only pediatric psychiatrist available in Utah County would only treat her severe anxiety and ignored all the info I provided about inappropriate drugs for the disorder.  Unfortunately I was not confident enough to just blow him off and accept my daughter would not be going to school or anywhere else at that time.  Six months of hell (to give the drug a fair chance to work, my opinion that doctor was an idiot not to see the warning signs and I was not educated enough yet) and my daughter permanently experiencing massive insomnia and no better with anxiety gave me all the backbone I needed. Of course anecdotal, just explaining why I am highly concerned with unintended consequences in drug treatment in youth.  It is highly documented that children with our sleep disorder were frequently misdiagnosed as ADHD (sleep deprivation often manifests as ‘wired’ in children and rls is relieved by movement, so understandable why it happens) and given drugs that made things worse.  Not sure of long term effects there in general as it was only really studied since late 90’s and I haven’t been tracking kids’ research since my daughter hit 20.

Quote

 The vast majority of of specialists in this field will testify that puberty blockers save lives.

Not debating that.  “Very few” is my personal bias due to personal experience with misdiagnosis speaking.  Unfortunately I can’t remember the specific percentages of persistent vs self resolving.  I will look that up before making numerical judgments again.  And if the assessments are done as well as you claim, then they are catching the self resolved group the earlier studies were finding prior to giving medical treatment, which is all I was suggesting was needed.  If the sites I have read about overwhelmed clinics and poor communication at times between primary assessor and the clinic (so they assume appropriate assessments are done but they are not) are wrong and it has been already standardized and smoothly operating with fully needed attention given prior to decision making and good follow up to ensure least problems with drugs for the kids in the countries where concerns have been expressed, I think that will be great.  But I would just be shocked honestly given how screwed up the medical system is in other areas in meeting patient needs (often due to insurance issues, high costs of drugs, and politicians making medical decisions).  Would be weird if this relatively new field was getting it right from the beginning.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
8 hours ago, kimpearson said:

One doctor against thousands who have just the opposite opinion.  I am sure you can find 10 or 100 more who will say the same thing versus that thousands that will totally disagree.  Some doctors let their religious and moral viewpoints override science and facts all the time.  Do your homework and quit cherry picking.

You obviously did not read the articles or the thread. I linked the articles referencing what happened at John Hopkins in response to a query for a source. Maybe you need to be a little more open minded

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...