Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Pronoun/Gender Wars Continue Apace

smac97

By smac97
in General Discussions

Recommended Posts

The Nehor Grand Master

The Nehor

Posted
Posted
On 7/15/2026 at 11:47 AM, smac97 said:

I don't think

Agreed.

On 7/15/2026 at 11:47 AM, smac97 said:

what I have said speaks to privileging religious views.

Also agreed

On 7/15/2026 at 11:47 AM, smac97 said:

Yes, I think we can do this.  We have done it in the past.  Schools can and should focus on core academics: reading, writing, math, science, history, the arts, stuff like that. These prepare kids for life without substituting institutional preferences for parental ones on deeply debated topics.

So which side of the political spectrum is attempting to and currently is rebuilding education so it is more compatible with their views?

On 7/15/2026 at 11:47 AM, smac97 said:

I want no child isolated or unsupported. Every kid deserves kindness, safety, and the ability to talk with trusted adults (especially their parents) about hard things. Reducing bullying and fostering basic human decency is worthwhile.

You can want that as much as you want but it is irrelevant when the concrete steps you want taken will lead to cruelty, a lack of safety, and children having to fear being found out.

Also the people you support are bullies so I don’t think you value decency that much. You support a guy who is childish and a bully and has openly shared that he likes the feeling of power he gets when he gets to perv on women in changing rooms. Hence it is hard to take you seriously on a lot of supposed things you want when you are clearly okay with them as long as they are on your side of the supposed “culture war”.

On 7/15/2026 at 11:47 AM, smac97 said:

What I oppose is public schools and libraries using their authority and proximity to children to proactively affirm contested moral and sexual viewpoints as equivalent or normative, especially for young kids. That crosses from neutral education or anti-bullying into ideological formation, which many parents (of all backgrounds, including faithful Latter-day Saints) see as undermining their primary stewardship.

If you can’t function in a pluralistic society……..

On 7/15/2026 at 11:47 AM, smac97 said:

Acknowledging that families come in different forms is one thing. Framing same-sex relationships as morally interchangeable with the husband-wife pattern taught in scripture and the Family Proclamation is another. The latter is not neutral — it’s a particular worldview on sexuality, marriage, and family that not all families share.

Disagreeing with our religion is not neutral.

On 7/15/2026 at 11:47 AM, smac97 said:

Parents, not institutions, should guide their children’s moral formation on deeply personal and religious questions. Transparency, age-appropriate boundaries, and viewpoint diversity protect pluralism better than one-sided normalization. Kids can be supported without public resources becoming tools for advocacy on adult-level controversies.

To a scared queer kid this is not an “adult-level controversy’. 

On 7/15/2026 at 11:47 AM, smac97 said:

Is exposing children to such sexualized material anywhere appropriate? 

And we come full circle from “parents have the right to choose” and add in “unless their choice for their own children offends me personally”.

On 7/15/2026 at 11:47 AM, smac97 said:

I think the issue is sufficiently common/widespread that it deserves some public discussion and debate.  This is particularly so where there are people openly advocating that children be exposed to such sexualized events/venues.

There are people trying to get children to come to these events without parental supervision.

CFR

On 7/15/2026 at 11:47 AM, smac97 said:

No, that misrepresents my position.

No, it is accurate. You just don’t like the ramifications of your position.

On 7/15/2026 at 11:47 AM, smac97 said:

I am not calling for isolation of any child, nor equating anyone with pornography. Every minor deserves safety, kindness, and support — including queer youth. Reducing bullying is good.

Yet your choices (political and personal) lead to the amplification of bullying. You post facile justifications for marginalizing people who are already being bullied. You are pro-bullying. You just don’t want to take responsibility for the consequences of your actions.

On 7/15/2026 at 11:47 AM, smac97 said:

My concern is public institutions (schools/libraries) using tax-funded resources and authority over minors to proactively normalize contested moral views on sexuality and family as equivalent to the husband-wife pattern taught in scripture and The Family Proclamation. That’s not neutral education; it’s ideological formation on topics many parents want to handle at home according to their own values and faith.

How dare information I dislike be freely available?

Yet you insist you are for pluralism. Uh-huh……..

On 7/15/2026 at 11:47 AM, smac97 said:

This isn’t “Christian Nationalism” or undoing the First Amendment. It’s defending parental rights and viewpoint neutrality — the same principle that would prevent public schools from teaching Joseph Smith’s First Vision as fact or pushing any particular religious or political orthodoxy on other people’s children. Pluralism means public institutions don’t get to pick winners on deeply divisive moral questions involving minors.

Again ideology is more important to you than the actual children involved. Again.

On 7/15/2026 at 11:47 AM, smac97 said:

Latter-day Saint teachings on chastity and eternal marriage come from scripture and modern revelation, not nationalism. Shielding children from premature sexualization (regardless of orientation) and respecting parental stewardship is reasonable, not extreme.

Sexualization? A term you endlessly throw around but refuse to define. You want it to apply to a children’s book about a baby penguin having two dads, accurate information about sexuality, and hardcore pornography. That way you can pivot on what it means and pretend you are being consistent when you are not.

On 7/15/2026 at 11:47 AM, smac97 said:

I have repeatedly condemned public displays of sexual licentiousness of any sort, including Mardi Gras.  Here, here, here, here, here.

I am not sure if Mardi Gras is "coded" as a "straight" event.  Moreover, I am not seeing anyone justifying/rationalizing exposing children to sexualized stuff at that event, whereas there is plenty of such advocacy relative to "Pride" events.

Every event that is not explicitly queer in some way is “coded” as a “straight” event.

On 7/15/2026 at 11:47 AM, smac97 said:

The difference here is context and advocacy. I don’t see widespread efforts to bring explicit or sexualized Mardi Gras content into children’s libraries or classrooms as “age-appropriate” or “inclusive.” With some Pride-related materials, I do see that push — including non-graphic books that normalize contested views on sexuality and family for minors.

And the pointless and stupid equivocation continues. On one hand you are talking about sexual Mardi Gras content and then say that non-graphic books about an animal with two moms is morally equivalent.

Also there is no widespread effort to push actual sexual content on children which is why you have to equivocate and hold on to the idea that “A Day in the Life of Marlon Bundo” is somehow graphic content.

On 7/15/2026 at 11:47 AM, smac97 said:

From scripture and the Family Proclamation, I draw qualitative distinctions between opposite-sex marital intimacy (unitive + procreative within husband-wife covenant) and same-sex behavior. These distinctions are rooted in biology, doctrine, and observed patterns — not Christian Nationalism, not bigotry.  Just reasoned disagreement.  Attraction isn’t sinful; behavior is. These beliefs do not justify unkindness.  The Church's teachings in this area are quite good.

It is rooted in bigotry. Christian Nationalism doesn’t care that much. Queer people are just a wedge issue to rally the useful idiots in the ranks to back authoritarians and it works. You fall for it every time.

Also cute how you get vague and say that somehow the good marriage is great because it unifies and causes procreation. Despite that you imagine a hetero marriage where the two participants despise each other and are both infertile as superior to a happy gay couple raising children together in love.

It is not “reasoned disagreement”. You didn’t reason your way into this situation and you aren’t going to reason your way out of it. You have religious dogma and are defending it. Let’s not pretend reason is involved. You didn’t reach this conclusion from first principles. You reflexively defend the dogma. Any flimsy apologetic evidence will work.

On 7/15/2026 at 11:47 AM, smac97 said:

Public institutions shouldn’t function as co-parents or ideological tools on deeply contested moral issues.

They aren’t doing any such thing. 

On 7/15/2026 at 11:47 AM, smac97 said:

Parents hold primary stewardship. Age-appropriate boundaries, transparency, and viewpoint diversity protect pluralism better than one-sided normalization for children.

And no, you are not interested in protecting pluralism, at least not on this issue. You might like a very limited pluralism but it wouldn’t include me or many others. You want the force of government to be used to isolate vulnerable children and to exclude and marginalize adults. If you truly believed in pluralism you would seek to convert people to your cause the way queer people usually do in the culture you live in. Instead you confess the weakness and moral bankruptcy of the position by appealing to government force and pretend you are somehow making things ‘equal’ by having public institutions share your views but not any you disagree with.

1
smac97 Grand Master

smac97

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Agreed.

Also agreed

So which side of the political spectrum is attempting to and currently is rebuilding education so it is more compatible with their views?

You can want that as much as you want but it is irrelevant when the concrete steps you want taken will lead to cruelty, a lack of safety, and children having to fear being found out.

Also the people you support are bullies so I don’t think you value decency that much. You support a guy who is childish and a bully and has openly shared that he likes the feeling of power he gets when he gets to perv on women in changing rooms. Hence it is hard to take you seriously on a lot of supposed things you want when you are clearly okay with them as long as they are on your side of the supposed “culture war”.

If you can’t function in a pluralistic society……..

Disagreeing with our religion is not neutral.

To a scared queer kid this is not an “adult-level controversy’. 

And we come full circle from “parents have the right to choose” and add in “unless their choice for their own children offends me personally”.

There are people trying to get children to come to these events without parental supervision.

CFR

No, it is accurate. You just don’t like the ramifications of your position.

Yet your choices (political and personal) lead to the amplification of bullying. You post facile justifications for marginalizing people who are already being bullied. You are pro-bullying. You just don’t want to take responsibility for the consequences of your actions.

How dare information I dislike be freely available?

Yet you insist you are for pluralism. Uh-huh……..

Again ideology is more important to you than the actual children involved. Again.

Sexualization? A term you endlessly throw around but refuse to define. You want it to apply to a children’s book about a baby penguin having two dads, accurate information about sexuality, and hardcore pornography. That way you can pivot on what it means and pretend you are being consistent when you are not.

Every event that is not explicitly queer in some way is “coded” as a “straight” event.

And the pointless and stupid equivocation continues. On one hand you are talking about sexual Mardi Gras content and then say that non-graphic books about an animal with two moms is morally equivalent.

Also there is no widespread effort to push actual sexual content on children which is why you have to equivocate and hold on to the idea that “A Day in the Life of Marlon Bundo” is somehow graphic content.

It is rooted in bigotry. Christian Nationalism doesn’t care that much. Queer people are just a wedge issue to rally the useful idiots in the ranks to back authoritarians and it works. You fall for it every time.

Also cute how you get vague and say that somehow the good marriage is great because it unifies and causes procreation. Despite that you imagine a hetero marriage where the two participants despise each other and are both infertile as superior to a happy gay couple raising children together in love.

It is not “reasoned disagreement”. You didn’t reason your way into this situation and you aren’t going to reason your way out of it. You have religious dogma and are defending it. Let’s not pretend reason is involved. You didn’t reach this conclusion from first principles. You reflexively defend the dogma. Any flimsy apologetic evidence will work.

They aren’t doing any such thing. 

And no, you are not interested in protecting pluralism, at least not on this issue. You might like a very limited pluralism but it wouldn’t include me or many others. You want the force of government to be used to isolate vulnerable children and to exclude and marginalize adults. If you truly believed in pluralism you would seek to convert people to your cause the way queer people usually do in the culture you live in. Instead you confess the weakness and moral bankruptcy of the position by appealing to government force and pretend you are somehow making things ‘equal’ by having public institutions share your views but not any you disagree with.

We appear to be talking past each other.  

Thanks,

-Smac

smac97 Grand Master

smac97

Posted
  • Author
Posted
4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:
Quote

We appear to be talking past each other.  

Yes, this is clearly a “both sides” problem.

/s

Funny how that works out.  We each think the other is failing to meaningfully contribute to the discussion.

Perhaps there is simply too much ill will, too many uncivil interactions in the past.  I regret my part in contributing to that, and am trying to do better.  

In the end, I wonder if our philosophical worldviews, presuppositions and ideological commitments are simply too divergent from each other to allow for meaningful discussions.  

Thanks,

-Smac

The Nehor Grand Master

The Nehor

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, smac97 said:

In the end, I wonder if our philosophical worldviews, presuppositions and ideological commitments are simply too divergent from each other to allow for meaningful discussions.  

You think many of my friends are horrible sinners and therefore should be stripped of legal protections and bodily autonomy ‘for their own good’ because a very tortured interpretation of your religious texts hints that maybe it might be wrong and also you find their existence icky and disturbing. Also you want people to think you are a good person in spite of doing this.

I believe you should stop demonizing my friends when they are already being marginalized and persecuted and I think that punching down like you do is morally monstrous.

Yep, probably no way to harmonize or compromise on those positions.

2
smac97 Grand Master

smac97

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 7/21/2026 at 4:23 PM, The Nehor said:

You think many of my friends are horrible sinners

We are all sinners in one way or another.

On 7/21/2026 at 4:23 PM, The Nehor said:

and therefore should be stripped of legal protections

I don't think biological men have a legal right to enter into women's spaces (prisons, bathrooms, sports, etc.).  

I also think this is a matter about which the democratic/legislative processes should be utilized.

On 7/21/2026 at 4:23 PM, The Nehor said:

and bodily autonomy ‘for their own good’

I have frequently endorsed the idea of adults having broad rights to bodily autonomy.  I think sex trait modification procedures should be subject to normative medical / scientific / legal scrutiny, as I think many of the following concerns are in play:

  • Comorbidities. 
  • Informed consent. 
  • Compromised assessments of the best interests of the child. 
  • Irreversibility. 
  • Sterilization. 
  • Electively removing healthy body parts of minors. 
  • Longitudinal studies essentially absent. 
  • Lifelong medical regimens. 
  • Ideological/sociopolitical influences/pressures on medical care. 
  • Social contagion risks. 
  • Risk of financial devastation for the individual (and burden on society).
On 7/21/2026 at 4:23 PM, The Nehor said:

because a very tortured interpretation of your religious texts hints that maybe it might be wrong

Not sure what you mean by "it."  If you are referring to sex modification procedures, I think it would be quite difficult to square such things with the Restored Gospel.  However, I have ample grounds for my position on these matters over and above religious sentiments.

On 7/21/2026 at 4:23 PM, The Nehor said:

and also you find their existence icky and disturbing.

I think the grooming and sexualization of children to be depraved and evil.  I think people who endorse such things to be icky and disturbing.

People with Gender Dysphoria deserve as much respect and consideration as people with any other mental health issue.

On 7/21/2026 at 4:23 PM, The Nehor said:

Also you want people to think you are a good person in spite of doing this.

I want to be a disciple of Jesus Christ.  

On 7/21/2026 at 4:23 PM, The Nehor said:

I believe you should stop demonizing my friends when they are already being marginalized and persecuted and I think that punching down like you do is morally monstrous.

I condemn the sexualization and grooming of children.  I think that position is eminently moral and decent and correct.

Thanks,

-Smac

The Nehor Grand Master

The Nehor

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I want to be a disciple of Jesus Christ.  

And you have chosen to do this by punching down on the already marginalized and throw in the usual repackaged antisemitic tropes about how they are doing horrible things to children and the like with no evidence backing it up.

Interesting strategy to take in trying to imitate Jesus.

It is a bold strategy Cotton. Let’s see if it pays off for’em.

 

1
smac97 Grand Master

smac97

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

And you have chosen to do this by punching down on the already marginalized

I think it is entirely acceptable to speak against people who are sexualizing and grooming children.  I think there are substantial numbers of LGBT people who agree with this sentiment.

I also think there are extensive concerns about medical interventions associated with minors and Gender Dysphoria.  We are seeing the beginning of what may end up being a large number of lawsuits about this.  I think that is a healthy and appropriate course correction in society.

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

and throw in the usual repackaged antisemitic tropes about how they are doing horrible things to children and the like with no evidence backing it up.

I have provided ample references to events which involve the sexualization and grooming of children, and also problematic medical interventions.  

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Interesting strategy to take in trying to imitate Jesus.

"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."  Matthew 18:6.

There are few things as depraved as sexualizing and grooming children.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited by smac97
Calm Grand Master

Calm

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, smac97 said:

think it is entirely acceptable to speak against people who are sexualizing and grooming children.  I think there are substantial numbers of LGBT people who agree with this sentiment.

I think the question is if it’s happening to the extent it’s being claimed and involving the people that are being targeted the most.  That it’s happening is likely true, but it seems to me someone is ignoring the elephant in the room to instead rant about a much smaller issue.

I personally see the heterosexual community as sexualizing young girls and also boys to a massive extent.  You only have to look at the typical age of models starting out fr adult clothing and this has been going decades, not a very recent development.  Why did this not catch the eye of those claiming to want to prevent the sexualization and grooming of children?

https://prostasia.org/blog/underage-models-in-the-art-and-business-of-fashion/

Why isn’t there a massive protest and push for laws to not use underage models in adult runways/fashion shoots.  At best we are getting some self regulation, but it took till not too long ago apparently to get it going.

Kids are much, much more likely to see this stuff on ads, etc than the queer communities unusual dress standards.

Quote

First, fashion houses may like to use minor girls because just like a lot of industries, the idea of youth and beauty will always sell. Sometimes minors are also cheaper to hire and can find themselves in situations where they may easily be taken advantage of. Kids who are promised a next gig or a modeling contract will be eager to agree to work long hours, to travel to new places to be shot and styled by strangers, and to wear whatever they are told to wear. The combination of these factors places a lot of pressure on young models entering the industry—pressures that aren’t really fair to expect minors to face.

Quote

Mistreatment of young models can also cross the line into outright abuse. In February 2020 the New York Times exposed allegations about sexual harassment and inappropriate conduct by Victoria’s Secret executives. Compounding these abuses, the late Jeffrey Epstein also claimed to be acting as a Victoria’s Secret agent to lure some of his victims into his company.

Less of the abuse seen comes from actual photo shoots, model fittings, and day to day working with models. It comes from power dynamics that come into play when photographers, editors, CEO’s use their power to get young women and sometimes girls to do anything in chase of a dream.

 

1
Calm Grand Master

Calm

Posted
Posted (edited)

Why don’t we see massive rants against the increasing sexualization of young girls by the straight community from you, Smac?

https://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/girls/report

Quote

The APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls was tasked with examining the psychological theory, research and clinical experience addressing the sexualization of girls via media and other cultural messages, including the prevalence of these messages and their impact on girls and the role and impact of race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status.The task force was charged with producing a report, including recommendations for research, practice, education and training, policy and public awareness.

This report examines and summarizes psychological theory, research and clinical experience addressing the sexualization of girls.The report (a) defines sexualization; (b) examines the prevalence and provides examples of sexualization in society and in cultural institutions, as well as interpersonally and intrapsychically; (c) evaluates the evidence suggesting that sexualization has negative consequences for girls and for the rest of society; and (d) describes positive alternatives that may help counteract the influence of sexualization.

There are several components to sexualization, and these set it apart from healthy sexuality. Sexualization occurs when

a person’s value comes only from his or her sexual appeal or behavior, to the exclusion of other characteristics;

a person is held to a standard that equates physical attractiveness (narrowly defined) with being sexy;

a person is sexually objectified — that is, made into a thing for others’ sexual use, rather than seen as a person with the capacity for independent action and decision making; and/or

sexuality is inappropriately imposed upon a person.

All four conditions need not be present; any one is an indication of sexualization. The fourth condition (the inappropriate imposition of sexuality) is especially relevant to children. Anyone (girls, boys, men, women) can be sexualized. But when children are imbued with adult sexuality, it is often imposed upon them rather than chosen by them. Self-motivated sexual exploration, on the other hand, is not sexualization by our definition, nor is age-appropriate exposure to information about sexuality.

*This 2005 policy statement is currently under review. The APA Board of Directors is in the process of appointing a task force to review the literature published in the area since the current policy statement was adopted. The task force will report its findings and recommendations on potential changes to the APA policy statement when its work is completed. 

Evidence for the sexualization of girls

Virtually every media form studied provides ample evidence of the sexualization of women, including television, music videos, music lyrics, movies, magazines, sports media, video games, the Internet and advertising (e.g., Gow, 1996; Grauerholz & King, 1997; Krassas, Blauwkamp,& Wesselink, 2001, 2003; Lin, 1997; Plous & Neptune, 1997; Vincent, 1989; Ward, 1995). Some studies have examined forms of media that are especially popular with children and adolescents, such as video games and teen-focused magazines.

In study after study, findings have indicated that women more often than men are portrayed in a sexual manner (e.g., dressed in revealing clothing, with bodily postures or facial expressions that imply sexual readiness) and are objectified (e.g., used as a decorative object, or as body parts rather than a whole person). In addition, a narrow (and unrealistic) standard of physical beauty is heavily emphasized. These are the models of femininity presented for young girls to study and emulate.

In some studies, the focus was on the sexualization of female characters across all ages, but most focused specifically on young adult women. Although few studies examined the prevalence of sexualized portrayals of girls in particular, those that have been conducted found that such sexualization does occur and may be increasingly common. For example, O’Donohue, Gold and McKay (1997) coded advertisements over a 40-year period in five magazines targeted to men, women or a general adult readership. Although relatively few (1.5 percent) of the ads portrayed children in a sexualized manner, of those that did, 85 percent sexualized girls rather than boys. Furthermore, the percentage of sexualizing ads increased over time.

Quote

These include advertisements (e.g., the Sketchers “naughty and nice” ad that featured Christina Aguilera dressed as a schoolgirl in pigtails, with her shirt unbuttoned, licking a lollipop), dolls (e.g., Bratz dolls dressed in sexualized clothing such as miniskirts, fishnet stockings and feather boas), clothing (thongs sized for 7– to 10-year-olds, some printed with slogans such as “wink wink”), and television programs (e.g., a televised fashion show in which adult models in lingerie were presented as young girls). Research documenting the pervasiveness and influence of such products and portrayals is sorely needed.

Societal messages that contribute to the sexualization of girls come not only from media and merchandise but also through girls’ interpersonal relationships (e.g., with parents, teachers, and peers; Brown & Gilligan, 1992). Parents may contribute to sexualization in a number of ways. For example, parents may convey the message that maintaining an attractive physical appearance is the most important goal for girls. Some may allow or encourage plastic surgery to help girls meet that goal. Research shows that teachers sometimes encourage girls to play at being sexualized adult women (Martin, 1988) or hold beliefs that girls of color are “hypersexual” and thus unlikely to achieve academic success (Rolón-Dow, 2004). Both male and female peers have been found to contribute to the sexualization of girls — girls by policing each other to ensure conformance with standards of thinness and sexiness (Eder, 1995; Nichter, 2000) and boys by sexually objectifying and harassing girls. Finally, at the extreme end, parents, teachers and peers, as well as others (e.g., other family members, coaches, or strangers) sometimes sexually abuse, assault, prostitute or traffic girls, a most destructive form of sexualization.

If girls purchase (or ask their parents to purchase) products and clothes designed to make them look physically appealing and sexy, and if they style their identities after the sexy celebrities who populate their cultural landscape, they are, in effect, sexualizing themselves. Girls also sexualize themselves when they think of themselves in objectified terms. Psychological researchers have identified self-objectification as a key process whereby girls learn to think of and treat their own bodies as objects of others’ desires (Frederickson & Roberts, 1997; McKinley & Hyde, 1996). In self-objectification, girls internalize an observer’s perspective on their physical selves and learn to treat themselves as objects to be looked at and evaluated for their appearance. Numerous studies have documented the presence of self-objectification in women more than in men. Several studies have also documented this phenomenon in adolescent and preadolescent girls (McConnell, 2001; Slater & Tiggemann, 2002).

Straight sexualization of young girls is more prevalent, has actually been studied and not just protested against, and significant harm has been documented, not just claimed.

 

Edited by Calm
2
smac97 Grand Master

smac97

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Calm said:

Why don’t we see massive rants

"Rant."

"to speak or declaim extravagantly or violently; talk in a wild or vehement way; rave."

"Massive rants."

3 hours ago, Calm said:

against the increasing sexualization of young girls by the straight community from you, Smac?

First, I have not alleged any "community" is sexualizing/grooming children.  I have found ample evidence that plenty of people in the LGBT community are disgusted by the things I have found problematic by some (certainly not all) in that "community."

Second, from a previous post in this thread:

Quote

I have repeatedly condemned public displays of sexual licentiousness of any sort, including Mardi Gras.  Here, here, here, here, here.

I am not sure if Mardi Gras is "coded" as a "straight" event.  Moreover, I am not seeing anyone justifying/rationalizing exposing children to sexualized stuff at that event, whereas there is plenty of such advocacy relative to "Pride" events.

The difference here is context and advocacy. I don’t see widespread efforts to bring explicit or sexualized Mardi Gras content into children’s libraries or classrooms as “age-appropriate” or “inclusive.” With some Pride-related materials, I do see that push — including non-graphic books that normalize contested views on sexuality and family for minors.

A sampling of other threads I have started which address sexual misconduct:

I started these threads, all of which pertain to sexual misconduct by heterosexual persons.  

You have not disparaged my critiques of (heterosexual) licentiousness at Mardi Gras as "massive rants," nor have you characterized these various threads as "massive rants."  I am curious as to why.  

Third, we haven't seen "massive rants" from you regarding any number of social ills.  Is it your position that your or I is only allowed to speak on a particular social ill if you or I has first expressed concerns about all other social ills?

Fourth, I think you are committing the "Fallacy of Relative Privation," described here:

Quote

The fallacy of relative privation (also known as the "appeal to worse problems" or "not as bad as") occurs when someone dismisses an argument or complaint by pointing out a more severe problem. The logic relies on the false assumption that a smaller problem is not worth discussing simply because a larger one exists. [1, 2, 3]
...

Common forms include:
  • "Why care about X when Y is worse?" For example, someone complaining about high local taxes being met with, "Why are we worried about taxes when we haven't even cured cancer yet?"
  • "Your situation isn't that bad." For example, someone sharing that they have a bad headache being told, "Well, some people live with migraines for days. You shouldn't complain." [1]
Why It's Flawed
Just because something is worse does not mean the lesser issue is okay or doesn't cause genuine distress. Acknowledging that multiple problems can exist—and be solved—at the same time is completely rational. Taken to its extreme, this logic dictates that only the single most miserable person on the planet has the right to complain, which quickly renders the argument ridiculous.

Fifth, if you start a thread about "heterosexual" sexualization of girls, will join you in condemning it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Calm Grand Master

Calm

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, smac97 said:

ifth, if you start a thread about "heterosexual" sexualization of girls, will join you in condemning it.

Except I am not dismissing your arguments for that reason and I am not addressing this lack of balance to make an argument.  It’s a lack of understanding on my part why you are so focused on a small issue, it’s so important to you if one measures by time and effort spent on it while a much greater issue is a diminutive interest for you by the same measure (people spend time and resources on what matters to them).  I am wondering why it actually matters to you because if it was simply that girls and boys were being harmed it makes much more sense to invest time and effort into a persistent and dramatically larger issue causing harm than a smaller one.  

First deal with that which harms the most, then seeks out lesser harms.  At this point sexualization is a pervasive element in our culture, ignoring it (and by that I mean you pretty much push aside and spend very little time in the past when I bring up such things) is like ignoring a malignant bone cancer while focusing on potentially cancerous moles (many of which aren’t likely to be cancerous).

PS:  while I believe bigotry is one reason that some people focus on sexualization from some in the queer community, I don’t believe that’s the only reason why someone might spend an inordinate amount of time on that aspect of sexualization while ignoring the greater social context that such is rooted in and is most often displayed in heterosexual sexualization.  
 

Why you don’t see me ranting much on this board (I admit I have probably ranted about Dehlin, Daybell, and Tim Ballard and likely a few others)is because I don’t spend huge amounts of time and effort on arguments that will have little impact, including providing information.  I don’t see constant repetition of the same claims that aren’t particularly well grounded as that persuasive for one thing.  
 

Also, I define rants as longwinded arguments that are more inflammatory than solid documentation (meaning actual psychologists discussing it academically and possible interpreting it in more popular language if dealing in psychology, but someone who knows the technical stuff as well to avoid the misinterpretations that happen so often when amateurs interpret technical language…because they don’t understand what is relevant and what isn’t, methodology, etc….like supplements being pushed as effective based on rat studies).

Edited by Calm
1
Calm Grand Master

Calm

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, smac97 said:

A sampling of other threads I have started which address sexual misconduct:

 

But do you treat these as a systemic or cultural issue or as individual events, where the issue is one person’s behaviour with limited impact on society?  Do you discuss these as something we need to prevent, that they show troubling patterns of  behaviour we need to stop being normalized, etc?  Are they a cause for you like gender affirming care or other transgender issues? Serious question as I want to know your own perception of your comments.

smac97 Grand Master

smac97

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Calm said:
Quote

A sampling of other threads I have started which address sexual misconduct:

But do you treat these as a systemic or cultural issue or as individual events, where the issue is one person’s behaviour with limited impact on society?  

I think sexual misconduct is "a systemic or cultural issue."  I do not think it is unique to any particular "community" based on sexual orientation.

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Do you discuss these as something we need to prevent, that they show troubling patterns of  behaviour we need to stop being normalized, etc?

Yes.  We need to address these matters.  Prevent and mitigate.  Punish and deter.  Encourage self-governance and constraint.

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Are they a cause for you like gender affirming care or other transgender issues?

I don't know what you mean here.  Does talking about a topic mean it (the topic) is a "cause" for the speaker?  How do you get there?  

The Church is a "cause" for me.  I'll own that all day long.  But individualized topics that have some sort of nexus to the Church, such that I occasionally read items about those topics and participate in online discussions of them - are these "causes" for me?  Nope.

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Serious question as I want to know your own perception of your comments.

I started this thread in 2022, at which point disputes about "pronouns" were, I think, becoming a big deal.  I also started many other threads around that time:

I was also participating in many other threads started by other posters.  Lots and lots of different topics.  Most are about, or intersect in some way with, the Church.  None is a "cause," though.  This is just a message board.

As you can see, the topics here create a sort of constellation around the Church.  Church history and doctrine.  Current events.  Legal issues.  BYU.  Controversies.  Some of these pertain to matters of sexual misconduct.

Fast forward to June 2026, I added a post in this thread to discuss recent news items about "pronouns."  Nehor, as is his wont, criticized my post.  No surprise there.  One of his more common complaints is that I give undue attention to "LGBT" issues.  As you can see from the above list, I don't think that is an accurate critique, as I start and participate in threads about all sorts of things pertaining to the Church.

Nevertheless, you now seem to be joining Nehor in that assessment.  I'm not sure why.  In any event, I think you are demonstrating the "Fallacy of Relative Privation," and also imputing bigotry to me because I am addressing sexualization of children relative to the LGBT community:

Quote

First deal with that which harms the most, then seeks out lesser harms.  At this point sexualization is a pervasive element in our culture, ignoring it (and by that I mean you pretty much push aside and spend very little time in the past when I bring up such things) is like ignoring a malignant bone cancer while focusing on potentially cancerous moles (many of which aren’t likely to be cancerous).

PS:  while I believe bigotry is one reason that some people focus on sexualization from some in the queer community, I don’t believe that’s the only reason why someone might spend an inordinate amount of time on that aspect of sexualization while ignoring the greater social context that such is rooted in and is most often displayed in heterosexual sexualization.  

I do not accept the premise here.  This is a message board, and we talk about all sorts of things.  I don't think you go around tut-tutting other posters for talking about topics other than "that which harms the most."

Also, I totally agree that "sexualization is a pervasive element in our culture."  I frequently raise or respond to topics associated with this issue.  Again, from a prior post:

Quote

A sampling of other threads I have started which address sexual misconduct:

I started these threads, all of which pertain to sexual misconduct by heterosexual persons.  

You have not disparaged my critiques of (heterosexual) licentiousness at Mardi Gras as "massive rants," nor have you characterized these various threads as "massive rants."  I am curious as to why.  

Also, I do not agree that I "focus on sexualization from some in the queer community," or that I "spend an inordinate amount of time on that aspect of sexualization while ignoring the greater social context that such is rooted in and is most often displayed in heterosexual sexualization."  Again, see the above topics which I have started.  A few more:

These all pertain to sexual misconduct by heterosexual persons.  When I started them, I do not recall you complaining that I "focus on sexualization from some in the {heterosexual} community."

Again, I think sexual misconduct is at or near the apex of societal ills.  We also see substantial problems with substance abuse, caustic communications, factionalization (political, religious, racial, etc.), technology, and so on.  

I believe the remedy to these developments is what the Church is teaching.

Faith in God creates belief in an a sense of accountability to an external and higher moral authority.  "Behold I say unto you that ye shall have hope through the atonement of Christ and the power of his resurrection, to be raised unto life eternal, and this because of your faith in him according to the promise."  (Moroni 7:41)

Repentance allows and incentivizes the individual to correct an erroneous course of action, since he knows that forgiveness is possible.

Forgiveness of others allows us to come back together again after having been estranged by offense or error.

Gratitude and humility instill in us happiness for what we have, and keep things in proportion, and are excellent attributes to counter pride, envy, anger, and so on.

Education and hard work help us improve ourselves, our circumstances, our communities, and allow us to provide for our families.

The Word of Wisdom and the Law of Chastity help us constrain and control our appetites and passions.  Imagine how many problems would go away if we all worked to live in accordance with these principles.

In short, belief in and emulation of Jesus Christ is the best way.  "Wherefore, whoso believeth in God might with surety hope for a better world, yea, even a place at the right hand of God, which hope cometh of faith, maketh an anchor to the souls of men, which would make them sure and steadfast, always abounding in good works, being led to glorify God."  (Ether 12:4).

I think examining the Church's teachings is a worthwhile endeavor.  Mostly, this should involve straightforward efforts: reading/studying/pondering the scriptures, prayer, fasting, attending Church and keeping the Sabbath, daily repentance, service, and so on.

One further option, though, is to evaluate both the doctrines of the Church and social issues by applying Joseph Smith's maxim: “By proving contraries, truth is made manifest."  Thus, I think it a worthwhile endeavor to examine not only the doctrines of the Church, but broader societal precepts that contradict them.  I think mandatory "pronoun" usage is, in the end, problematic.  It is compelled speech.  It is coercive and dishonest, in an "Emperor's New Clothes" sort of way.  It contravenes the Proclamation.  It is a manipulation of language, not evolution of it.  I view it a subversive ideological endeavor.  I view it as perhaps initially innocuous, but now unhealthy and potentially damaging, exercise relative to those with mental health disorders (I do not think incongruent-with-reality notions should be endorsed or incentivized or normalized).  I think the social pressure/harassment associated with it are unreasoned and intended to stifle free inquiry and discussion and debate. 

These things are, or ought to be, antithetical to the thought processes I deploy as a Latter-day Saint.

D4922345-847D-4027-A6A8-51D1B26194E4.jpe

0039017F-C2EB-4FA5-8D28-EEF13C9ABA5D.jpe

I think we ought to be able to have reasoned discussions about difficult topics without being harangued and hectored for daring to broach a difficult topic, or to have and express thoughts about it that might rankle others.

I am as interested in the pursuit of truth as, I think, you and others are.  If I harbor misconceptions or errors or biases or whatnot in my thinking and analysis, I am open to such things being pointed out.  The "You're a Bigot!" schtick has long lost whatever passing potency it had.  If anything, I think this indicates that its users are unwilling to participate in the Marketplace of Ideas because their position is weak or unreasoned or devoid of or contrary to evidence, such that it cannot withstand legitimate scrutiny.  It's a distraction, an effort to silence by shouts what cannot be countered by civil disagreement.

The Tone Policing / Fallacy of Relative Privation / Whataboutism stuff is obviously less problematic, but still seemingly intended to stifle discussion.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
The Nehor Grand Master

The Nehor

Posted
Posted
On 7/23/2026 at 8:52 AM, smac97 said:

I think it is entirely acceptable to speak against people who are sexualizing and grooming children. 

You just assume that is what transgender people are doing.

On 7/23/2026 at 8:52 AM, smac97 said:

I think there are substantial numbers of LGBT people who agree with this sentiment.

In the general sense, yes. If you append that transgender people are the predators they are more likely to punch you in the face and they would be morally right to do so.

On 7/23/2026 at 8:52 AM, smac97 said:

I also think there are extensive concerns about medical interventions associated with minors and Gender Dysphoria.  We are seeing the beginning of what may end up being a large number of lawsuits about this.  I think that is a healthy and appropriate course correction in society.

Wishful thinking.

On 7/23/2026 at 8:52 AM, smac97 said:

I have provided ample references to events which involve the sexualization and grooming of children, and also problematic medical interventions.  

No, you have not. You have produced panic pieces written by propagandists with only a vague understanding of the actual data.

On 7/23/2026 at 8:52 AM, smac97 said:

"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."  Matthew 18:6.

There are few things as depraved as sexualizing and grooming children.

Which is why we have to stop all those Jews who are eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christian babies in their satanic and depraved “religious” festivals.

You have to establish that the depravity is real before acting. You just imagine it is there and will believe any idiot who comes along telling you what you want to hear. Fact-checking is beneath you so why bother?

You’d fit in well with the people killing the Jews back then. They had ‘credible data’ supporting their pogroms just like you do. Same song, new verse.

And people fall for it every time.

Calm Grand Master

Calm

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Does talking about a topic mean it (the topic) is a "cause" for the speaker?  How do you get there?  

By the way you talk about it.

Critiquing a group’s methodology consistently and pointing out the same things as needing to change is generally a cause in my book.

Calling someone a crook and advocating for them to be punished in multiple threads would be a cause, but simply informing people about someone’s behaviour, offering judgment, but not coming back to it over and over when any sort of connection pops up, that’s not a cause.

My tracking of the Daybells was a semi cause because I want people to recognize the dangers in some of the fringe groups in the Church.  Same with Julie Rowe.  I am appalled that her books and the Vision of Glories book were the bestsellers in the LDS market and a significant number of people made costly, unnecessary purchases damaging their financial stability because of their enthrallment with those beliefs.  Same with Tim Ballard and his work being both fraudulent, manipulative, and distracting from actual effective efforts.  I would put thread up after thread about them except that I don’t believe that will be any more persuasive.  
 

OTOH, my only concern with the Bisbee, Arizona abuse case was accuracy in reporting.  I am not going to revisit it unless something new pops up.  I don’t see that abusive father and mother as indicative of any patterns.  They were anomalies, imo.  Wee need to be able to get better at recognizing such, but that wasn’t the usual ongoing around them…though iirc we did get into the side topic of child protection and mandatory reporting there, which could and did turn the Bisbee threads into a cause discussion, which I joined in, but am relatively neutral on as I see pros and cons….except for better funding, I will always push for better funding as there just isn’t enough financial investment in the health and welfare off this nation’s children imo.  That’s a scandal given how wealthy as a nation we are.

Edited by Calm
smac97 Grand Master

smac97

Posted
  • Author
Posted
24 minutes ago, The Nehor said:
Quote

I think it is entirely acceptable to speak against people who are sexualizing and grooming children. 

You just assume that is what transgender people are doing.

I am not.  Some members of the LGBT community are engaging in sexualizing/grooming behaviors, as are some members of the "straight" community.  I think plenty of other people in the LGBT community are, like I am, repulsed by these behaviors.

24 minutes ago, The Nehor said:
Quote

I think there are substantial numbers of LGBT people who agree with this sentiment.

In the general sense, yes.

I am glad we agree on that.

24 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If you append that transgender people are the predators they are more likely to punch you in the face and they would be morally right to do so.

I have never made any such categorical claim.  

24 minutes ago, The Nehor said:
Quote

I also think there are extensive concerns about medical interventions associated with minors and Gender Dysphoria.  We are seeing the beginning of what may end up being a large number of lawsuits about this.  I think that is a healthy and appropriate course correction in society.

Wishful thinking.

I think it's happening, and will happen more in the future.

24 minutes ago, The Nehor said:
Quote

I have provided ample references to events which involve the sexualization and grooming of children, and also problematic medical interventions.  

No, you have not. You have produced panic pieces written by propagandists with only a vague understanding of the actual data.

I think the Cass Report is not accurately described as a "panic piece." 

Same goes for Dr. Paul McHugh's 2019 Amicus brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

And the NY Times article about Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy and her decision, on for political reasons, to not publish "a long-awaited study of puberty-blocking drugs."

Quote

The doctor, Johanna Olson-Kennedy, began the study in 2015 as part of a broader, multimillion-dollar federal project on transgender youth. She and colleagues recruited 95 children from across the country and gave them puberty blockers, which stave off the permanent physical changes — like breasts or a deepening voice — that could exacerbate their gender distress, known as dysphoria.

The researchers followed the children for two years to see if the treatments improved their mental health. An older Dutch study had found that puberty blockers improved well-being, results that inspired clinics around the world to regularly prescribe the medications as part of what is now called gender-affirming care.

But the American trial did not find a similar trend, Dr. Olson-Kennedy said in a wide-ranging interview. Puberty blockers did not lead to mental health improvements, she said, most likely because the children were already doing well when the study began.

“They’re in really good shape when they come in, and they’re in really good shape after two years,” said Dr. Olson-Kennedy, who runs the country’s largest youth gender clinic at the Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles.

That conclusion seemed to contradict an earlier description of the group, in which Dr. Olson-Kennedy and her colleagues noted that one quarter of the adolescents were depressed or suicidal before treatment.

And this October 2022 Reuters article, "Youth In Transition," which included Parts 1 through 4 ("A Dearth of Science," "The Social Element," "Lost in Limbo" and "The Matter of Regret").

And this 2026 story, "Cairns Clinic Scandal: Urgent Call to Halt Child Transition":

Quote

Family First Party National Director and lead NSW Legislative Council candidate Lyle Shelton today called on all state and federal governments to bring the so-called "gender affirmation" experiment on children to an immediate end, following the damning 213-page review into the Cairns paediatric gender health service.

More here:

Quote

Investigation into Paediatric gender health services provided in Cairns 

  • Investigations to be instigated into paediatric gender health services delivered at the Cairns Sexual Health Service.
  • A preliminary review by the Cairns and Hinterland Hospital and Health Service (CHHHS) exposed issues relating to clinical governance and compliance with endorsed clinical guidelines.
  • A Part 6 (clinical review) and a Part 9 (health service investigation) to be instigated.

The Minister for Health and Ambulance Services Tim Nicholls today announced that at his direction, Queensland Health Director-General David Rosengren is to commission a Part 6 clinical review and a Part 9 health service investigation into paediatric gender health services provided by the Cairns Sexual Health Service.

It follows a preliminary review conducted by the Cairns and Hinterland Health and Hospital Service (CHHHS) in late 2024, after concerns were raised about apparently unauthorised paediatric gender services provided by the Cairns Sexual Health Service (CSHS), adherence to treatment guidelines and clinical governance.

Stage 1 hormone therapy (“puberty blockers”) and Stage 2 hormone therapy (“gender affirming hormones”) were being delivered in a way that may not have aligned with the Australian Standards of Care and Treatment Guidelines for Trans and Gender Diverse Children and Adolescents or complied with standards for clinical documentation. 

On 21 May 2024, a Public Interest Disclosure (PID) was received regarding prescribing of a puberty blocker to a 12-year-old and concerns with clinical decision making. Concerns included the lack of multi-disciplinary consultation, in accordance with best practice, which must be held for all young people 14 years and under who seek to commence treatment with puberty blockers.

“The Cairns Sexual Health Service delivered an apparently unauthorised paediatric gender service without an agreed model of care. The service was delivered to 42 paediatric gender services clients, 17 of whom were prescribed Stage 1 or Stage 2 hormone therapy,” Minister Nicholls said.

And this 2023 article in the British Medical Journal, "Gender dysphoria in young people is rising—and so is professional disagreement," which includes this intro:

Quote

More children and adolescents are identifying as transgender and are being offered medical treatment, especially in the US—but some providers and European authorities are urging caution because of a lack of strong evidence. 

And this: Joshua P. Cohen, Europe and U.S. Diverge Sharply on Treatment of Gender Incongruence in Minors, Forbes (updated Dec. 2, 2023).

And this: Azeen Ghorayshi, Youth Gender Medications Limited in England, Part of Big Shift in Europe, N.Y. Times (Apr. 9, 2024)

And this: Hannah Barnes, Why Disturbing Leaks from US Gender Group WPATH Ring Alarm Bells in the NHS, Guardian (Mar. 9, 2024)

And this: Azeen Ghorayshi, Biden Officials Pushed to Remove Age Limits for Trans Surgery, Documents Show, N.Y. Times (June 25, 2024)

More:

It is unfortunate that so much reporting is affected by political slants, but the foregoing articles include a lot of citations to substantive clinical data, studies, etc.

24 minutes ago, The Nehor said:
Quote

"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."  Matthew 18:6.

There are few things as depraved as sexualizing and grooming children.

Which is why we have to stop all those Jews who are eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christian babies in their satanic and depraved “religious” festivals.

I think the sexualization/grooming behaviors I have been referencing are not at all comparable to blood libels.

June 2023 NY Post Article (no link b/c the photos are NSFW) : This Pride month, fellow gays, keep your kinks at home — and away from kids

June 2023 CBS Austin: Video of man twerking while children watch at Minneapolis Pride goes viral

April 2023: Florida ‘Pride’ Parade Canceled After Law Against Exposing Kids to Sexually Explicit Events

June 2023 Newsweek: Nudity at Seattle Pride Sparks Outrage: ‘Why Were They Not Arrested?’

 

24 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You have to establish that the depravity is real before acting. You just imagine it is there and will believe any idiot who comes along telling you what you want to hear. Fact-checking is beneath you so why bother?

See above.

Thanks,

-Smac

Calm Grand Master

Calm

Posted
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Some members of the LGBT community are engaging in sexualizing/grooming behaviors, as are some members of the "straight" community.

Do you see yourself as talking more often about the “some” transgender people who are engaging in these behaviours than the “some” of straight community here (not just number of threads, but lengths of posts, amounts of links to support claims, etc)?  Do you feel in the past two years you have invested the same, more, or less than effort into discussing transgender issues than straight?

Do you see a higher percentage of transgender people involved in these behaviours or that it is more typical in the transgender community than the straight?

In terms of absolute numbers, not percentages, which group do you see as having the largest number of predators?  Which group do you see as having more social influence currently?

Btw, I don’t assume what appears to me to be a focus of yours to be based on bigotry.  There could be a number of reasons why you have this alleged (because I admit this may be an inaccurate perception, but I can’t check since the search function of the board does not work well enough nor is my interest high enough to go back and reread past threads to determine which subjects get the most content from you as well as apparent effort in research…meaning more academic treatments for me).

I ask these questions because assumptions and perceptions help me understand the reasoning of others.

Edited by Calm
The Nehor Grand Master

The Nehor

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am not.  Some members of the LGBT community are engaging in sexualizing/grooming behaviors, as are some members of the "straight" community.  I think plenty of other people in the LGBT community are, like I am, repulsed by these behaviors.

Yes, you are truly a gay ally.

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have never made any such categorical claim.  

No, you just spend your free time collecting idiotic news articles that say that transgender people are all depraved predators and post them here. You are just an innocent bystander that is not responsible for the misinformation he spreads.

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think it's happening, and will happen more in the future.

I think the Cass Report is not accurately described as a "panic piece." 

Same goes for Dr. Paul McHugh's 2019 Amicus brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

And the NY Times article about Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy and her decision, on for political reasons, to not publish "a long-awaited study of puberty-blocking drugs."

And this October 2022 Reuters article, "Youth In Transition," which included Parts 1 through 4 ("A Dearth of Science," "The Social Element," "Lost in Limbo" and "The Matter of Regret").

And this 2026 story, "Cairns Clinic Scandal: Urgent Call to Halt Child Transition":

More here:

And this 2023 article in the British Medical Journal, "Gender dysphoria in young people is rising—and so is professional disagreement," which includes this intro:

And this: Joshua P. Cohen, Europe and U.S. Diverge Sharply on Treatment of Gender Incongruence in Minors, Forbes (updated Dec. 2, 2023).

And this: Azeen Ghorayshi, Youth Gender Medications Limited in England, Part of Big Shift in Europe, N.Y. Times (Apr. 9, 2024)

And this: Hannah Barnes, Why Disturbing Leaks from US Gender Group WPATH Ring Alarm Bells in the NHS, Guardian (Mar. 9, 2024)

And this: Azeen Ghorayshi, Biden Officials Pushed to Remove Age Limits for Trans Surgery, Documents Show, N.Y. Times (June 25, 2024)

More:

It is unfortunate that so much reporting is affected by political slants, but the foregoing articles include a lot of citations to substantive clinical data, studies, etc.

I think the sexualization/grooming behaviors I have been referencing are not at all comparable to blood libels.

June 2023 NY Post Article (no link b/c the photos are NSFW) : This Pride month, fellow gays, keep your kinks at home — and away from kids

June 2023 CBS Austin: Video of man twerking while children watch at Minneapolis Pride goes viral

April 2023: Florida ‘Pride’ Parade Canceled After Law Against Exposing Kids to Sexually Explicit Events

June 2023 Newsweek: Nudity at Seattle Pride Sparks Outrage: ‘Why Were They Not Arrested?’

 

See above.

Oh look, more of it. Thanks for proving my point.

Again, transgender people are more likely to be the victims of crime than the perpetrators. On a per capita and absolute basis the people grooming and being predators to children are overwhelmingly cishet men. Yet somehow you embrace this moral panic because punching up is hard and punching down is easy. Actually fighting the predation of children means fighting entrenched interests and powerful people in society. Instead you listen to those same powerful people telling you that the queers are the real problem. You’re a useful idiot to the real villains and you aren’t doing anything virtuous, helpful, or praiseworthy by reposting their facile propaganda.

You voted for a man who openly bragged about perving on women in their changing rooms and you want to think you are on the side of the angels?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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