Calm Posted June 29 Posted June 29 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Then someone (cough) Gjevjon (cough) reported the post That’s taking clickbait too far.
smac97 Posted June 29 Author Posted June 29 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: And you again take this golden opportunity to uncritically repost and regurgitate propaganda without investigating the claims made in even the most perfunctory fashion. So here we go again. So you are opposed to compelled speech? Yes. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Well, that is a misleading headline. She is facing criminal charges because there is currently an investigation that may not think charges are appropriate at all. Prediction: These will all be ridiculous. Uh, nope. Most of the aggression is coming from transphobic activists. This is even more stupid. I know the queer community. The Gs have the highest number of transphobes amongst them and it is still very very low. Much lower than can be found in the general population. The lesbian community is largely supportive of transgender people. So is the gay community. The bisexual community is probably the most supportive. There is no fracture in the community. There are some useful idiots who happen to be queer. There is no divide. That is right-wing propaganda designed mostly to assuage the consciences of bigots who want to imagine they are supporting lesbians in their hate. This is, of course, entirely incorrect if you do more than a surface level reading of the upcoming situation you are going to use in this preposterous example. *pause for laughs for this hilarious joke and hope for at least General Conference level audible chuckles offered mostly out of politeness* Stop trying to share a bed with a lesbian. It is a weird thing to aspire to. Knowest thou the condescension of smac? He descended below all things to admit he agrees with a lesbian to kill their common enemy, the marginalized transgender people. Truly a Christlike act. Okay, so what happened? Gjevjon is a know TERF. She has been harassing transgender people in Norway on social media and in person for years. She has a particular bone to pick with Christine Jentoft, a trans lesbian with a child. Hence the “lesbian mother” schtick. So how did this whole investigation start? Gjevjon posted a bit on social media about how “men are men” and deadnamed Jentoft. Then someone (cough) Gjevjon (cough) reported the post which triggered a police investigation into Gjevjon. Now newspapers can say she is being investigated and “facing charges” with scare tactics about the potential prison term being something she realistically faces. So what does Jentoft say about this? She hast stated she doesn’t want Gjevjon charged or prosecuted despite Gjevjon’s regular social media harassment. Prominent Norwegian transgender advocacy groups don’t want Gjevjon charged or prosecuted and have publicly said this. So who wants Gjevjon charged? Probably nobody. Who wants Gjevjon investigated so they can sell this story as a scare tactic revolving around an investigation likely to go nowhere? Gjevjon who is hard at work playing the martyr who no one actually wants to burn at the stake. This is your heroine smac. A social media bully who deliberately triggered an investigation (Gjevjon admits it was deliberate) and has repeatedly badgered Jentoft to take her to court over her harassment and Jentoft isn’t interested. Gjevjon has also claimed that she would have been pressured to transition if she was growing up right now because she was tomboyish. This is without evidence as there is no evidence of lesbians or anyone else being collectively pressured to transition. It is just parroting propaganda. She also writes songs about how she is a hateful terf and claims she is being blacklisted from some venues for being transphobic. She is right there at least. So no, no T picked this fight. An L did. One L. So your generalized statements about the T being behind it and a large fracture aren’t supported at all by the very evidence you uncritically trotted out to support it. I hope you are better at this in a courtroom. You got everything wrong. Stop trusting the media outlets that lie to you. Dig deeper. Didn’t know you were a big supporter of her art. I am not. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Also the First Amendment, of course, doesn’t apply in Norway. Free speech in Norway is enshrined in Article 100 of the Norwegian Constitution, which explicitly prohibits prior censorship and guarantees the right to express oneself freely on any subject: Quote Article 100. There shall be freedom of expression. No one may be held liable in law for having imparted or received information, ideas or messages unless this can be justified in relation to the grounds for freedom of expression, which are the seeking of truth, the promotion of democracy and the individual's freedom to form opinions. Such legal liability shall be prescribed by law. Everyone shall be free to speak their mind frankly on the administration of the State and on any other subject whatsoever. Clearly defined limitations to this right may only be imposed when particularly weighty considerations so justify in relation to the grounds for freedom of expression. Prior censorship and other preventive measures may not be applied unless so required in order to protect children and young persons from the harmful influence of moving pictures. Censorship of letters may only be imposed in institutions. Everyone has a right of access to documents of the State and municipalities and a right to follow the proceedings of the courts and democratically elected bodies. Limitations to this right may be prescribed by law to protect the privacy of the individual or for other weighty reasons. The authorities of the state shall create conditions that facilitate open and enlightened public discourse. Section 185 in the Norwegian Penal Code criminalizes hate speech: Quote Section 185.Hate speech A penalty of a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years shall be applied to any person who with intent or gross negligence publicly makes a discriminatory or hateful statement. «Statement» includes the use of symbols. Any person who in the presence of others, with intent or gross negligence, makes such a statement to a person affected by it, see the second paragraph, is liable to a penalty of a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year. «Discriminatory or hateful statement» means threatening or insulting a person or promoting hate of, persecution of or contempt for another person based on his or her a. skin colour or national or ethnic origin, b. religion or life stance, c. homosexual orientation, or d. reduced functional capacity. Article 100 of the Norwegian Constitution seems substantially gutted by Section 185 in the Norwegian Penal Code. All the more reason for we here in the U.S. to work against encroachments onto Free Speech such as this. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Also it is kind of pathetic to act like you agreeing with a lesbian is such a great divide to cross. You can always find someone of just about any group who will back you up if you look hard enough. And let us not pretend this alliance means anything anyways. If you could you would deny her the right to marry, would want all discussions of lesbianism hidden where no minor could ever conceivably hear of it, and would insist that she just needs to pray and repent and either live a life of celibacy or somehow become straight or do a lavender marriage or whatever. Oh, and you would find her art obscene of course. I have been attempting to substantially moderate my communications in the last several months. Your comments above pertain to statements I posted in 2022. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Oh, and the nuns in that piece are not facing legal harassment. From the article: Quote The text stipulates that long-term care facilities must use patients’ preferred pronouns, even when they’re not present; defer to their choice of bathroom; and refuse to assign rooms based on biological sex. Staff must also undergo “cultural competency” training. All of this would violate the sisters’ consciences, yet failure to do so could cost them thousands of dollars in fines, loss of licensure and even imprisonment. When their request for an exemption went unanswered this spring, they sued the state in federal court. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this. The article appears to have the State compelling private parties to say, or not say, words dictated by the State. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: An anti-transgender group picked them as the most sympathetic group available to file the lawsuit. The letter appears to be authentic. See also here: Quote Violations of the law could result in fines, loss of licensing or jail time, the lawsuit states. “We Sisters have taken care of patients from all walks of life, ideologies and faiths. We treat each patient with dignity and Christian charity. We have never had complaints,” said Mother Marie Edward, general superior of the Hawthorne Dominicans, in a news release announcing the legal challenge. “We cannot implement New York’s mandate without violating our Catholic faith.” The federal lawsuit was filed April 6 after the state failed to respond to the order’s request for a religious exemption, according to the release. The suit asks a judge to declare the law unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiffs and to award attorneys’ fees. And here: Quote Martin Nussbaum, general counsel for Catholic Benefits Association, who is representing the Dominican Sisters of Hawthorne, told Fox News Digital that the sisters’ risk of lost licensing applies both to the entity, Rosary Hill Home, and to its staff members who are professionally licensed. The "Catholic Benefits Association" is an "anti-transgender group"? Seems like a pretty legitimate lawsuit. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: The nuns may not care about transgender people at all one way or the other. Or the issue may be more about the State compelling/coercing speech. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: I imagine they agreed because it is likely to give them visibility and increase donations. Taking care of people who are dying of terminal cancer is kind of “meh” in terms of winning financial support. Getting bigots to donate to them to applaud their (real or imaginary) fight against the transgender menace probably has the money rolling in. I actually applaud them for grabbing that opportunity. Smart move. Perhaps they are motivated by non-ulterior motives. Nuns are typically not in that line of work for the money. Thanks, -Smac 2
Calm Posted June 29 Posted June 29 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Perhaps they are motivated by non-ulterior motives. Nuns are typically not in that line of work for the money. For personal use that is true, but they need money to run their charity. I believe that is what Nehor was talking about.
Calm Posted June 29 Posted June 29 1 hour ago, smac97 said: I am not. So you are just going to ignore the rest of the info Nehor supplied about her, especially how she forced an investigation that apparently no one else actually wants? Quote Gjevjon posted a bit on social media about how “men are men” and deadnamed Jentoft. Then someone (cough) Gjevjon (cough) reported the post which triggered
smac97 Posted June 29 Author Posted June 29 45 minutes ago, Calm said: So you are just going to ignore the rest of the info Nehor supplied about her, especially how she forced an investigation that apparently no one else actually wants? If there is documentation of the claim, I would like to see it. That being said, lawsuits require "standing." Sometimes that involves a person deliberately breaking a law, or otherwise contriving a factual predicate, in order to challenge the law's validity. The most important gay civil rights case in history, Lawrence v. Texas, may have been predicated on contrived/fabricated evidence/circumstances. There is credible evidence that the factual predicate was at least partially unreliable or possibly fabricated, primarily from investigative journalism and scholarship after the decision. The strongest source is Dale Carpenter’s 2012 book Flagrant Conduct: The Story of Lawrence v. Texas (based on extensive interviews, court records, and contemporaneous accounts). From the Amazon summary (emphasis added) : Quote No one could have predicted that the night of September 17, 1998, would be anything but routine in Houston, Texas. Even the call to police that a black man was "going crazy with a gun" was hardly unusual in this urban setting. Nobody could have imagined that the arrest of two men for a minor criminal offense would reverberate in American constitutional law, exposing a deep malignity in our judicial system and challenging the traditional conception of what makes a family. Indeed, when Harris County sheriff’s deputies entered the second-floor apartment, there was no gun. Instead, they reported that they had walked in on John Lawrence and Tyron Garner having sex in Lawrence’s bedroom. So begins Dale Carpenter’s "gripping and brilliantly researched" Flagrant Conduct, a work nine years in the making that transforms our understanding of what we thought we knew about Lawrence v. Texas, the landmark Supreme Court decision of 2003 that invalidated America’s sodomy laws. Drawing on dozens of interviews, Carpenter has taken on the "gargantuan" task of extracting the truth about the case, analyzing the claims of virtually every person involved. Carpenter first introduces us to the interracial defendants themselves, who were hardly prepared "for the strike of lightning" that would upend their lives, and then to the Harris County arresting officers, including a sheriff’s deputy who claimed he had "looked eye to eye" in the faces of the men as they allegedly fornicated. Carpenter skillfully navigates Houston’s complex gay world of the late 1990s, where a group of activists and court officers, some of them closeted themselves, refused to bury what initially seemed to be a minor arrest. The author charts not only the careful legal strategy that Lambda Legal attorneys adopted to make the case compatible to a conservative Supreme Court but also the miscalculations of the Houston prosecutors who assumed that the nation’s extant sodomy laws would be upheld. Masterfully reenacting the arguments that riveted spectators and Justices alike in 2003, Flagrant Conduct then reaches a point where legal history becomes literature, animating a Supreme Court decision as few writers have done. In situating Lawrence v. Texas within the larger framework of America’s four-century persecution of gay men and lesbians, Flagrant Conduct compellingly demonstrates that gay history is an integral part of our national civil rights story. 8 pages of illustrations Carpenter, a law professor and gay rights supporter, concludes it is unlikely the deputies actually witnessed the men having sex when they entered. See also "The Unknown Past of Lawrence v. Texas" (also by Carpenter). Key points (summarized by Grok) : Quote Inconsistent Officer Accounts: One deputy (Joseph Quinn) claimed he saw the men engaged in **** sex. The other officers gave conflicting or vague reports — some saw nothing, others described different positions or states of undress. This raises doubts about Quinn’s account. Timing and Visibility Issues: The bedroom door was allegedly open, but accounts differ on lighting, positioning, and how quickly officers could have observed the act. Carpenter suggests that even if sex occurred earlier, it likely had stopped by the time police entered. Eubanks’ Role and Motive: Eubanks admitted the weapons report was false and was convicted for it. His jealousy provided motive, but some speculate the call may have been part of a broader setup (though evidence for a full "sting" is thin). Defendants’ Reluctance and Later Statements: Lawrence and Garner were not ideal plaintiffs initially and avoided detailing the facts publicly. They pled no contest partly to facilitate the constitutional challenge. Carpenter notes gaps in their direct accounts. Police Incentives: Some accounts suggest officers may have fabricated or embellished the observation to justify the entry and arrest after discovering the report was false (or due to bias). Carpenter’s bottom line (from his Michigan Law Review article and book): The case was likely built on a "foundational fabrication" or at least heavy exaggeration. The Supreme Court’s opinion assumed the facts as presented (private consensual sex observed by police), but the actual events were murkier. Other supporting points: No Physical Evidence: No photos, DNA, or independent corroboration beyond officer testimony. Strategic Lawyering: Lambda Legal and others shaped the case for litigation, prioritizing the constitutional issue over litigating every factual detail. Pleading no contest avoided a full trial on facts. Post-Decision Scrutiny: Conservative critics and some neutral observers highlighted these inconsistencies as evidence the case was "staged" for impact. However, most legal scholars view it as typical of impact litigation where facts are selected/emphasized for broader principles. Counterpoints and Context No Smoking-Gun Proof of Wholesale Fabrication: No definitive evidence (e.g., confessions from officers or defendants) proves the entire incident was invented. Discrepancies exist, but they could stem from poor memory, bias, or rushed reporting rather than deliberate conspiracy. The Core Harm Was Real: Even if the precise act wasn’t observed, Lawrence and Garner were arrested and prosecuted under an unequal, discriminatory law. The constitutional violation (targeting same-sex conduct) stands independently of the exact bedroom details. Broader Historical Pattern: Sodomy laws were rarely enforced against private consensual acts by the late 20th century, but selective enforcement against gay men was common. Lawrence exposed that reality. Academic Consensus: Most legal historians and LGBT scholars treat the case as legitimate impact litigation. Doubts about facts don’t undermine the ruling’s doctrinal importance (privacy/liberty for intimate conduct). Bottom Line There is substantial evidence — primarily from Carpenter’s rigorous investigation — that the factual predicate was unreliable and possibly exaggerated or partially fabricated by police testimony. It is unlikely the officers witnessed the act as claimed. This doesn’t make Lawrence a "hoax" in the constitutional sense (the law was unjust and selectively applied), but it does suggest the case reaching the Supreme Court rested on a shakier factual foundation than the opinion implied. This is a reminder that high-profile constitutional cases often involve strategic fact selection, and eyewitness accounts in emotionally charged arrests can be flawed. The ruling’s legacy on privacy and equality endures regardless. I would surmise that most folks who endorse the outcome of Lawrence would deny its legal impact because its factual underpinnings were based on a "factual predicate {that} was unreliable and possibly exaggerated or partially fabricated by police testimony." The same, I think, may eventually be said about the lawsuit filed by the nuns (though again, I have yet to see evidence that their legal dispute with the state is contrived). Thank you, -Smac
The Nehor Posted June 30 Posted June 30 5 hours ago, smac97 said: I have been attempting to substantially moderate my communications in the last several months. Your comments above pertain to statements I posted in 2022. Statements you quoted in a new post less than a day ago that come from a thread you revived by said posting. Don’t commit thread necromancy and quote the dead thread and then disavow that what you quoted is somehow out of date. 5 hours ago, smac97 said: I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this. The article appears to have the State compelling private parties to say, or not say, words dictated by the State. Sure, I will share my thoughts on this once you share your thoughts on how your heroic lesbian martyr is not a duplicitous charlatan chasing fame through disngenuous and self-created persecution. 5 hours ago, smac97 said: The letter appears to be authentic. 5 hours ago, smac97 said: The "Catholic Benefits Association" is an "anti-transgender group"? No, the people paying for the lawyers behind this are. 5 hours ago, smac97 said: Seems like a pretty legitimate lawsuit. I didn’t say it wasn’t a real lawsuit. I am saying that it wasn’t initiated because a Catholic Hospice wanted to burn money on this. 5 hours ago, smac97 said: Or the issue may be more about the State compelling/coercing speech. Yet you only seem to care about said speech when it involves treating transgender people with basic dignity. 5 hours ago, smac97 said: Perhaps they are motivated by non-ulterior motives. Nuns are typically not in that line of work for the money. You are allowed to bury your head in the sand about this. I don’t have to pretend your hypothetical is somehow plausible or likely. I note you completely ignored the stuff from Norway except to argue (incorrectly) that the 1st amendment to the Constitution somehow has an equivalent in Norwegian law which it does not. Why did you skip the parts about how the heroine of your narrative about the LGB and T divide was shown to be completely incorrect? Or that the persecution of your lesbian martyr was self-imposed? Or that you were duped by the flimsiest of stories because it told you what you wanted to believe? Are we just going to pretend that whole thing never happened and not reckon with the fact that your favored news sources are lying to you?
smac97 Posted June 30 Author Posted June 30 (edited) 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: Yet you only seem to care about said speech when it involves treating transgender people with basic dignity. There does not seem to be much in the way of "compelled speech" going on in the U.S. except for that associated with trans ideology. 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: I note you completely ignored the stuff from Norway except to argue (incorrectly) that the 1st amendment to the Constitution somehow has an equivalent in Norwegian law which it does not. If you have documentation about contrived circumstances (such as may have happened in Lawrence v. Texas), I would be happy to review it. Thanks, -Smac Edited June 30 by smac97
The Nehor Posted June 30 Posted June 30 10 hours ago, smac97 said: There does not seem to be much in the way of "compelled speech" going on in the U.S. except for that associated with trans ideology. And there isn’t even any involved with “trans ideology” whatever the hell that is. 10 hours ago, smac97 said: If you have documentation about contrived circumstances (such as may have happened in Lawrence v. Texas), I would be happy to review it. https://www.newsweek.com/tonje-gjevjon-trans-men-lesbian-transgender-norway-1768161 Quote Gjevjon admitted one of the motivations behind the post was to get the attention of authorities and have the chance to share her beliefs in the court system. "This is where it belongs in, in the legal system, and I want to talk about it in the legal system," she said. She wanted to be investigated at least. It keeps her in the news. And what did the target of Gjevjon’s hateful social media post say? Quote It was these acts of violence and other issues, such as access to healthcare, that needed the attention of the LGBTQ community—not spending time arguing with gender critics. "I don't think that statement from Tonje should be punishable. I think people should publicly just say 'that's a dumb thing to say,'" Jentoft said. "We are facing bigger struggles with the terrorist attack in Norway this summer. When it comes to queer rights, I feel like we should prioritize differently." As I said it was self-inflicted. Also it has been four years and no charges have come so far. Though I can’t find any follow up it is probably safe to conclude the investigation was concluded and no charges resulted so Gjevjon was successful. She cast herself as a martyr and stirred up fear and hatred amongst transphobic people and the whole thing died with a whimper that no one noticed and her imagined persecution was nonexistent. She played transphobes by telling them a carefully curated story that flattered their bigotry and they swallowed it with no critical analysis whatsoever. Just took it at face value because they are so hard up for real stories of persecution that flimsy made up ones are all they have so they carefully try to avoid breathing near their house of cards. Then they run off to the next flimsy construction and imagine they are the victims in some kind of horrific war. It is kind of sad really. 3
smac97 Posted June 30 Author Posted June 30 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Quote There does not seem to be much in the way of "compelled speech" going on in the U.S. except for that associated with trans ideology. And there isn’t even any involved with “trans ideology” whatever the hell that is. "Compelled speech" refers to government or institutional requirements that force individuals to express (or refrain from expressing) certain ideas, often against their conscience. These days, it appears to be happening most frequently invoked in debates over transgender-related speech policies, such as: Punishing "Misgendering" and "Deadnaming": Many institutions, corporations, schools, and some governments treat the use of biologically accurate pronouns or names (e.g., calling a biological male "he" or using his birth name) as harassment, discrimination, or a hostile environment violation. This can lead to professional discipline, loss of employment, social ostracism, or legal penalties (e.g., human rights tribunal cases in Canada, or workplace policies in the U.S. and UK). Mandatory Pronoun Usage: Policies requiring people to use preferred pronouns (e.g., "they/them," neopronouns like "xe/xem," or opposite-sex pronouns) are, in my view, compelled speech. This forces individuals to affirm a contested ideological claim — that gender identity overrides or replaces biological sex — under threat of punishment. High-profile examples include professors, teachers, and employees facing investigations or termination for declining to use preferred pronouns. Broader Pattern: This is viewed as asymmetric: one side seeks to restrict certain speech (biological reality statements) while compelling other speech (affirmation of identity). Jordan Peterson's early opposition to Canadian Bill C-16 was a landmark pushback against this. Advocates of the foregoing compulsory/prohibited speech efforts present some justifications for them. Misgendering/deadnaming is not neutral speech but active harm that contributes to minority stress, mental health issues, and violence against trans people. Requiring basic courtesy (using preferred pronouns) is akin to other workplace civility rules (e.g., not using racial slurs) and does not rise to unconstitutional compelled speech. Free speech does not include the right to create a hostile environment or deny others' dignity in regulated settings like schools or employment. The impact of these efforts vary by jurisdiction: U.S.: The First Amendment generally protects against compelled speech (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943 — flag salute case). Recent cases (e.g., involving teachers or doctors) test how far institutions can go in mandating pronoun usage or punishing "misgendering." Canada/UK/Europe: Human rights codes and hate speech laws have been used more aggressively, leading to complaints against academics, bakers (Masterpiece Cakeshop-style cases), and others. Key Tension: The debate pits dignity/anti-discrimination concerns against classical liberal principles of conscience and free expression. Critics argue that when the state or powerful institutions compel affirmation of a contested metaphysical claim (gender identity), it crosses into authoritarian territory. In short, the dominant modern usage of "compelled speech" critiques policies that punish biologically grounded language while requiring affirmative endorsement of gender identity. It has become a flashpoint in culture-war battles over language, truth, and institutional power. The issue remains highly polarized, with rapidly evolving case law and workplace norms. And it appears to pertain mostly to "trans" issues. Not totally, of course. For example, in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case the Supreme Court addressed whether anti-discrimination laws can compel a creative business owner to design custom products for events that violate their religious beliefs. It remains one of the most prominent free speech and religious liberty cases in modern jurisprudence. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: https://www.newsweek.com/tonje-gjevjon-trans-men-lesbian-transgender-norway-1768161 From that article: Quote Police confirmed with Newsweek, that it is in fact for the potential breach of Section 185 that Gjevjon is being investigated. In the Facebook post, Gjevjon targeted Norwegian activist Christine Jentoft, a trans woman who is a lesbian and a mother to an 11-year-old daughter. "It's just as impossible for men to become lesbian as it is for men to become pregnant," Gjevjon wrote. "Men are men regardless of their sexual fetishes." She "deadnamed" Jentoft—using a trans person's birth name rather than chosen name—and referred to trans women as men throughout the post. I find it troubling that the above statement can be construed in some western nations as a criminal offense. Quote But Jentoft, a prominent Norweigan transgender advocate, didn't want the police involved because she "had no intention of doing anything about" Gjevjon's post. And yet, the police are involved, and whether or not a criminal charge is brought is not necessarily up to the alleged victim of the crime. Quote "I found it ridiculous that she was literally quoting an already existing verdict from the Supreme Court, in an attempt to get herself investigated and convicted by the police. So, the police had to open an investigation against her without telling me," Jentoft told Newsweek, saying she has been the target of a harassment campaign by Gjevjon for years. Again, see my previous remarks about parallels with the Lawrence v. Texas case. Quote "She's totally free to voice those opinions, the problem is when she keeps voicing discriminatory opinions repeatedly towards the same person for years and years," Jentoft said. "{V}oicing discriminatory opinions" seems like a very flexible "eye of the beholder" sort of thing. Quote Sørlie also said the artist had the "intent to provoke the police which might end up having her taking to court," and added, "she has told me explicitly to take her to court." Gjevjon admitted one of the motivations behind the post was to get the attention of authorities and have the chance to share her beliefs in the court system. "This is where it belongs in, in the legal system, and I want to talk about it in the legal system," she said. Not unlike what happened in Lawrence v. Texas. Quote Police attorney Johanna Loraas of the East Police District in Norway confirmed to Newsweek that police had received a complaint about Gjevjon's post and that the matter is under investigation. Those found to be in breach of Section 185 face a fine or up to a year in jail for private remarks, and a maximum of three years in jail for public comments. Loraas said the police were still determining if the Facebook post "can be considered as hateful (and punishable) or not." "{T}hree years in jail for public comments." For speaking words. I am glad that I live in America. Quote "However, freedom of speech is an essential human right and also protected by law, both by Norwegian law and European Convention on Human Rights," the police attorney said, adding they could not comment any further on the case due to the ongoing investigations. Not too "essential," though. Section 185 substantially mitigates it. Quote The police investigation comes after Norway's Supreme Court ruled in September that a man had violated Section 185 when he wrote on Facebook that trans women were "perverted man-pigs who role play that they are little girls," among other comments. It upheld the 2021 Hordaland District Court's ruling to give the man a 15-day suspended sentence and two years probation, including paying a fine of NOK15,000 ($1,516) and court fees. As a Latter-day Saint, I think we should be civil and respectful in our discourse with each other. However, I do not believe the State should compel such things, particularly in such an uneven way. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: She wanted to be investigated at least. It keeps her in the news. What are your thoughts about Lawrence v. Texas? 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: As I said it was self-inflicted. Also it has been four years and no charges have come so far. Though I can’t find any follow up it is probably safe to conclude the investigation was concluded and no charges resulted so Gjevjon was successful. She cast herself as a martyr and stirred up fear and hatred amongst transphobic people and the whole thing died with a whimper that no one noticed and her imagined persecution was nonexistent. "The police investigation comes after Norway's Supreme Court ruled in September that a man had violated Section 185 when he wrote on Facebook that trans women were 'perverted man-pigs who role play that they are little girls.'" You have said some things in the past that I have found troubling, but I am grateful that we live in a country that allows such things to be said, and I would strongly object to you being criminally prosecuted for the things you have said. I think that incremental encroachments against Free Speech, such as by punishing and compelling speech, are a legitimate concern. I am reminded of this post on X: Quote Step 1: It's not really happening Step 2: Yeah, it's happening, but it's not a big deal Step 3: It's a good thing, actually Step 4: People freaking out about it are the real problem Thanks, -Smac 1
The Nehor Posted June 30 Posted June 30 (edited) 3 hours ago, smac97 said: "Compelled speech" refers to government or institutional requirements that force individuals to express (or refrain from expressing) certain ideas, often against their conscience. These days, it appears to be happening most frequently invoked in debates over transgender-related speech policies, such as: Punishing "Misgendering" and "Deadnaming": Many institutions, corporations, schools, and some governments treat the use of biologically accurate pronouns or names (e.g., calling a biological male "he" or using his birth name) as harassment, discrimination, or a hostile environment violation. This can lead to professional discipline, loss of employment, social ostracism, or legal penalties (e.g., human rights tribunal cases in Canada, or workplace policies in the U.S. and UK). Mandatory Pronoun Usage: Policies requiring people to use preferred pronouns (e.g., "they/them," neopronouns like "xe/xem," or opposite-sex pronouns) are, in my view, compelled speech. This forces individuals to affirm a contested ideological claim — that gender identity overrides or replaces biological sex — under threat of punishment. High-profile examples include professors, teachers, and employees facing investigations or termination for declining to use preferred pronouns. Broader Pattern: This is viewed as asymmetric: one side seeks to restrict certain speech (biological reality statements) while compelling other speech (affirmation of identity). Jordan Peterson's early opposition to Canadian Bill C-16 was a landmark pushback against this. Advocates of the foregoing compulsory/prohibited speech efforts present some justifications for them. Misgendering/deadnaming is not neutral speech but active harm that contributes to minority stress, mental health issues, and violence against trans people. Requiring basic courtesy (using preferred pronouns) is akin to other workplace civility rules (e.g., not using racial slurs) and does not rise to unconstitutional compelled speech. Free speech does not include the right to create a hostile environment or deny others' dignity in regulated settings like schools or employment. The impact of these efforts vary by jurisdiction: U.S.: The First Amendment generally protects against compelled speech (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943 — flag salute case). Recent cases (e.g., involving teachers or doctors) test how far institutions can go in mandating pronoun usage or punishing "misgendering." Canada/UK/Europe: Human rights codes and hate speech laws have been used more aggressively, leading to complaints against academics, bakers (Masterpiece Cakeshop-style cases), and others. Key Tension: The debate pits dignity/anti-discrimination concerns against classical liberal principles of conscience and free expression. Critics argue that when the state or powerful institutions compel affirmation of a contested metaphysical claim (gender identity), it crosses into authoritarian territory. In short, the dominant modern usage of "compelled speech" critiques policies that punish biologically grounded language while requiring affirmative endorsement of gender identity. It has become a flashpoint in culture-war battles over language, truth, and institutional power. The issue remains highly polarized, with rapidly evolving case law and workplace norms. And it appears to pertain mostly to "trans" issues. Not totally, of course. For example, in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case the Supreme Court addressed whether anti-discrimination laws can compel a creative business owner to design custom products for events that violate their religious beliefs. It remains one of the most prominent free speech and religious liberty cases in modern jurisprudence. You are confusing two things here. 1) People get fired for deadnaming and using non-preferred pronouns which does happen because if you are a jerk at work you tend to get fired. 2) People getting criminally penalized for misgendering someone in day to day life or deadnaming then. By comparison if I were to change my name to Stan and someone insisted on calling me by my old name they could get fired for it by their boss if I complained. Also your fearmongering about this is dumb in general. If there is anything to be afraid of it is the authoritarians in our midst looking for groups that they can deny rights and legal protections to. Once they find groups they can do that to that creeping into our society will destroy us. You are consistently on their side as they attempt to do this. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: I find it troubling that the above statement can be construed in some western nations as a criminal offense. Then take it up with the Norwegian legal system. Neither transgender civil rights defenders nor the alleged victim of this crime want this person punished. Punch at them. Stop punching at transgender people who ARE NOT DOING THE THING you claim to be troubled about. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: And yet, the police are involved, and whether or not a criminal charge is brought is not necessarily up to the alleged victim of the crime. You are being deliberately dense. The police are involved because the alleged perpetrator WANTED THEM INVOLVED. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: Again, see my previous remarks about parallels with the Lawrence v. Texas case. So you are pivoting from saying this is a horrible thing that she is being investigated at all to this is a brave thing as she set this up to challenge the law and failed miserably. The comparison is invalid. She could have instead mimicked the last person who was prosecuted under the law for transphobic speech in Norway. Look that up and try to defend it if you dare. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: "{V}oicing discriminatory opinions" seems like a very flexible "eye of the beholder" sort of thing. Not really. It is pretty obvious. You have to do all kinds of contortions and repost misrepresentations regularly and often to spin this as ambiguous. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: Not unlike what happened in Lawrence v. Texas. Again, in that case she failed miserably. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: "{T}hree years in jail for public comments." For speaking words. Pick a lane. Is this a horrible travesty that should never have been considered at all? Or is it a brave stance taken to deliberately win a day in court? You keep jumping between the two to cope with the evidence not supporting the former and you are making things up to make the latter fit the narrative while holding on to the former. And again there was basically no chance of that happening and the three years thing isn’t something that was ever going to happen so you can stop hanging on that. Here is what happened for a much worse violation of the law: Quote The police investigation comes after Norway's Supreme Court ruled in September that a man had violated Section 185 when he wrote on Facebook that trans women were "perverted man-pigs who role play that they are little girls," among other comments. It upheld the 2021 Hordaland District Court's ruling to give the man a 15-day suspended sentence and two years probation, including paying a fine of NOK15,000 ($1,516) and court fees. No three year sentence for saying much worse. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: I am glad that I live in America. Don’t worry. You can erode liberties here. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: Not too "essential," though. Section 185 substantially mitigates it. America really shouldn’t be smug about the First Amendment somehow leading to superior outcomes over free speech with hate speech carve outs. *looks around* We’re not doing that well with it. I still like to believe the First Amendment approach is better but this really stupid country seems hell bent on disproving the idea. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: As a Latter-day Saint, I think we should be civil and respectful in our discourse with each other. However, I do not believe the State should compel such things, particularly in such an uneven way. As a Latter-Day Saint, I think we should punch fascists. Uneven way? Oh please, you haven’t shown some big uneven standard. Someone was investigated for something that they deliberately wanted to be investigated for and nothing happened and you are treating it as a harbinger of horrors to come? I would say you are paranoid but it is more likely that you just want to believe this. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: What are your thoughts about Lawrence v. Texas? Strategic attempts to challenge laws can be good or bad. Lawrence v. Texas was carefully constructed to challenge a constitutionally unsound law. Rosa Parks is another famous example of this. The Norwegian system doesn’t work quite this way and the comparison doesn’t hold. Also if she was trying to challenge the law legally she is terrible at it. That wasn’t her goal. She wanted publicity. She got it. She fooled you and a lot of other people into thinking she was the hapless victim of the evil transgender menace. Even when it is shown that the people publishing this stuff were deceiving you you are still flailing about trying to pick up the pieces and assemble some kind of rationale for why she is the hero. This kind of thinking is poisonous. You should be angry. They are talking down to you. They are treating you like you are stupid and feeding you false narratives. Doesn’t that annoy you? How are you okay with this? Seriously, how are okay with this? I would never listen to such a source ever again. Where is the love of truth? Where is evidence-based rationalism? 3 hours ago, smac97 said: "The police investigation comes after Norway's Supreme Court ruled in September that a man had violated Section 185 when he wrote on Facebook that trans women were 'perverted man-pigs who role play that they are little girls.'" You have said some things in the past that I have found troubling, but I am grateful that we live in a country that allows such things to be said, and I would strongly object to you being criminally prosecuted for the things you have said. So you are on the side of the trangender activists who don’t want her prosecuted. You’re getting into bed with everyone then. Hooray! And please don’t think you are somehow kind for not wanting me to be prosecuted for saying that fascists deserve to be met with violence. I stand by it. If that troubles you then good, I guess. Maybe it should. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: I think that incremental encroachments against Free Speech, such as by punishing and compelling speech, are a legitimate concern. Yet you only talk it about when it involves those icky gross trans people for some reason. 3 hours ago, smac97 said: I am reminded of this post on X: And I am reminded that Twitter has become an authoritarian hellhole. Thanks for the reminder. Edited June 30 by The Nehor 2
The Nehor Posted June 30 Posted June 30 Oh, and in case with all the Lawrence v. Texas stuff you were asking my position on the case I am pro-sodomy. And i mean sodomy in both the modern sense where it is tied up with stereotypically gay activities and the much earlier sense where it means any kind of sexual activity beyond the bare minimum of what is needed to impregnate someone. I am in favor of both.
smac97 Posted June 30 Author Posted June 30 51 minutes ago, The Nehor said: You are confusing two things here. 1) People get fired for deadnaming and using non-preferred pronouns which does happen because if you are a jerk at work you tend to get fired. The State typically cannot fire people from state-employment positions based on the exercise of Free Speech (that is, declining to acquiesce to mandatory pronouns and such). "Your exercise of your First Amendment rights makes you a jerk" is not really a viable legal argument in that context. Private parties generally have more leeway, I think, to fire people for not submitting to compelled speech. 51 minutes ago, The Nehor said: 2) People getting criminally penalized for misgendering someone in day to day life or deadnaming then. Yes, that is troubling to me. The differentiation here is the involvement of the State. The State cannot compel speech, which is why the nuns may have a case. 51 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Also your fearmongering about this is dumb in general. I'm not interested in mongering fear, but in anticipating and heading off long-term trends. The troubling developments in Europe are illustrative, as they have been a long time coming. I would like to think we are immune from such trends here, but inroads have already happened. New York. California. Colorado. Other jurisdictions. Incremental encroachments need to be addressed. 51 minutes ago, The Nehor said: If there is anything to be afraid of it is the authoritarians in our midst looking for groups that they can deny rights and legal protections to. I'm not sure what you are referencing here. Absent illegality, decisions made in a representative republic by an elected legislature and/or executive are going to be hard to characterize as "authoritarian." 51 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Once they find groups they can do that to that creeping into our society will destroy us. You are consistently on their side as they attempt to do this. Again, I'm not sure what you are referencing here, but I surmise that you are referring to the participation of "trans women" (that is, biological men) in women's sports, etc. I don't think that any men have any such "rights" or "protections," but I leave the matter to duly-elected legislatures who are answerable to their constituencies. 51 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Then take it up with the Norwegian legal system. Neither transgender civil rights defenders nor the alleged victim of this crime want this person punished. Punch at them. Stop punching at transgender people who ARE NOT DOING THE THING you claim to be troubled about. From the article: Quote The police investigation comes after Norway's Supreme Court ruled in September that a man had violated Section 185 when he wrote on Facebook that trans women were "perverted man-pigs who role play that they are little girls," among other comments. It upheld the 2021 Hordaland District Court's ruling to give the man a 15-day suspended sentence and two years probation, including paying a fine of NOK15,000 ($1,516) and court fees. Seems like the threat to speech is happening. 51 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Quote And yet, the police are involved, and whether or not a criminal charge is brought is not necessarily up to the alleged victim of the crime. You are being deliberately dense. The police are involved the alleged perpetrator WANTED THEM INVOLVED. This happens all the time. As I noted previously: "{L}awsuits require 'standing.' Sometimes that involves a person deliberately breaking a law, or otherwise contriving a factual predicate, in order to challenge the law's validity." 51 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Quote Again, see my previous remarks about parallels with the Lawrence v. Texas case. So you are pivoting from saying this is a horrible thing that she is being investigated at all to this is a brave thing as she set this up to challenge the law and failed miserably. You previously: "Though I can’t find any follow up it is probably safe to conclude the investigation was concluded and no charges resulted so Gjevjon was successful." You now: "{S}he set this up to challenge the law and failed miserably. I think she wanted to draw attention to the issue, and she succeeded in that. Also, Lawrence v. Texas continues to be an interest analog. 51 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Quote "{V}oicing discriminatory opinions" seems like a very flexible "eye of the beholder" sort of thing. Not really. It is pretty obvious. You have to do all kinds of contortions and repost misrepresentations regularly and often to spin this as ambiguous. It's a wonderful thing that we live in a society where people can express such disagreements. 51 minutes ago, The Nehor said: America really shouldn’t be smug about the First Amendment somehow leading to superior outcomes over free speech with hate speech carve outs. I think Americans such as you and I are far more free to say what we think without worry of punishment by the State than our friends in many other countries. And I quite agree that we should not be "smug" about the First Amendment. Grateful, yes. 51 minutes ago, The Nehor said: *looks around* We’re not doing that well with it. I still like to believe the First Amendment approach is better but this really stupid country seems hell bent on disproving the idea. Okay. 51 minutes ago, The Nehor said: As a Latter-Day Saint, I think we should punch fascists. You have previously objected to me raising your advocacy along these lines. I will abstain from this topic. 51 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Quote As a Latter-day Saint, I think we should be civil and respectful in our discourse with each other. However, I do not believe the State should compel such things, particularly in such an uneven way. Uneven way? Oh please, you haven’t shown some big uneven standard. I think the State is being selective in about what topics it wants to compel speech. 51 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Someone was investigated for something that they deliberately wanted to be investigated for and nothing happened and you are treating it as a harbinger of horrors to come? I would say you are paranoid but it is more likely that you just want to believe this. I regularly encounter stories where Free Speech is under threat, both in the U.S. and abroad. 51 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Quote "The police investigation comes after Norway's Supreme Court ruled in September that a man had violated Section 185 when he wrote on Facebook that trans women were 'perverted man-pigs who role play that they are little girls.'" You have said some things in the past that I have found troubling, but I am grateful that we live in a country that allows such things to be said, and I would strongly object to you being criminally prosecuted for the things you have said. So you are on the side of the trangender activists who don’t want her prosecuted. You’re getting into bed with everyone then. Hooray! Not everyone. Norway is still punishing people for speech. 51 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Quote Or the issue may be more about the State compelling/coercing speech. Yet you only talk it about when it involves those icky gross trans people for some reason. Advocates of trans ideology seem to be the only prominent and ongoing instance of a movement attempting to compel/coerce speech. Masterpiece Cakeshop was troubling as well. Thanks, -Smac 1
The Nehor Posted Thursday at 03:21 PM Posted Thursday at 03:21 PM On 6/30/2026 at 3:52 PM, smac97 said: Advocates of trans ideology seem to be the only prominent and ongoing instance of a movement attempting to compel/coerce speech. Yet the case you brought up shows the exact opposite of this as the “trans idealogists” don’t want her prosecuted and this whole situation isn’t about compelled speech at all. You are just ranting your usual talking points no matter how irrelevant they are because you are really obsessed with villifying transgender people for some reason. May want to look into that. On 6/30/2026 at 3:52 PM, smac97 said: Masterpiece Cakeshop was troubling as well. And obsessed with queer people in general. On 6/30/2026 at 3:52 PM, smac97 said: I'm not sure what you are referencing here. Absent illegality, decisions made in a representative republic by an elected legislature and/or executive are going to be hard to characterize as "authoritarian." LOL, LMAO even. 3
smac97 Posted Thursday at 04:07 PM Author Posted Thursday at 04:07 PM (edited) 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Yet the case you brought up shows the exact opposite of this as the “trans idealogists” don’t want her prosecuted and this whole situation isn’t about compelled speech at all. I am speaking about both situations. The State punishing what ought to be free speech, and also compelling speech. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: You are just ranting your usual talking points no matter how irrelevant they are because you are really obsessed with villifying transgender people for some reason. May want to look into that. Broadly, I am, or would like to be, indifferent to the private lives of adults. That said, there are elements of the trans movement which I find quite troubling: Sexualization of Children — Drag Queen Story Hour events, sexually explicit books in school libraries targeting minors, and overtly sexualized behavior at some Pride events in the presence of children. Violence — Elevated rates of violent behavior in certain segments of the trans-identified population (e.g., some high-profile cases involving assaults on women or "TERFs," prison incidents). Also, advocacy of preemptively-justified violence in response to ideological disagreement. Men in Women’s Spaces — Biological males competing in women’s sports (with documented physical advantages), entering women’s bathrooms, changing rooms, shelters, and prisons, leading to safety and fairness issues. Medicalization of Minors — Rapid increase in puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries for thousands of minors with gender dysphoria, despite weak long-term evidence, high desistance rates in some studies, and growing European caution (e.g., Cass Review in UK, restrictions in Sweden, Finland, Norway). Denial of Sexual Binary — Ideological insistence that sex is a spectrum or socially constructed, despite overwhelming biological evidence of binary gametic sex in humans (small/large gametes). Large-Scale Equivocation & Rhetorical Tactics — Phrases like “trans women are women,” conflating Disorders/Differences of Sex Development (DSDs/intersex conditions, which are rare developmental disorders) with typical gender dysphoria, and using DSDs to blur or deny the sex binary. Suppression of Dissent & Free Speech — Social, professional, and institutional penalties for questioning aspects of the ideology (e.g., “rapid-onset gender dysphoria,” desistance, or biological reality), including firings, deplatforming, and labeling critics as bigots. Social Contagion & Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria — Sharp rise in trans identification, especially among adolescent females (previously rare), correlated with social media influence, peer groups, and autism/mental health comorbidities. Littman’s 2018 study and subsequent data. Erosion of Women’s Rights & Single-Sex Spaces — Redefinition of “woman”/“female” in law and policy leading to loss of sex-based protections, scholarships, and safe spaces. Detransition & Regret — Growing number of detransitioners (often with comorbidities like trauma, autism, or same-sex attraction) reporting inadequate screening and lifelong harm. Lawsuits against clinics emerging. And there seems to be some real animus against detransitioners in some quarters. I know a young woman who was praised by her peers when she "transitioned" into "identifying" as a boy. When she "detransitioned," she was raked across the coals by many of those same peers. Capture of Institutions — Rapid adoption of gender ideology in schools, medicine, sports, prisons, and corporations, often with limited debate or evidence (e.g., WPATH guidelines criticized for low-quality evidence). Capture of State institutions, and the consequent use of the coercive power of the State to punish and/or compel speech. Parental Rights Undermined — Policies allowing schools or medical providers to socially/medical transition minors without parental knowledge or consent in some jurisdictions. Mental Health & Suicide Narrative — Over-reliance on “affirmation or suicide” rhetoric, despite evidence that transition does not reliably resolve underlying mental health issues and that post-transition suicide rates remain elevated. Medical professionals acquiescing to, or even endorsing, this fundamentally coercive concept ("life saving" = "give me this treatment or I will kill myself" / "do you want a live daughter or a dead son?", etc.). Autogynephilia & Typology — Research (e.g., Blanchard) on two main types of male-to-female trans identification (early-onset homosexual, late-onset autogynephilic) often dismissed or censored. Impact on Gay/Lesbian Youth — Some clinicians and detransitioners report that same-sex attracted youth are being medicalized as “trans” instead of supported as gay/lesbian. Data & Research Suppression — Allegations of publication bias, cancellation of studies questioning affirmation model, and pressure on researchers (e.g., Littman, Cass Review findings). Infringements on Parental Rights — Various state and private actors undermining and evading the rights of parents relative to their children. I see many elements of trans ideology creating substantial harm to society and its individual members, including "trans" people. 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Quote Masterpiece Cakeshop was troubling as well. And obsessed with queer people in general. I appreciate you sharing your perspective, but I think there’s a misunderstanding here. I am not “obsessed” with trans people, nor do I hate them. For most of my life I was largely indifferent — live and let live. What consenting adults do with their own bodies in private has never been my concern. What changed for me (and, I think, for many others) was when the ideology moved beyond private behavior by adults into more public areas that affect everyone else: Biological males competing in women’s sports, entering women’s bathrooms, changing rooms, shelters, and prisons. Drag Queen Story Hour events and highly sexualized behavior at some Pride events in the presence of children. Schools and medical professionals rapidly affirming and medically transitioning minors with puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries — despite comorbidities, weak long-term evidence, desistance rates in some studies, known risks of infertility and other permanent effects, and the recent caution from European countries (e.g., the Cass Review in the UK). These are not private matters. They involve fairness for women and girls, child safeguarding, parental rights, and public policy. Raising concerns about them is not hatred — it’s a reasonable response to real-world consequences. I support compassionate care for adults with gender dysphoria. I support mental health treatment for those struggling. What I oppose is the erasure of sex-based rights, the medicalization of distressed children without robust evidence, and the demand that everyone affirm a contested ideology or be labeled a bigot. Disagreement on policy and evidence is not the same as personal animus. I have no desire to be cruel to any individual. I simply believe biological reality, child protection, and women’s rights still matter. Masterpiece Cakeshop continues to be troubling. Thanks, -Smac Edited Thursday at 04:31 PM by smac97 2
The Nehor Posted Thursday at 06:55 PM Posted Thursday at 06:55 PM 2 hours ago, smac97 said: I am speaking about both situations. The State punishing what ought to be free speech, and also compelling speech. Broadly, I am, or would like to be, indifferent to the private lives of adults. I don’t believe you. If you were you could just be indifferent. You choose not to be. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: That said, there are elements of the trans movement which I find quite troubling: Oh boy, an AI list. Fine, I guess I’ll beat on Grok or whichever one you used. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Sexualization of Children — Drag Queen Story Hour events, sexually explicit books in school libraries targeting minors, and overtly sexualized behavior at some Pride events in the presence of children. Not much of any of that happening and that is not “sexualizing children”. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Violence — Elevated rates of violent behavior in certain segments of the trans-identified population (e.g., some high-profile cases involving assaults on women or "TERFs," prison incidents). Also, advocacy of preemptively-justified violence in response to ideological disagreement. Transgender people are more likely to be the victim of violence than the perpetrators of it. I think you know this but that doesn’t count. Only the relatively rare cases of transgender violence on other people count because only they are useful to your narrative. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Men in Women’s Spaces — Biological males competing in women’s sports (with documented physical advantages), entering women’s bathrooms, changing rooms, shelters, and prisons, leading to safety and fairness issues. Not men, and as I pointed out repeatedly sports leagues are determining standards for transgender people to compete in sports. They can do this without your demagoguery. Also do you really want trans men in women’s bathrooms? Also is there a rash of bathroom incidents all over causing huge problems? Or is this just fearmongering? Spoilers: It is a made up problem but it sounds like it could exist so best to be scared about it and police other people. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Medicalization of Minors — Rapid increase in puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries for thousands of minors with gender dysphoria, despite weak long-term evidence, high desistance rates in some studies, and growing European caution (e.g., Cass Review in UK, restrictions in Sweden, Finland, Norway). Most of that is wrong. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Denial of Sexual Binary — Ideological insistence that sex is a spectrum or socially constructed, despite overwhelming biological evidence of binary gametic sex in humans (small/large gametes). Intersex people exist. Sex is not a binary nor is gender. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Large-Scale Equivocation & Rhetorical Tactics — Phrases like “trans women are women,” conflating Disorders/Differences of Sex Development (DSDs/intersex conditions, which are rare developmental disorders) with typical gender dysphoria, and using DSDs to blur or deny the sex binary. Using examples that show sex isn’t a binary to show that sex isn’t a binary is a problem why? It only matters if you are committed to believing it is a binary no matter what evidence goes against it. This is magical thinking trying to replace evidence-based rationalism. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Suppression of Dissent & Free Speech — Social, professional, and institutional penalties for questioning aspects of the ideology (e.g., “rapid-onset gender dysphoria,” desistance, or biological reality), including firings, deplatforming, and labeling critics as bigots. Teaching pseudoscience should be something that leads to social scorn. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Social Contagion & Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria — Sharp rise in trans identification, especially among adolescent females (previously rare), correlated with social media influence, peer groups, and autism/mental health comorbidities. Littman’s 2018 study and subsequent data. Both of these have been studied and labeled as pseudoscience. I recommend reading up on the creation of ROGD. It came from a series of surveys of parents of trans kids asking if it happened due to the kids their child was around. Unsurprisingly they said yes because blaming a child’s friends for “corrupting” them is a tale as old as time. Actually studying how it works showed that the whole hypothesis was unsupported by any evidence. Nevertheless it is still championed by pseudoscientific people such as yourself as somehow being scientific. More magical thinking. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Erosion of Women’s Rights & Single-Sex Spaces — Redefinition of “woman”/“female” in law and policy leading to loss of sex-based protections, scholarships, and safe spaces. I find it hilarious that people that it is almost always the same people who think programs for equalizing pay for women and minorities and programs designed to help them specifically are wrong are now suddenly pretending they are worried about them being contaminated. Just stop. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Detransition & Regret — Growing number of detransitioners (often with comorbidities like trauma, autism, or same-sex attraction) reporting inadequate screening and lifelong harm. Lawsuits against clinics emerging. And there seems to be some real animus against detransitioners in some quarters. I know a young woman who was praised by her peers when she "transitioned" into "identifying" as a boy. When she "detransitioned," she was raked across the coals by many of those same peers. There are a growing number of detransitioners (though still a small percent of the total) because there are more people transitioning. If you can show a spike in the percentage of people who are deliberately choosing to detransition (not just those who stop due to social pressure or financial concerns) I would love to see it. I have known several people who detransition or retransition. This animus is mostly imaginary. The ones who get animus are usually the ones who want to limit or ban gender-affirming healthcare for others and they get animus because of course they do. They are seeking to make the lives of transgender people more difficult. In the queer community someone deciding not to continue to transition is more likely to be met with simple acceptance. Friends might make sure they are okay but this happens quite a bit. One friend in a local queer group I am a part of (she is in early 20s) decided last week to stop taking E until she can get more independence from her parents as it was causing a lot of problems at home. No one called her a traitor or thought she was some kind of monster. I doubt you have the full story of what happened. I suspect these were LDS people and there was a lot more going on then just not wanting to take testosterone anymore. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Capture of Institutions — Rapid adoption of gender ideology in schools, medicine, sports, prisons, and corporations, often with limited debate or evidence (e.g., WPATH guidelines criticized for low-quality evidence). Capture of State institutions, and the consequent use of the coercive power of the State to punish and/or compel speech. Old people yelling about how change in society is happening too fast has been going on since at least ancient Greece. And your compelled speech thing is silly. Even when your side controls all the branches of our government you still want to pretend that you are the victims. Bunch of whiners. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Parental Rights Undermined — Policies allowing schools or medical providers to socially/medical transition minors without parental knowledge or consent in some jurisdictions. Citation needed. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Mental Health & Suicide Narrative — Over-reliance on “affirmation or suicide” rhetoric, despite evidence that transition does not reliably resolve underlying mental health issues and that post-transition suicide rates remain elevated. Medical professionals acquiescing to, or even endorsing, this fundamentally coercive concept ("life saving" = "give me this treatment or I will kill myself" / "do you want a live daughter or a dead son?", etc.). Distortion of reality. Do they over-rely on it? How do you measure that? Sometimes suicide is the result if someone cannot transition. Is it over-reliant on that or is it under-reliant? And suicide rates remain elevated? Of course they do. A lot of that is because people marginalize them after they transition and family often alienates you if you do. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Autogynephilia & Typology — Research (e.g., Blanchard) on two main types of male-to-female trans identification (early-onset homosexual, late-onset autogynephilic) often dismissed or censored. It is dismissed because it is unsupported by the evidence. That is how scientific study works. Are you also complaining about how promoters of phrenology are dismissed? And I suspect you don’t even know what autogynephilia means. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Impact on Gay/Lesbian Youth — Some clinicians and detransitioners report that same-sex attracted youth are being medicalized as “trans” instead of supported as gay/lesbian. Shut up. You don’t want youth who are gay or lesbian to be supported in their identity in any case. You routinely rant against it and reject those identities. Next time you have AI put together a list like this you should probably edit stuff like this out. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Data & Research Suppression — Allegations of publication bias, cancellation of studies questioning affirmation model, and pressure on researchers (e.g., Littman, Cass Review findings). Proof of said allegations or it didn’t happen. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Infringements on Parental Rights — Various state and private actors undermining and evading the rights of parents relative to their children. The parent’s right to hurt their child must be defended at all costs. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: I see many elements of trans ideology creating substantial harm to society and its individual members, including "trans" people. I see many elements of Mormon ideology creating substantial harm to society and its individual members, including “Mormon” people. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: I appreciate you sharing your perspective, but I think there’s a misunderstanding here. Nope. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: I am not “obsessed” with trans people, nor do I hate them. For most of my life I was largely indifferent — live and let live. What consenting adults do with their own bodies in private has never been my concern. You endlessly post every exciting new article you find here. Also I think you might be misunderstanding what hate is. It isn’t always a burning or aggressive desire to hurt or destroy. It can be a casual indifference or a ‘for the good of others these people must be marginalized or discriminated against’ rationale. Also your ideology is not in any way enlightened or tolerant. Being okay with people doing things in private isn’t healthy. It is a demand that people be closeted, that they must hide who they are because you might find their existence distasteful. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: What changed for me (and, I think, for many others) was when the ideology moved beyond private behavior by adults into more public areas that affect everyone else: It never actually impacted your life though. The demagogues on the internet just insisted it might so pretending that you were content to live and let live until somehow transgender people started being more public isn’t what happened. The people you support decided to make transgender people a wedge issue and dragged them into a spotlight. It is the whole “you can be gay in private as long as you act straight in public” thing. It is the old ‘ugly laws’ given a new form. Also it will never stop there even if it succeeds. Once they push people out of public life they will squeeze them more and more in private. Your philosophy is hollow and a deception. Imagine a society that had the creed of “You can be straight in private as long as you act gay in public”. Would you find that society pleasant to live in? 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Biological males competing in women’s sports, entering women’s bathrooms, changing rooms, shelters, and prisons. Which has had almost no effect on anyone. And you decided to help fight this by electing as President a man who openly bragged about perving on women in changing rooms. Are you sure you actually care about this issue? 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Drag Queen Story Hour events and highly sexualized behavior at some Pride events in the presence of children. For someone who claims to care about parental rights you sure do seem to care a lot about parents not taking their kids to Drag Queen Story Hour or to a Pride event. So should these parents not be allowed to make choices about what their children see and what kind of events they attend? Your philosophical incoherence is quite baffling. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Schools and medical professionals rapidly affirming and medically transitioning minors with puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries — despite comorbidities, weak long-term evidence, desistance rates in some studies, known risks of infertility and other permanent effects, and the recent caution from European countries (e.g., the Cass Review in the UK). Yeah, that is not a thing either. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: These are not private matters. They involve fairness for women and girls, child safeguarding, parental rights, and public policy. Raising concerns about them is not hatred — it’s a reasonable response to real-world consequences. No, it is hatred. Your flimsy justifications and embrace of pseudoscience to create a ‘fig leaf’ doesn’t cover the disgust and hate nearly as well as you want it to. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: I support compassionate care for adults with gender dysphoria. I support mental health treatment for those struggling. What I oppose is the erasure of sex-based rights, the medicalization of distressed children without robust evidence, and the demand that everyone affirm a contested ideology or be labeled a bigot. The ideology is not contested on any real scientific grounds. It is contested primarily on flimsy religious grounds and an appeal to the bigotry of the past as being something that must be preserved for the good of society. And again it is really all about you. You want a society in which transgender people are marginalized or kept out of sight and in which you cannot be called a bigot for wanting things this way. That is the goal. Pandering to the cishet white guy’s fragile sense of self-importance and being the center and norm of society to which all must bow. The sooner we actually smash that pedestal and create an equal society the sooner we won’t have to deal with this pervasive fragility. The scriptural prophecy of the low being raised up and the high being brought down never seems to actually happen and those who claim to look forward to it often scream the loudest when any move is made towards it. I have doubts it will ever actually succeed but hope springeth eternal. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Disagreement on policy and evidence is not the same as personal animus. I have no desire to be cruel to any individual. I simply believe biological reality, child protection, and women’s rights still matter. It doesn’t matter if you intend to be cruel if the end result is cruelty. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Masterpiece Cakeshop continues to be troubling. It takes a special kind of paranoid whiner to be troubled by an event in which your side literally won. Even when you win you act like a victim. 4
teddyaware Posted Thursday at 08:15 PM Posted Thursday at 08:15 PM 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: 3 hours ago, smac97 said: Masterpiece Cakeshop continues to be troubling. It takes a special kind of paranoid whiner to be troubled by an event in which your side literally won. Even when you win you act like a victim. As if the protracted, costly and agonizing process they had to wade through wasn’t already much more than enough unjust punishment heaped on their heads for merely having the courage to take a stand by asserting their rights under the Constitution. 1
smac97 Posted Thursday at 09:16 PM Author Posted Thursday at 09:16 PM (edited) 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote I am speaking about both situations. The State punishing what ought to be free speech, and also compelling speech. Broadly, I am, or would like to be, indifferent to the private lives of adults. I don’t believe you. If you were you could just be indifferent. You choose not to be. Yes, I could choose this. Or I could speak against what i think are some very troubling developments in our society. Apart from commenting on this board (the audience of which is quite small), and studying this matter privately here and there, I don't do much else with it. 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote Sexualization of Children — Drag Queen Story Hour events, sexually explicit books in school libraries targeting minors, and overtly sexualized behavior at some Pride events in the presence of children. Not much of any of that happening and that is not “sexualizing children”. It seems to be happening regularly, and more frequently. The most recent iteration was just a few days ago: Why Some LGBTQ People Don't Like Pride Parades (the content creator is gay) I'm gay, but this CROSSES the f**king line! (also a gay content creator) Seattle Pride parade pandemonium as nude marchers prance through streets in front of children Quote Seattle's LGBT Pride parade on Sunday descended into bedlam as attendees stripped off their clothes and marched the streets naked while children looked on. One video filmed by Chloe Cole, a de-transitioner activist, and posted by Frontlines Turning Point USA, shows people from a group called "Friends of Denny Blaine" marching in the nude. Some onlookers clapped and cheered, while the video panned to young children watching the spectacle. Another video shows naked people prancing around an outdoor fountain near children who were playing in the water. ... Yet another lewd video shows naked men cycling in the parade, again to the applause and appreciation of the crowd, though some spectators can be seen shielding the eyes of children from the nude bodies. The Frontlines TPUSA video showing people parading nude around the Seattle Center International Fountain after the gay pride event includes scenes of children splashing in the water that sprays from the fountain just feet from several naked men and one naked woman. I find this troubling. 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote Men in Women’s Spaces — Biological males competing in women’s sports (with documented physical advantages), entering women’s bathrooms, changing rooms, shelters, and prisons, leading to safety and fairness issues. Not men, I don't know that we'll ever agree on the lexical issue here. You are on board with expanding "women" to include biological men who "identify" as women, and vice versa. Others are not on board with this. 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: and as I pointed out repeatedly sports leagues are determining standards for transgender people to compete in sports. They can do this without your demagoguery. State legislatures and federal elements are also weighing in on this. Two days ago: Supreme Court says states can restrict transgender athletes in girls’ sports Quote The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday gave states constitutional authority to enforce laws barring transgender athletes from participating in girls and women’s school sports. In a 6-3 ruling, the justices ultimately said that laws like those adopted by more than two dozen states are lawful. The conservative majority held that federal civil rights law, Title IX, allows schools to maintain separate girls and boys sports teams based on biological sex and that states do not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by limiting sports to biological sex. The justices rejected the argument that the laws discriminate against transgender people, saying they classify athletes based on biological sex rather than gender identity and therefore are constitutional. “Sports are generally zero sum,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh said in the majority opinion. “Every biological male who makes the team takes a roster spot from a female athlete. Every biological male who earns playing time reduces the playing time of a female athlete. Every biological male who starts takes a starting position from a female athlete. Every biological male who wins a race takes the gold medal away from a female athlete.” 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote Medicalization of Minors — Rapid increase in puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries for thousands of minors with gender dysphoria, despite weak long-term evidence, high desistance rates in some studies, and growing European caution (e.g., Cass Review in UK, restrictions in Sweden, Finland, Norway). Most of that is wrong. I am happy to listen to what you have to say about inaccuracies. I would prefer evidence-based reasoning more than conclusory assertions and insults. 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote Denial of Sexual Binary — Ideological insistence that sex is a spectrum or socially constructed, despite overwhelming biological evidence of binary gametic sex in humans (small/large gametes). Intersex people exist. Sex is not a binary nor is gender. While "intersex" (people with DSDs) certainly exist, they do so within the sex binary. Though DSDs create an environment where epistemic uncertainty is not always immediately resolvable, the biological sex of the individual is ultimately resolvable in principle. Such epistemic uncertainty is mostly, though not always, "resolvable" through medical testing. Certain rare conditions defy easy classification, such as Mosaicism/Chimerism. But even in these rare cases, the individual is still, ontologically, going to align with one of the two sexes at a fundamental level. Biological sex remains binary because gamete production defines biological sex, and because chromosomal, gonadal, and anatomical variations exist but do not create a third sex, and instead only create variations within the male-female binary. While our ability to diagnose/classify it can be imperfect/uncertain, that imperfection/uncertainty does not create a third sex category. And again, virtually all of the sociopolitical commentary on "trans" identity arises not from DSDs, but from Gender Dysphoria. This is perhaps a topic better left to a thread of its own. 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote Large-Scale Equivocation & Rhetorical Tactics — Phrases like “trans women are women,” conflating Disorders/Differences of Sex Development (DSDs/intersex conditions, which are rare developmental disorders) with typical gender dysphoria, and using DSDs to blur or deny the sex binary. Using examples that show sex isn’t a binary to show that sex isn’t a binary is a problem why? It only matters if you are committed to believing it is a binary no matter what evidence goes against it. This is magical thinking trying to replace evidence-based rationalism. It is interesting to me that both sides cite "evidence-based rationalism" to defend, on one side, the binary and, on the other, deny it. For my part, I find the latter argument to be unpersuasive. 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote Suppression of Dissent & Free Speech — Social, professional, and institutional penalties for questioning aspects of the ideology (e.g., “rapid-onset gender dysphoria,” desistance, or biological reality), including firings, deplatforming, and labeling critics as bigots. Teaching pseudoscience should be something that leads to social scorn. I question the utility of "social scorn" in most contexts, particularly where the topic is as difficult as this one. And "pseudoscience" seems to be something of the eye-of-the-beholder thing. The disclosures in the Cass Report. The Tavistok Clinic. WPATH. 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote Social Contagion & Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria — Sharp rise in trans identification, especially among adolescent females (previously rare), correlated with social media influence, peer groups, and autism/mental health comorbidities. Littman’s 2018 study and subsequent data. Both of these have been studied and labeled as pseudoscience. I recommend reading up on the creation of ROGD. It came from a series of surveys of parents of trans kids asking if it happened due to the kids their child was around. Unsurprisingly they said yes because blaming a child’s friends for “corrupting” them is a tale as old as time. Actually studying how it works showed that the whole hypothesis was unsupported by any evidence. Nevertheless it is still championed by pseudoscientific people such as yourself as somehow being scientific. More magical thinking. I will give this further evaluation. 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote Detransition & Regret — Growing number of detransitioners (often with comorbidities like trauma, autism, or same-sex attraction) reporting inadequate screening and lifelong harm. Lawsuits against clinics emerging. And there seems to be some real animus against detransitioners in some quarters. I know a young woman who was praised by her peers when she "transitioned" into "identifying" as a boy. When she "detransitioned," she was raked across the coals by many of those same peers. There are a growing number of detransitioners (though still a small percent of the total) because there are more people transitioning. If you can show a spike in the percentage of people who are deliberately choosing to detransition (not just those who stop due to social pressure or financial concerns) I would love to see it. I am situated to locate and evaluate such data, not create it. 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: I have known several people who detransition or retransition. This animus is mostly imaginary. More longitudinal data are necessary. 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: The ones who get animus are usually the ones who want to limit or ban gender-affirming healthcare for others and they get animus because of course they do. They are seeking to make the lives of transgender people more difficult. In the queer community someone deciding not to continue to transition is more likely to be met with simple acceptance. Societal acceptance or opprobrium are only part of the problem detransitioners face. 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: I doubt you have the full story of what happened. I suspect these were LDS people and there was a lot more going on then just not wanting to take testosterone anymore. The young woman was the only Latter-day Saint among her peer group. They really raked her across the coals when she detransitioned. 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote Capture of Institutions — Rapid adoption of gender ideology in schools, medicine, sports, prisons, and corporations, often with limited debate or evidence (e.g., WPATH guidelines criticized for low-quality evidence). Capture of State institutions, and the consequent use of the coercive power of the State to punish and/or compel speech. Old people yelling about how change in society is happening too fast has been going on since at least ancient Greece. And your compelled speech thing is silly. Even when your side controls all the branches of our government you still want to pretend that you are the victims. Bunch of whiners. The concern remains. 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote Parental Rights Undermined — Policies allowing schools or medical providers to socially/medical transition minors without parental knowledge or consent in some jurisdictions. Citation needed. This has been going on for quite a while. The most recent example: Supreme Court turns away parental rights dispute involving child's gender transition in school Quote The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a lawsuit from parents who are challenging a Washington state law that prevents youth shelters from immediately notifying parents when minors who run away from home are seeking gender transitions. Under the law, adopted in 2023, shelters that house runaway youth cannot immediately tell parents when a child is “seeking or receiving” gender transition medical services. It allows the state to refer the child for “behavioral health services” but does not change parental consent laws generally required for hormone therapy or surgeries. The law directs shelters to notify the Washington Department of Children, Youth, and Families when housing a runaway child who is seeking gender transition services and “offer services designed to resolve the conflict” between the child and the parents before the parents will be notified and before the department works toward family reunification. The legal challenge comes from parents whose children exhibit gender dysphoria. Lower courts ruled the parents did not have standing to sue because their children are not currently in a youth shelter, but the Supreme Court has agreed to review that decision. In the lawsuit, five sets of parents express concern their child may run away and seek gender transition services. The parents argue the law violates their 14th Amendment right to direct the upbringing of their children. The Supreme Court has affirmed this right as protected under the amendment for more than a century. “This statute allows shelters and homes to keep children at locations without their parents’ knowledge and refer those children for health interventions without their parents’ knowledge or approval,” it states. “It does not require children to be returned on any particular timetable or under any particular conditions.” It also argues that the law restricts some of the parents’ First Amendment rights to the free exercise of religion, including at least one set of parents who are practicing Catholics. 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote Mental Health & Suicide Narrative — Over-reliance on “affirmation or suicide” rhetoric, despite evidence that transition does not reliably resolve underlying mental health issues and that post-transition suicide rates remain elevated. Medical professionals acquiescing to, or even endorsing, this fundamentally coercive concept ("life saving" = "give me this treatment or I will kill myself" / "do you want a live daughter or a dead son?", etc.). Distortion of reality. Do they over-rely on it? How do you measure that? Sometimes suicide is the result if someone cannot transition. Is it over-reliant on that or is it under-reliant? And suicide rates remain elevated? Of course they do. A lot of that is because people marginalize them after they transition and family often alienates you if you do. A difficult topic, to be sure. 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote Autogynephilia & Typology — Research (e.g., Blanchard) on two main types of male-to-female trans identification (early-onset homosexual, late-onset autogynephilic) often dismissed or censored. It is dismissed because it is unsupported by the evidence. That is how scientific study works. Well, we have ongoing questions and concerns about ideological capture of institutions and organizations. It appears to be an ongoing controversy. Blanchard's theory remains a controversial but scientifically supported framework in sexology and gender research, particularly among researchers who study gender dysphoria empirically rather than through purely ideological lenses. 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: And I suspect you don’t even know what autogynephilia means. I do. 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote Impact on Gay/Lesbian Youth — Some clinicians and detransitioners report that same-sex attracted youth are being medicalized as “trans” instead of supported as gay/lesbian. Shut up. You don’t want youth who are gay or lesbian to be supported in their identity in any case. I want diagnoses and treatments and choices to rise above ideological factors. That is a difficult thing these days. 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: You routinely rant against it and reject those identities. I do not. I reject "sexual orientation" as a core identity for myself. I've said this many times. I acknowledge that others do "identiify" themselves in this way, and that it can be an important identity for them. 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote Data & Research Suppression — Allegations of publication bias, cancellation of studies questioning affirmation model, and pressure on researchers (e.g., Littman, Cass Review findings). Proof of said allegations or it didn’t happen. Happy to have this discussion in its own thread. 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote Infringements on Parental Rights — Various state and private actors undermining and evading the rights of parents relative to their children. The parent’s right to hurt their child must be defended at all costs. This is a difficult topic. 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: I see many elements of Mormon ideology creating substantial harm to society and its individual members, including “Mormon” people. That's an interesting topic. 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote I am not “obsessed” with trans people, nor do I hate them. For most of my life I was largely indifferent — live and let live. What consenting adults do with their own bodies in private has never been my concern. You endlessly post every exciting new article you find here. Far from "every" article. And I post here, but that's about it. 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: Also I think you might be misunderstanding what hate is. It isn’t always a burning or aggressive desire to hurt or destroy. It can be a casual indifference or a ‘for the good of others these people must be marginalized or discriminated against’ rationale. You frequently attribute "hate" to people who disagree with your ideology/perspective/opinion on this or that. I've been a target of such accusations many times. 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote What changed for me (and, I think, for many others) was when the ideology moved beyond private behavior by adults into more public areas that affect everyone else: It never actually impacted your life though. Neither does slavery. Or elective abortion. Not directly, anyway. But we can still have and express opinions about such matters. 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote Biological males competing in women’s sports, entering women’s bathrooms, changing rooms, shelters, and prisons. Which has had almost no effect on anyone. I think many thousands of people, mostly women, have been affected. I have come across some stories of bishops using their access to children to engage in improper behavior toward them. The Church has tens of thousands of bishops, only a tiny fraction of which engage in such misconduct. And yet it is still appropriate to acknowledge and address such matters. 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote Drag Queen Story Hour events and highly sexualized behavior at some Pride events in the presence of children. For someone who claims to care about parental rights you sure do seem to care a lot about parents not taking their kids to Drag Queen Story Hour or to a Pride event. Earlier you said: "The parent’s right to hurt their child must be defended at all costs." I think this has some application to those who support exposing children to highly sexualized matters. Parents, though vested with substantial constitutional and statutory protections as to their rights to care for their children, are not the sole arbiters of what their children can and cannot do (and be exposed to). The state does have some right to intervene. 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: So should these parents not be allowed to make choices about what their children see and what kind of events they attend? I don't think parents should be exposing their children to highly sexualized behaviors such as those noted above. 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote Schools and medical professionals rapidly affirming and medically transitioning minors with puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries — despite comorbidities, weak long-term evidence, desistance rates in some studies, known risks of infertility and other permanent effects, and the recent caution from European countries (e.g., the Cass Review in the UK). Yeah, that is not a thing either. I think it has been happening quite a lot. 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote These are not private matters. They involve fairness for women and girls, child safeguarding, parental rights, and public policy. Raising concerns about them is not hatred — it’s a reasonable response to real-world consequences. No, it is hatred. These sorts of accusations are a substantial contributor to the challenge in having candid conversations about difficult topics such as these. 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote I support compassionate care for adults with gender dysphoria. I support mental health treatment for those struggling. What I oppose is the erasure of sex-based rights, the medicalization of distressed children without robust evidence, and the demand that everyone affirm a contested ideology or be labeled a bigot. The ideology is not contested on any real scientific grounds. It is contested primarily on flimsy religious grounds and an appeal to the bigotry of the past as being something that must be preserved for the good of society. I have seen substantial evidence to the contrary. 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: And again it is really all about you. You want a society in which transgender people are marginalized or kept out of sight I was overwhelmingly ambivalent about the trans movement until the calculus changed. I think that change began after Lawrence v. Texas. Activists and ideologues, having "won" on same-sex marriage, then pivoted to trans issues, and that pivot started to very visibly involve children. Questionable (and hugely consequential) medical interventions. Sexualization and grooming. Insufficient attention paid to comorbidities, informed consent, etc. I think the more radical elements of the trans movement have done some real damage. To society. To trans people. To children. 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: and in which you cannot be called a bigot for wanting things this way. I don't think anyone wants to be speciously labeled a bigot, but the label has long lost its potency. Largely due to indiscriminate overuse. 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: That is the goal. Pandering to the cishet white guy’s fragile sense of self-importance and being the center and norm of society to which all must bow. The sooner we actually smash that pedestal and create an equal society the sooner we won’t have to deal with this pervasive fragility. The scriptural prophecy of the low being raised up and the high being brought down never seems to actually happen and those who claim to look forward to it often scream the loudest when any move is made towards it. I have doubts it will ever actually succeed but hope springeth eternal. I don't think scriptural prophecies along these lines pertain to the sexualization and grooming of children, the imposition of dubious medical interventions, etc. 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote Disagreement on policy and evidence is not the same as personal animus. I have no desire to be cruel to any individual. I simply believe biological reality, child protection, and women’s rights still matter. It doesn’t matter if you intend to be cruel if the end result is cruelty. Measured and civil discussion on an obscure message board. That's all that is going on here. 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: Quote Masterpiece Cakeshop continues to be troubling. It takes a special kind of paranoid whiner to be troubled by an event in which your side literally won. Even when you win you act like a victim. That it had to go to the Supreme Court at all was troubling. What Colorado continued to do to the proprietor after the decision was troubling. Thanks, -Smac Edited Thursday at 09:53 PM by smac97 1
The Nehor Posted Thursday at 10:21 PM Posted Thursday at 10:21 PM 1 hour ago, teddyaware said: As if the protracted, costly and agonizing process they had to wade through wasn’t already much more than enough unjust punishment heaped on their heads for merely having the courage to take a stand by asserting their rights under the Constitution. Martyrs for the cause are really falling off in terms of quality aren’t they? Having to endure a long and protracted court battle that didn’t require his presence much at all and such high costs that were covered by other groups and then dealing with the sad aftermath of all the interviews, selling his book, and all those other horrible privations. 2
The Nehor Posted Thursday at 11:30 PM Posted Thursday at 11:30 PM 1 hour ago, smac97 said: It seems to be happening regularly, and more frequently. The most recent iteration was just a few days ago: Why Some LGBTQ People Don't Like Pride Parades (the content creator is gay) I'm gay, but this CROSSES the f**king line! (also a gay content creator) Seattle Pride parade pandemonium as nude marchers prance through streets in front of children A Fox News article and a couple of rightwing shill Youtube influencers just repackaging that article. Oh, and look, they are both anti-transgender and are calling for the rise of “normal gays”. Also quit hating on puppyboy outfits you bigots. They are cute. Also a lot of those “Pride is disgusting” scare pics are very familiar and didn’t come from this year’s pride. They are just regurgitating the same stuff every year. I wandered into one online group where people were lamenting about the “obscene” pride pictures taken at a recent pride parade in their city. The pics were not from their city nor from this year. The outrage engine does not need facts to pearl clutch. Almost all of the supposedly offensive Pride pics come from San Francisco and Seattle. Occasionally Portland if I remember right. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: I find this troubling. Which is exactly what you were supposed to feel. That is how propaganda works. Be troubled! Be concerned! 1 hour ago, smac97 said: I don't know that we'll ever agree on the lexical issue here. You are on board with expanding "women" to include biological men who "identify" as women, and vice versa. Others are not on board with this. Nice scare quotes and a beautiful rhetorical mischaracterization. It presents your view as if it is basic common sense but actually reveals a deep ignorance of actual reality, what influences biological sex, and much much more but we have rehashed this several times and you are just grandstanding for the audience so a detailed refutation would be a waste of time. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: State legislatures and federal elements are also weighing in on this. Two days ago: Supreme Court says states can restrict transgender athletes in girls’ sports I know, I have hugged two crying friends over that news. Congrats to you I guess. A glorious victory for you I am sure. On the bright side birthright citizenship survived for now so mixed news. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: I am happy to listen to what you have to say about inaccuracies. I would prefer evidence-based reasoning more than conclusory assertions and insults. I am not going to correct your AI responses for you beyond the bare minimum. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: While "intersex" (people with DSDs) certainly exist, they do so within the sex binary. Though DSDs create an environment where epistemic uncertainty is not always immediately resolvable, the biological sex of the individual is ultimately resolvable in principle. But not in fact or certainty which is what you actually need for there to be a strict binary. Also many intersex people express regret that their parents chose a gender for them. They couldn’t at the time because they were infants. If you want to rail against minors getting gender affirming surgeries or treatments before they are adults this is a much better arena for that. Of course you don’t care about those surgeries “in principle”. You support them if they seem to you to reinforce or cover up distortions to a strict binary but lament them if they actually distort the gender binary. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Such epistemic uncertainty is mostly, though not always, "resolvable" through medical testing. Certain rare conditions defy easy classification, such as Mosaicism/Chimerism. But even in these rare cases, the individual is still, ontologically, going to align with one of the two sexes at a fundamental level. Biological sex remains binary because gamete production defines biological sex, and because chromosomal, gonadal, and anatomical variations exist but do not create a third sex, and instead only create variations within the male-female binary. While our ability to diagnose/classify it can be imperfect/uncertain, that imperfection/uncertainty does not create a third sex category. And again, virtually all of the sociopolitical commentary on "trans" identity arises not from DSDs, but from Gender Dysphoria. This is perhaps a topic better left to a thread of its own. And we are back to the AI doing your work for you. Or you copied and pasted this from somewhere. Plagiarism is bad. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: It is interesting to me that both sides cite "evidence-based rationalism" to defend, on one side, the binary and, on the other, deny it. For my part, I find the latter argument to be unpersuasive. And the overwhelming majority of experts disagree with you. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: I question the utility of "social scorn" in most contexts, particularly where the topic is as difficult as this one. It is really not that difficult of a topic. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: And "pseudoscience" seems to be something of the eye-of-the-beholder thing. The disclosures in the Cass Report. The Tavistok Clinic. WPATH. No, this is absolutely false. Science is evidence based. Pseudoscience is not. This is very important and it is part of why society is struggling. Evidence-based rationalism is the foundation of all of our technological progress and the existence of liberal democracy. If we discard it we will eventually suffer. A shared common evidence-based reality is needed for these to work. Denying it leads to authoritarianism. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: I am situated to locate and evaluate such data, not create it. I disagree. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: More longitudinal data are necessary. Nope. More would be welcomed but the evidence is overwhelmingly against you. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Societal acceptance or opprobrium are only part of the problem detransitioners face. And how would you know what they face? 1 hour ago, smac97 said: The young woman was the only Latter-day Saint among her peer group. They really raked her across the coals when she detransitioned. Yeah, I am already seeing flaws in your simple narrative where everyone turned on her just because she doesn’t want to take testosterone anymore even when you only share a few details. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: The concern remains. You have a Tucher Carlson level ability to be obliviously concerned and worried about things without the curiosity to investigate them. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: This has been going on for quite a while. The most recent example: Supreme Court turns away parental rights dispute involving child's gender transition in school They are suing over the possibility that their child might run away and seek to transition? Cool, I guess. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Well, we have ongoing questions and concerns about ideological capture of institutions and organizations. Maybe you should seek out, you know, answers instead of just voicing questions and concerns. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: It appears to be an ongoing controversy. Blanchard's theory remains a controversial but scientifically supported framework in sexology and gender research, particularly among researchers who study gender dysphoria empirically rather than through purely ideological lenses. It is not an ongoing controversy nor is it scientifically supported. It is also not true that those supporting it are viewing things empirically. Most of the supporters have easily traced ties to far-right groups. The ideological lens is not where you want it to be. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: I want diagnoses and treatments and choices to rise above ideological factors. That is a difficult thing these days. And some “both sides” wrangling when one side is actually doing real studies and figuring out how to help people and the other is just not. I reject your characterization. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: I do not. I reject "sexual orientation" as a core identity for myself. I've said this many times. I acknowledge that others do "identiify" themselves in this way, and that it can be an important identity for them. Please don’t pretend you are concerned about people in the LGBTQ community. It is still a horrible sin. In fact it is more of a sin according to the Bible than being transgender. Of course the Bible passages are weird and Paul in Romans is empirically wrong but at least there are actual scriptural license to hate there. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Happy to have this discussion in its own thread. This is a difficult topic. That's an interesting topic. My, you have such interesting things to say. I will take these all as concessions. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: You frequently attribute "hate" to people who disagree with your ideology/perspective/opinion on this or that. I've been a target of such accusations many times. I stand by it. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Neither does slavery. Or elective abortion. Not directly, anyway. But we can still have and express opinions about such matters. And you should probably listen to those who are impacted by such matters and give them due deference. Who am I kidding? Listen to women about abortion? Ridiculous, amirite? 1 hour ago, smac97 said: I think many thousands of people, mostly women, have been affected. Citation needed. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: I have come across some stories of bishops using their access to children to engage in improper behavior toward them. The Church has tens of thousands of bishops, only a tiny fraction of which engage in such misconduct. And yet it is still appropriate to acknowledge and address such matters. Relevance? 1 hour ago, smac97 said: I think this has some application to those who support exposing children to highly sexualized matters. Considering you think a Drag Queen reading a children’s book to children is ‘highly sexualized’ when PG movies have much more sexualized content I am not sure you are a good judge of what qualifies as ‘sexualized’. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Parents, though vested with substantial constitutional and statutory protections as to their rights to care for their children, are not the sole arbiters of what their children can and cannot do (and be exposed to). The state does have some right to intervene. I don't think parents should be exposing their children to highly sexualized behaviors such as those noted above. Again, I think you are a terrible judge of that. Transgender people existing seems to be ‘highly sexualized’ to way too many people and that is really says more about them than it does transgender people. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: I think it has been happening quite a lot. And you are wrong. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: These sorts of accusations are a substantial contributor to the challenge in having candid conversations about difficult topics such as these. I think your AI summaries and copy and pastes are a greater challenge honestly. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: I have seen substantial evidence to the contrary. No, you have seen substantial propaganda to the contrary. Evidence is an entirely different thing. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: I was overwhelmingly ambivalent about the trans movement until the calculus changed. I think that change began after Lawrence v. Texas. Activists and ideologues, having "won" on same-sex marriage, then pivoted to trans issues, and that pivot started to very visibly involve children. In other words you got interested when your side at least temporarily lost on gay issues and your propaganda machine moved on to the next moral panic. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Questionable (and hugely consequential) medical interventions. Sexualization and grooming. Insufficient attention paid to comorbidities, informed consent, etc. Most of which were used as accusations for the terrible things gay, lesbian, and bisexual people were doing. They were discredited. So they just dusted them off, gave them a fresh coat of paint and are now throwing them at transgender people. If/When that fails who will be the next target of conservative bigotry’s compulsive need for a moral panic? 1 hour ago, smac97 said: I think the more radical elements of the trans movement have done some real damage. To society. To trans people. To children. Even assuming this is true (which I don’t) anti-transgender movements have directly harmed and killed transgender people but you never address that and you are spewing their propaganda. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: I don't think anyone wants to be speciously labeled a bigot, but the label has long lost its potency. Largely due to indiscriminate overuse. No, a lot of it is due to increased applicability. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: I don't think scriptural prophecies along these lines pertain to the sexualization and grooming of children, the imposition of dubious medical interventions, etc. Stuck in the weeds still. Can’t see the bigger picture. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: That it had to go to the Supreme Court at all was troubling. What Colorado continued to do to the proprietor after the decision was troubling. You have the most pathetic martyrs and heroes. Wow. 1
smac97 Posted Friday at 12:59 AM Author Posted Friday at 12:59 AM 14 minutes ago, The Nehor said: A Fox News article and a couple of rightwing shill Youtube influencers just repackaging that article. Oh, and look, they are both anti-transgender and are calling for the rise of “normal gays”. I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. Are you disputing the factual elements of these stories? The videos? 14 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Almost all of the supposedly offensive Pride pics come from San Francisco and Seattle. Occasionally Portland if I remember right. I am troubled that we as a society, or at least portions of society, are normalizing and justifying exposing children to highly sexualized behaviors. 14 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Quote I don't know that we'll ever agree on the lexical issue here. You are on board with expanding "women" to include biological men who "identify" as women, and vice versa. Others are not on board with this. Nice scare quotes and a beautiful rhetorical mischaracterization. I was going for precision. I think re-defining "woman" to include men, and otherwise muddying definitional waters, is inappropriate. 14 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Quote State legislatures and federal elements are also weighing in on this. Two days ago: Supreme Court says states can restrict transgender athletes in girls’ sports I know, I have hugged two crying friends over that news. I think many women, including young female athletes, have experienced substantial difficulties in relation to this issue. It is a contested one, so one side or the other is going to be unhappy. As regarding the law, though, I think the decision was correct. 14 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Quote While "intersex" (people with DSDs) certainly exist, they do so within the sex binary. Though DSDs create an environment where epistemic uncertainty is not always immediately resolvable, the biological sex of the individual is ultimately resolvable in principle. But not in fact or certainty which is what you actually need for there to be a strict binary. I don't think that is the way of things. There are only two gametes. Only two categories of sex. 14 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Quote Such epistemic uncertainty is mostly, though not always, "resolvable" through medical testing. Certain rare conditions defy easy classification, such as Mosaicism/Chimerism. But even in these rare cases, the individual is still, ontologically, going to align with one of the two sexes at a fundamental level. Biological sex remains binary because gamete production defines biological sex, and because chromosomal, gonadal, and anatomical variations exist but do not create a third sex, and instead only create variations within the male-female binary. While our ability to diagnose/classify it can be imperfect/uncertain, that imperfection/uncertainty does not create a third sex category. And again, virtually all of the sociopolitical commentary on "trans" identity arises not from DSDs, but from Gender Dysphoria. This is perhaps a topic better left to a thread of its own. And we are back to the AI doing your work for you. Or you copied and pasted this from somewhere. I copied and pasted it from this February 2025 post of mine. We tend to re-hash the same topics over and over. The analysis about "epistemic uncertainty" was derived from this article (quoted here), but the language is my own. From the article: Quote This article supplements Julio Tuleda, Enrique Burguete, and Justo Aznar's “The Vatican opinion on gender theory” (Linacre). It supplements their article by providing a stronger argument for the thesis that “intersex” does not violate binary sex in human beings. ... Before addressing this criticism, misunderstandings of “intersex” should be avoided. First, intersex individuals are not asexual, but have clear sex biomarkers that makes their sex epistemically uncertain. ... 8.While the social constructionist might reply that it is human beings who decide how to use animal differences to divide them into the kinds “male” and “female” (Dasgupta et al. 2020), Lenhart (2015) rightfully points out that sociocultural norms regarding “sex” are distinct from “sex” proper. It might be that complicated cases of “sex” call for epistemic humility, e.g., simply remaining uncertain, or choosing sex pragmatically, e.g., choosing a practical sex to navigate the world with, but neither of these entail that sex is a social construction—it only follows that what we do with “sex” is in part socially constructed (this point is not disputed). Sex is a binary trait in humans. Variation (including disorders of sex development) does not turn it into a spectrum, any more than birth defects turn the number of limbs into a spectrum. 14 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Quote It is interesting to me that both sides cite "evidence-based rationalism" to defend, on one side, the binary and, on the other, deny it. For my part, I find the latter argument to be unpersuasive. And the overwhelming majority of experts disagree with you. That has not been what I have observed. Quite the contrary, in fact. 14 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Quote And "pseudoscience" seems to be something of the eye-of-the-beholder thing. The disclosures in the Cass Report. The Tavistok Clinic. WPATH. No, this is absolutely false. Science is evidence based. Pseudoscience is not. I agree. But labeling matters of ideological disagreement as "pseudoscience" is the eye-of-the-beholder thing. The sexual binary was settled science until ideologues came along and attempted to turn it into a spectrum. It's not working, hence the "You're a bigot!"-style vituperations that often manifest as the final argument. And in the end, arguments about the sexual binary would, at most, pertain to people with DSDs. Hence my prior comment about "using DSDs to blur or deny the sex binary" (by conflating these objective medical conditions with subjective Gender Dysphoria matters affecting people whose biological sex is unequivocally clear and unambiguous. 14 minutes ago, The Nehor said: This is very important and it is part of why society is struggling. Evidence-based rationalism is the foundation of all of our technological progress and the existence of liberal democracy. If we discard it we will eventually suffer. A shared common evidence-based reality is needed for these to work. Denying it leads to authoritarianism. I wholly agree. Again, it is interesting to me that both sides cite "evidence-based rationalism" to defend, on one side, the binary and, on the other, deny it. I have found this article clarifying: Understanding the Sex Binary Quote Current debates over the fundamental nature of biological sex are not merely esoteric academic musings. They have direct implications for policy related to sex-based legal protections and medicine. It truly matters whether sex categories in humans are empirically real, immutable, and binary, or are instead outdated and oppressive “social constructs” that should be abandoned. That we are now, in 2026, debating what has long been well-established biological fact - the sexual binary - and that the debate differentiates on ideological lines, suggests that this the debate is ideological, and that "evidence-based rationalism" is being disregarded by one side or the other. Quote The claim that biological sex is not binary is often used to justify the inclusion of males in female sports, prisons, and other spaces that have historically been segregated by sex for reasons of fairness and safety. For instance, ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio frequently claims that the binary concept of biological sex is a recent invention being used “exclusively for the purposes of excluding trans people from legal protections.” Last December, Scottish politician Maggie Chapman stated that false notions about the “binary and immutable” nature of sex were her primary motivation for pursuing “comprehensive gender recognition for non-binary people in Scotland.” Those opposed to the abolition of sex categories often argue for the binary and immutable nature of sex, as well as for the importance of recognizing fundamental sex differences to protect women and girls. But while proponents of this binary and immutable notion of sex are more in line with biological reality, considerable confusion still exists about the true meaning of the “sex binary.” "Biological reality" is where we really need to focus. Quote Because those on both sides of this issue claim that biological facts justify their policy proposals, accurate descriptions of biology—unmarred by politics—matter now more than ever. So let’s clarify the meaning of the “sex binary” and why it’s important; explain why we should distinguish between intersex conditions (or differences/disorders of sex development) and transgenderism to avoid the “intersex trap”; and outline effective approaches to drafting legislation and policy relating to the biology of sex to preserve the integrity of female-only spaces. "{B}oth sides of this issue claim that biological facts justify their policy proposals." I think this is quite accurate. The next part gets to the crux of the matter: Quote When biologists claim that “sex is binary,” they mean something straightforward: there are only two sexes. This statement is true because an individual’s sex is defined by the type of gamete (sperm or ova) their primary reproductive organs (i.e., gonads) are organized, through development, to produce. Males have primary reproductive organs organized around the production of sperm; females, ova. Because there is no third gamete type, there are only two sexes that a person can be. Sex is therefore binary. I find this persuasive. I acknowledge that the statistically tiny number of DSDs need to be addressed, and the article does so below. But those are variations within the binary, and do not represent a third sex (or fourth, etc.). Quote It is important to note here that the binary nature of sex is compatible with sex ambiguity because ambiguity with respect to sex is not itself a third sex. However, many gender activists falsely assert that the “sex binary” must mean something like “every human who has ever existed and will ever exist can be unambiguously categorized as either male or female.” Given this, they contend that providing examples of people with ambiguous sexual anatomy (i.e., “intersex” conditions) not only disproves the sex binary but also demonstrates that biological sex is a meaningless and even oppressive categorization scheme. ... The chain of reasoning goes something like this. Sex is not binary because intersex people exist. Their existence demonstrates that biological sex is a spectrum. Since sex is a spectrum, that means no line can be perfectly drawn separating males from females. If no single line can be drawn, then anywhere someone chooses to draw one is totally arbitrary and subjective. If it’s totally arbitrary and subjective, then that means the categories male and female are also arbitrary and subjective “social constructs” with no firm root in biological reality. If that’s the case, why are we categorizing people in law according to these arbitrary labels instead of letting people simply label themselves? To do otherwise is to oppress people based on a biological falsehood. I think this is an accurate summary. And notably, it ends up with an ideological conclusion ("to oppress people"). My sense is that the current controversy was contrived with this end in mind, and then the reasoning for it has been worked backward so as to justify reaching that end. Quote This is just how the argument is made, and it is made with stunning success. Children in K-12 are regularly taught these days that sex and gender exist on a spectrum. Parts of the scientific establishment and the medical profession have also embraced this idea. Perhaps nobody is more well-known for relying on the existence of intersex conditions to supposedly disprove the sex binary than the historian of science Alice Dreger. In her book, Hermaphrodites and the Medical Invention of Sex, Dreger refers to intersex individuals as “hermaphrodites,” and says: “Hermaphroditism causes a great deal of confusion, more than one might at first appreciate, because—as we will see again and again—the discovery of a ‘hermaphroditic’ body raises doubts not just about the particular body in question, but about all bodies. The questioned body forces us to ask what exactly it is—if anything—that makes the rest of us unquestionable.” Those without a firm background in biological science may read such passages and feel something akin to having an epiphany, but Dreger is peddling pseudoscience. This desire to extrapolate a small blur at a boundary to the entire picture is rooted in the postmodern impulse to “queer,” and thereby eliminate, natural categories. In the queer-theory worldview, categories are themselves oppressive, and human liberation requires the “troubling” of categories (to borrow Judith Butler’s term), including those of sex. Yet Dreger’s account does not accurately describe biological reality. The existence of “questionable” cases with respect to sex classification does not automatically cast a degree of doubt onto everyone’s sex. For most people, their sex is obvious. "Dreger is peddling pseudoscience." "For most people, their sex is obvious." Quote Besides, our society is not currently experiencing a sudden dramatic surge in people stricken with ambiguous genitalia; we are experiencing a surge in people who are unambiguously one sex claiming to “identify” as the opposite sex, or neither sex. Yep. This is the source of the ideology. People with Gender Dysphoria wanting to uses DSDs to justify the concept of being biologically male but "identifying" as female, or vice versa (or as "nonbinary"). Quote Another false depiction of the sex binary is that it refers to sex chromosomes, with males always being XY and females always XX. Activists purport to debunk this misrepresentation of the sex binary by pointing to sex-chromosome aneuploidies—instances where an individual may have missing or extra X or Y chromosomes, such as in those with Klinefelter (XXY) and Turner (X0) syndrome, among others. How could sex be binary and based on sex chromosomes, they argue, if there are more combinations beyond XX and XY? They may also highlight examples of XX males and females with Y chromosomes as proof that chromosomes do not determine an individual’s sex. I think this is right. Again from above: "{A}n individual’s sex is defined by the type of gamete (sperm or ova) their primary reproductive organs (i.e., gonads) are organized, through development, to produce. Males have primary reproductive organs organized around the production of sperm; females, ova. Because there is no third gamete type, there are only two sexes that a person can be. Sex is therefore binary." Quote There are several major issues with this line of reasoning. The first is that the vast majority of people with sex-chromosome aneuploidies are not intersex; their primary sex organs and anatomy are unquestionably either male or female. Other compositions than the typical XX and XY arrangement do not represent additional sexes beyond male and female, but instead represent chromosomal variation within each of the two sexes. A person with Klinefelter syndrome (XXY), for example, isn’t a new sex in the same way that a person with Down syndrome (who has three instead of two copies of chromosome 21) isn’t a new species. I am curious as to your thoughts about this. Do you think that chromosomal disorders create new species? Quote Second, the notion that XX males and females with a Y chromosome debunk the claim that sex is determined by chromosomes erroneously conflates how sex is determined with how sex is defined for an individual. “Sex determination” is a technical term in developmental biology referring to the process by which certain genes trigger and regulate sex development. Mammals, which include humans, have evolved what’s called “chromosomal sex determination,” meaning that certain genes residing on chromosomes guide the development of males and females in utero. The Y chromosome is considered “sex determining” because it usually harbors a gene called SRY that triggers male development, and in its absence a female typically develops. But in very rare instances an SRY gene can find its way onto an X chromosome, resulting in a male with XX chromosomes. This process stands in contrast to sex-determining mechanisms in other organisms that do not rely on chromosomes, such as “temperature-dependent sex determination” that occurs in many reptiles, where the temperature at which an egg is incubated triggers male and female development. In the alligator A. mississippiensis, for instance, higher incubation temperatures (>34°C) produce males, while lower temperatures (<30°C) produce females. In both chromosomal and temperature-dependent sex determination systems, though an individual’s sex is mechanistically determined in different ways, it is always defined the same way—by the type of gamete his or her primary reproductive organs is organized around producing. This should be obvious, as it would have been impossible ever to have discovered these different sex-determining mechanisms without first knowing what males and females are apart from sex chromosomes and incubation temperatures. How sex is "determined" is distinguishable from how it is "defined." Quote These efforts by activists serve a single purpose—to portray sex as so incomprehensibly complex and multivariable that our traditional practice of classifying people as simply either male or female is grossly outdated and should be completely abandoned in favor of “gender identity.” This entails that males would not be barred from female sports, prisons, or any other space previously segregated according to our supposedly antiquated notions of “biological sex,” so long as they “identify” as female, whatever that means. This. This is the ideological objective. Quote But while sex development is a complex process, it does not follow that the outcomes are equally complex. Dreger’s claim that the existence of edge cases “raises doubts not just about the particular body in question, but about all bodies” is not true. A person’s sex is almost always completely unambiguous and recorded correctly at birth. While it may be necessary to outline reasonable policies and laws for hard cases, we need not pretend we’re all hard cases. Failing to reject Dreger’s rhetorical sleight-of-hand prevents us from calling a spade a spade. The terms intersex and transgender are entirely distinct and should not be conflated. Intersex people have rare (approximately 0.018 percent of all births) developmental conditions that result in apparent sex ambiguity. Transgender people, on the other hand, need not be sexually ambiguous at all; indeed, current progressive orthodoxy insists that it is enough for one merely to “identify” as the opposite or neither sex. You may have noticed, though, that activists frequently steer discussions about whether trans women (i.e., males who identify as female) should be allowed to compete in female sports toward a debate about various intersex conditions and prominent athletes with differences of sexual development (DSD) like South African runner Caster Semenya. Why is this? The answer is simple: so long as they’ve got you on your heels and in the weeds making judgment calls on a slew of complex intersex conditions, they’ve succeeded in drawing your attention away from making easy calls on unquestionably male athletes like 2022 NCAA Division I Women’s Swimming and Diving champion Lia Thomas. In other words, they shift the focus to intersex to distract from transgender. Lia Thomas is not sexually ambiguous; Thomas is male in every respect save for his subjective self-perception of sex, which does not, scientifically speaking, have any bearing on a person’s literal sex. Ideologues "shift the focus to intersex to distract from transgender." I think that is correct. Quote I occasionally hear from women’s organizations and sporting bodies seeking guidance on wording their policies to exclude male athletes from female sports, prisons, and other female-only spaces. Many are unaware, however, that they’ve adopted the activists’ strawman of the sex binary as “every human is unambiguously either male or female.” While adopting such a framing may appear tempting as a means of unequivocally protecting female-only spaces, it should be avoided because it is incorrect and unnecessary—and a trap set by activists. It is incorrect for all the reasons outlined in the previous section. It is unnecessary because the most important issues currently concern males, not intersex people, in female spaces. And it is a trap because it allows activists to turn what should be an easy and winnable conversation about keeping males out of female spaces into a much more difficult and irrelevant conversation about complicated intersex conditions. DSDs are, I think, not relevant to most of the debate about transgender issues. Quote Admitting the existence of rare hard cases doesn’t weaken the position or arguments against allowing males in female sports, prisons, and other female-only spaces. In fact, it’s a much stronger approach because it separates two distinct issues—intersex versus transgender policies—that the activists would much rather keep fused together. For instance, it’s much easier for them to make the case for including biological males with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS) in female sports, given their body’s overall female appearance and unresponsiveness to testosterone, than it is to make the case for including Lia Thomas, a fully intact male in every regard who enjoys the performance-enhancing benefits of having gone through male puberty. Keeping intersex and transgender issues separate and distinct prevents activists from pretending that arguing for inclusion of the former (CAIS male) is simultaneously to argue for inclusion of the latter (Lia Thomas). Indeed, if gender identity determines who counts as female for purposes of female sports, then any restriction on participation by female-identified people is arbitrary and unjust. Thus, for instance, it would be wrong to require some women to suppress their hormones simply because they happen to be transgender or to have gone through “male” puberty. In other words, if the gender identity doctrine is taken seriously, there should be no restrictions at all on participation by female-identified biological males in female sports. It is telling that gender activists almost never take this position, and in some cases—including in federal lawsuits over “exclusionary” sports policies—they have explicitly rejected it. I really would like to see a measured, evidence-based, non-inflammatory response to the above from you. Quote As previously mentioned, any effective policy proposal requires addressing intersex and transgender issues separately. Crafting policy to exclude males who identify as women (i.e., trans women) from female sports, prisons, or other female-only spaces is not complicated. This is because trans women are unambiguously male, so the chances that a doctor incorrectly recorded their sex at birth is practically zero. This means that any “transgender policy” designed to protect female spaces need only specify that participants must have been recorded (or “assigned”) female at birth. This alone would put an end to males competing in female sports. I think this is what is happening now. I am glad of it. Quote Of course, this also requires that laws forbid the alteration of birth certificates. This has become a real problem, as currently every state in the United States apart from Tennessee, Oklahoma, and Montana allows citizens to amend the sex marker on their birth certificates. Further, at least 15 states will issue new birth certificates, meaning that it will not show any indication that a change has been made. All records linked to the original birth certificate are placed under seal that can only be accessed via court order. Again, this is ideological. Apart from parent identity (which is subject to error or misconduct), no jurisdiction allows any other factual points in a birth certificate. We don't allow people to alter their date of birth, location, etc. Quote Activists have also pushed to move sex designations on birth certificates “below the line of demarcation.” Information above the line, such as name, sex, and date of birth, generally appears on certified copies of birth certificates and carries legal significance, whereas information below the line is private and consists of legally and medically irrelevant demographic information for purposes of compiling aggregated population statistics. Indeed, an article published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine argues that “sex designations on birth certificates offer no clinical utility, and they can be harmful for intersex and transgender people.” They justify this claim by (you guessed it!) rejecting the sex binary: “male or female on birth certificates suggests that sex is simple and binary when, biologically, it is not.” The authors go on to say that, even if this binary classification system were to be preserved, it should be based “on self-identification at an older age, rather than on a medical evaluation at birth.” Again, this is ideological, not "evidence-based rationalism." Quote Achieving sound policy for single-sex spaces and activities requires that these laws be either overturned or amended so that an individual’s sex that was observed and recorded at birth, even if later amended, can always be accessed. For now, circumventing the birth-certificate issue can be done by using sex chromosomes as a reliable proxy for sex when sufficient doubt exists. While this would not be fully reliable in every conceivable instance, we must not let the perfect be the enemy of the near-perfect. Sage words. Quote Crafting effective intersex policies is somewhat more complicated, but the problem of intersex individuals or people with DSDs in female sports is less pressing than that of males in female sports, and there seem to be no current concerns arising from intersex people using female spaces. It should be up to individual organizations to decide which criteria or cut-offs should be used to keep female spaces safe and, in the context of sports, safe and fair. It is imperative, however, that such policies be rooted in properties of bodies over identity. Identity alone is irrelevant to issues of fairness and safety. The “sex binary” refers to the biological reality that there are only two sexes—male and female—and that these categories refer to individuals whose primary sex organs are organized around the production of either sperm (male) or ova (female). The “sex binary” does not entail that every human is unambiguously either male or female, even though the vast majority are. This is important stuff. Quote This is an important distinction, because adopting the second framing is inaccurate and plays into the hands of activists who seek to debunk the existence of only two sexes by calling attention to the existence of rare edge cases (i.e., “intersex” conditions). But the first framing (“there are only two sexes”) is both biologically accurate and ensures that two distinct concepts—transgenderism and intersex—remain distinct. It also puts to rest the false notion that the existence of rare edge cases necessarily entails that sex is a “spectrum” and that we are all therefore intersex to some degree. Crafting effective policy therefore requires treating transgenderism and intersex as the distinct concepts that they are. It also requires not falling into activists’ trap of conflating intersex with transgender. An effective policy to prevent males in female spaces would be simply to require that “female” refer to one’s birth sex; sex chromosomes can be used as a backup when there is doubt. Intersex or DSD policies should prioritize safety and fairness, with specifics left to the individual organizations to decide. I agree with this. I find it persuasive and evidence-based and rational. Quote While activists are insistent in presenting the biology of sex as being so complex as to defy all categorization, and categorization itself as a social evil, we should resist the urge to counter them by adopting their overly simplistic misrepresentations of the sex binary. We must not make the biology of sex more (or less) complex than it is. I think that is correct. 14 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Quote More longitudinal data are necessary. Nope. More would be welcomed but the evidence is overwhelmingly against you. I do not think that is the case. I appreciate, however, that you feel strongly otherwise. 14 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Quote Societal acceptance or opprobrium are only part of the problem detransitioners face. And how would you know what they face? I have read quite a bit about their plight. Much of it quoting detransitioners at length. 14 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Quote Quote Quote Parental Rights Undermined — Policies allowing schools or medical providers to socially/medical transition minors without parental knowledge or consent in some jurisdictions. Citation needed. This has been going on for quite a while. The most recent example: Supreme Court turns away parental rights dispute involving child's gender transition in school They are suing over the possibility that their child might run away and seek to transition? Cool, I guess. It appears, then, that we agree that parental rights are being adversely affected. That's something. 14 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Maybe you should seek out, you know, answers instead of just voicing questions and concerns. I have. I have linked to and commented on many many dozens of articles on these matters in various threads. 14 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Quote I do not. I reject "sexual orientation" as a core identity for myself. I've said this many times. I acknowledge that others do "identiify" themselves in this way, and that it can be an important identity for them. Please don’t pretend you are concerned about people in the LGBTQ community. I care very much about people in the LGBTQ community. I have family members who consider themselves part of it, or are sympathetic to it. 14 minutes ago, The Nehor said: It is still a horrible sin. If by "it" you refer to same-sex behavior, then yes. But so is heterosexual fornication, adultery, abuse, and so on. Plenty of ways for us to sin. This is why I repose so much value in the Law of Chastity. It provides clarity in our increasingly sexualized world. 14 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Quote Neither does slavery. Or elective abortion. Not directly, anyway. But we can still have and express opinions about such matters. And you should probably listen to those who are impacted by such matters and give them due deference. I listen a lot. I read a lot. I put my thoughts and assessments out there, on this board, knowing that they will be critiqued by people whose ideologies and worldviews vary substantially from my own. 14 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Quote I was overwhelmingly ambivalent about the trans movement until the calculus changed. I think that change began after Lawrence v. Texas. Activists and ideologues, having "won" on same-sex marriage, then pivoted to trans issues, and that pivot started to very visibly involve children. In other words you got interested when your side at least temporarily lost on gay issues and your propaganda machine moved on to the next moral panic. Well, no. See this article: The March of Dimes Syndrome Quote Consider the current cultural conflicts over gender and sex. As the gay rights movement achieved its initial goals from the 1970s, overturning antisodomy laws and destigmatizing homosexuality, the movement expanded to include so many new causes that it required an acronym, LGBTQIA+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer or Questioning, Intersex, Asexual, and more). Its leaders declared a new cause, same-sex marriage, which vanished after the Supreme Court legalized it nationally in 2015. Five years later, the Court extended civil rights protections to people’s sexual preferences. What were activists to do? Gays could marry in every state, and the whole LGBTQIA+ alphabet was a protected class—what more could groups like the Human Rights Campaign or the National LGBTQ Task Force possibly demand from the government? What would get the attention of crusading journalists? An antigay hate crime would generate a brief publicity and fund-raising burst, but even progressive journalists struggled to sustain the groups’ narrative that America was a homophobic society. The laws against homosexuality had been toppled. The culture that produced those laws has been overthrown, too. Most Americans now support same-sex marriage. The Pride flag flies at corporate headquarters, churches, schools, city halls, and the White House. Uttering once-common antigay slurs is now career suicide. Gay characters, long taboo in television scripts, are now practically obligatory. Gays once felt overwhelming social pressure to stay in the closet, but now many young adults are reluctant to admit to being heterosexuals, as reflected in the surge of young women classifying themselves as bisexual despite never having had sex with a woman. So activists have moved the goalposts once again. It is no longer enough for conservative Christians to tolerate same-sex marriage—now they must be legally required to bake cakes and design web pages for the weddings. It is no longer enough to protect gay students from harassment—now these students must have access in elementary school libraries to how-to manuals for **** sex. Public schools must encourage prepubescent students to explore the many possible gender identities without their parents’ knowledge. Biological males self-identifying as females must be allowed to compete against females in sports. These new causes have been wildly unpopular, arousing opposition from homosexuals as well as heterosexuals, and have led to a decline in public support for the gay rights movement. But however much the backlash has hurt the original cause, the controversies keep activists in business. I think this is an accurate assessment. Thanks, -Smac
The Nehor Posted Saturday at 03:28 AM Posted Saturday at 03:28 AM On 7/2/2026 at 7:59 PM, smac97 said: I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. Are you disputing the factual elements of these stories? The videos? Yes and yes. On 7/2/2026 at 7:59 PM, smac97 said: Well, no. See this article: The March of Dimes Syndrome I think this is an accurate assessment. It is not accurate. It is bovine excrement. Can I just say it is cute that the writer of this drek actually suggested that people are reluctant to identify as straight? And I love the victimization and outright lies. Some children’s books that shows characters with two dads or two moms becomes a hot to manual on **** sex or scissoring or whatever. And you just believe it and call it accurate. Why do you love lies this much? And the adorable idea that activists lack a cause so they have to make up new ones. Do we even live in the same reality? Are you suggesting that if queer people did get full equality that there are no causes left to fight for and activists are worried that we now live in a completely fair and equitable utopia so they have to make up new causes to fight for. This is complete absurdity. This is not how humans act at all. Yet you buy it completely because it flatters you to do so. Again, what is wrong with you? 1
The Nehor Posted Saturday at 09:58 AM Posted Saturday at 09:58 AM On 7/2/2026 at 4:16 PM, smac97 said: Yes, I could choose this. Or I could speak against what i think are some very troubling developments in our society. Apart from commenting on this board (the audience of which is quite small), and studying this matter privately here and there, I don't do much else with it. It seems to be happening regularly, and more frequently. The most recent iteration was just a few days ago: Why Some LGBTQ People Don't Like Pride Parades (the content creator is gay) I'm gay, but this CROSSES the f**king line! (also a gay content creator) Seattle Pride parade pandemonium as nude marchers prance through streets in front of children I realized I could give a better response to this. This is still a bunch of right wing shills and useful idiots to the far-right cause. Usually it is selling out to get support. Sometimes it is a flawed attempt to separate the queer community and only include the “respectable” parts. It is a flawed approach. They will not accept the queer community, not any part of it. Allow me to present a post by a He/They Jewish middle-aged non-binary butch lesbian: https://vaspider.tumblr.com/post/687643661640581120/pete-buttigieg-is-just-a-faggot-its-very Quote Pete Buttigieg is just a faggot. It’s very important to me that younger queers understand this: to the people who you’re trying to be more respectable for when you say things like neopronouns set the trans movement back or you’re why the cishets don’t accept us or including [aces/bi people with the ‘wrong kind’ of partners/non-binary people/kinksters/non-passing trans ppl/furries/polyam people] just hurts us, can’t you wait until we get all our rights before we talk about some of yours? – to those people? Pete Buttigieg is just a fag. On Sunday at Pride Northwest, some kids – late teens, early 20s – asked what our button I survived Reagan for this? meant. All of the queer adults at the tables making up our ad hoc counter looked at each other and sighed a little. Emet and another adult started to explain the way that the Reagan Administration handled – or didn’t handle – the beginning of the AIDS crisis. How many people died. How much we were ignored. The Ashes Action. The Time Magazine article which explicitly blamed bisexual men for passing the pandemic to the cishet community, playing on all the worst stereotypical bull****. The way that even when the CDC started paying attention, they were so focused on gay men that they ignored AIDS in the lesbian community, leading to the “women don’t get AIDS, they just die from it” poster. And so on. I finished counting out change and passed the last Bear Pride raised fist pin over to a bear a little older than me, then turned my head and interjected, “they didn’t care until it started infecting more than just the fags.” I turned my head back and handed him his change. He laughed bitterly and said, “remember when they called it 'gay cancer?’” That what I need you to understand. The people for whom you are folding yourself into smaller and smaller boxes will never see you as anything but a freak. A queer. A dyke. A tranny. A fag. Never. These are people who will stand by and let you wither away and die alone, gasping for breath in a cinderblock room, and not even claim your ashes, and they will say you deserve it, because of your lifestyle. If they speak of you at all it will be by the wrong name, with the pictures you hate the most. They will curse at your lover, throw him out of the home you shared, and steal the gift you gave last Christmas to throw it in the trash just so he can’t have it and they’ll say Jesus loves you! while they do it. They’ll feel good and righteous and blessed and holy and pure for doing it. And for them, you spit in the eye of your sister. For them, you disavow your sibling. For their sake, you trim away bits of your heart and lace yourself up tight. Never too loud. Never too queer. Never inconvenient or embarrassing, never asking for too much. Pete Buttigieg is what happens when your Boomer dad turns out gay. Middle America. Parents still married. Suburban-sprouted. Valedictorian. Harvard-educated. Rhodes Scholarship. Military service. More power to him: I hope he and Chasten are very happy together. Genuinely, I do. You couldn’t create a more respectable gay if you grew one in a lab run by concerned voter focus groups. But Pete Buttigieg? Is just a fag. That’s the part you don’t seem to get: when they abandoned us, they abandoned all of us. Rock Hudson was a beloved movie star and even personally friendly with that horrid pair of ambitious jackals. Nancy Reagan refused to help him get into the only place in the world that could treat him at the time, and he died. It was 1985, 4 years after the CDC first released papers on what would eventually become known as HIV/AIDS and 7 years after the first known death from an infection from HIV-2. Reagan hadn’t even said the word AIDS by the time Hudson died. Pete Buttigieg is just a fag, and so am I. Unless I’m a dyke, which seems to depend on who’s yelling what from which window and what day it is. Yes, there will be people who genuinely love and accept you. Those people are worth all the frustration of the rest, thankfully, and they’re the ones who love you in a pup mask or a leather harness and a neon jock like the ones sold by the men up the row from us last weekend. They’re the ones who laugh out loud when you tell them you hid the word “dyke” in your company name, the ones who love you in all your messiness and uncertainty and the way you don’t fit into neat boxes all scrubbed up and clean. Most cishets, though… well, they don’t actively mean you specifically any harm, at least not when they have to look at you. Not when you’re right there in front of them. Maybe they’ll be okay with you, personally, especially if you’re the kind of gay who makes a good rhetorical device, and as long as you remain a good rhetorical device. They need people to know that they don’t have a problem with the gays, after all, and there you are, being all convenient. You make a nice token, and as long as you do, well. You’re useful. But they call you by your deadname when you’re not around, and they put the wrong pronouns in your medical record even though they met you years after you came out, and they won’t put themselves out to save you. Not one little bit. I didn’t want to be here again. The year I graduated from high school was the worst year of the AIDS crisis. The world into which I became an adult was a world in which an advisor and friend to Reagan, William F. Buckley, openly advocated for forcibly tattooing the HIV status of HIV+ gay men on their buttocks (and IV drug users on their forearms), and in which my father not only told me that when I was 14 or so, but when was told me that he’d advocated for that tattoo being “over their a**holes.” (Buckley wrote that in '86, but he doubled down on it in 2005. F***er.) But yeah. I didn’t want to be here again. I wanted my daughter to inherit a better world. I wanted Obergefell and Lawrence v. Texas and Hope & Change to really mean something. I work for it, today and all days. I haven’t given up. I need you to know that, too. This isn’t a white flag. I’m not surrendering. This isn’t over. To misquote Henry Rollins, this is what Marsha and Sylvia and Stormé and Leslie and Brenda and Auntie Sugar trained us for. This is punk rock time. But I need you to understand that if Pete Buttigieg is just a fag, if that human embodiment of a Wonder Bread, mayo and Oscar Meyer bologna sandwich is not respectable enough for them – and he’s not – then the rest of us have absolutely no hope of measuring up. Not even if we trim away every colorful, beautiful piece of our community, not even if the Sisters Of Perpetual Indulgence vanish into the ether, not even if we sacrifice the five elements of vogue on the altar of white supremacist cishet middle-class conformity: we can’t trim ourselves down to something they’ll accept. The only other option is radical acceptance of our queer selves. The only other option is solidarity. The only other option is for fats and femme queens and drags and kinksters and queers and zine writers and sex workers and furries and addicts and kids and the ones who can look us in the eye and see all of us to say we’re here, we’re queer, get used to it just the way we did 30 years ago. It’s revolutionary, complete and total acceptance of our entire community, not just the ones the cishets can pretend to be comfortable with as long as we don’t challenge them too much, or it’s conceding the shoreline inch by inch to the rising waters of fascism until we’ve got nowhere left to stand and some of us start drowning. That’s it. Either it’s all of us or it’s none of us, because if we leave the answer up to the Reagans of the world and all the people who enabled him in the name of lower taxes and Democrats who wring their hands, weeping oh I don’t agree with it but we’ll lose the election if we fight it right now, the answer is none of us. The brunch gays can come, too, I guess. #long post #uncensored slurs #slurs #homophobic slurs #ronald reagan's grave is a gender neutral toilet #lgbtq #queer #trans #transgender #fag #dyke #lgbt That is why I don’t take these gay guys seriously. They want to be “the good ones” when they will never be good enough. Even if they sell out the transgender people and the inconvenient queer people, and the puppyboys and puppygirls and anything that makes smac and those like him uncomfortable. Or the shorter version: 1
longview Posted Saturday at 01:37 PM Posted Saturday at 01:37 PM 10 hours ago, The Nehor said: And the adorable idea that activists lack a cause so they have to make up new ones. Do we even live in the same reality? Yet you think that surgical mutilation and chemical castration of children is a SPLENDID idea? NOT a good kind of evolution for a healthy society! Just sheer random fantasies for further radicalism for the sake of more radicalism.
Navidad Posted Saturday at 02:20 PM Posted Saturday at 02:20 PM (edited) My perspective has been and remains that humans are tripartite: body, soul, and spirit. The three often overlap and interrelate. As a young psychology professor in a conservative context, I frequently ran into those who denied the psychological, claiming that all human challenges were either spiritual (requiring a pastor) or physical (requiring a medical doctor). I still have wounds from those debates. In my tripartite view, the body is the biology; the soul is the mind, will, and emotions (psychology); and the spirit (is the God-breathed part) unique to humans. These are overlapping circles where at the center all three interact. Neither is exclusive to the other two. Related to this thread, I believe sex is fundamentally biologically (body) determined and is seen in humans along a normal distribution. The vast majority of folks are within 95% of the center, with 2.5% on either outer limit of the curve. So I think 95% of humanity is biologically male or female, with at most 5% being outliers. I don't think that perspective is non- or anti-Biblical; its writers had no concept of normal distribution or the bell curve of human reality. So yes, God formed humanity as "male and female," but that does not rule out statistical outliers within the normal distribution found in the bell curve. Having said that, I believe gender is very different. I believe gender lives in the soul (psychology). It is primarily a function of the mind, will, and feelings. Once again, I need to acknowledge the overlapping of the three. Exclusivity of each of the tripartite aspects of humanity exists, but overlap happens regularly. So, if gender lives (primarily) in the soul, then there are as many unlimited potentials for human gender distinctions as the soul (mind, will, and emotions) can create. I think that is endemic to humanity. Gender is as varied as any other "soul" trait. Therefore, I think that gender and sex are two unique and very different constructs. The personal, social, and perhaps even spiritual implications for that vary as widely as does humanity. I am reasonably sure it's not helpful to automatically label those variations as "sin," unless they are, well . . . sinful. That is another topic. As a director of counseling services at two Christian colleges, I am one who has encountered many "struggling with their gender" students. This certainly included "spiritually struggling" students, especially back in the 1960s and 1970s. Part of my work was with the struggler and part with the community. I failed more often with the latter than with the former. I don't know if any of this is important, but it is my experience and resulting perspective as a counselor in a quasi-fundamentalist/quasi-evangelical setting for numerous years. I simply offer it in that sense. Edited Saturday at 02:33 PM by Navidad clarification 1
The Nehor Posted Saturday at 05:36 PM Posted Saturday at 05:36 PM 3 hours ago, longview said: Yet you think that surgical mutilation and chemical castration of children is a SPLENDID idea? NOT a good kind of evolution for a healthy society! Just sheer random fantasies for further radicalism for the sake of more radicalism. Most gender affirming surgeries done on minors are done on cisgender people. Gynecomastia is “surgical mutilation” and is often done on children, much more often on cisgender boys than anyone else. Are you calling for a ban on this procedure? Also this is not radicalism for the sake of radicalism. That is just “othering” people and ascribing a kind of hive mind mentality to transgender people who are depraved because they just want to be depraved. That is not how transgender people or people in general work. You don’t understand why transgender people seek surgical intervention because you don’t listen to their stories. You make up what to your mind are the most satanic or evil reasons why they would do something and assume it is true. 2
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now