Apology for the Priesthood Ban / "March of Dimes Syndrome" / "Mission Creep" / "Spencer's Law"

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Just now, Dario_M said:

Yeah i'm so agree with you. I actually find this whole new fashion a bit sick to be honest. And it's everywhere now. In the newest movies, in the newest games, just everywhere. And i don't like it at all. I don't watch new movies anymore. Because of the content. It's sad how this world has become. Sometimes it really make me cry. Because i can remember the good old days. The 90s the begin 2000s. Those where such beautiful times. Simple, happiness was self-evident. But now...you need to do this and that and a dangerous operation. And after that you maybe. Maybe can be happy. 

Just for kicks and grins, you should ask Longview how he views your current relationship and whether or not it is an abomination as described in Leviticus.

[Dario_M]

11 minutes ago, Rain said:

@Dario - as you are wanting to better your English I wanted to share a little about the word "woke". 

I'm getting this from Wikipedia as it makes imakesier to explain. It started out as being aware of racial prejudice and discrimination.  Later it was also used for things like sexism and LGBT.

Since then it has been used as a perjoritive against 1 political party against another.

So depending on who is using it then it can have very different conotations - one recognizing the struggles of people and the other. The other expressing contempt for someone or some linevif thinking.

 

And that's fine but the whole movement is getting out of hand. 

Edited October 10, 2024 by Dario_M

[Dario_M]

34 minutes ago, longview said:

Oh no! You have passed judgement on me. What method of execution will be imposed? 😵

🤣

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

I have substantial moral, ethical and legal objections to these treatments as to minors.  In no particular order:

• Comorbidities. 
• Informed consent. 
• Compromised assessments of the best interests of the child. 
• Irreversibility. 
• Sterilization. 
• Cutting off healthy body parts. 
• Longitudinal studies essentially absent. 
• Lifelong medical regimens. 
• Massive ideological/sociopolitical influences/pressures on medical care. 
• Massive social contagion risks. 
• Massive risk of financial devastation for the individual (and burden on society).

I also have the more or less the same concerns (as opposed to objections) about these treatments as to adults.  However, as fraught with perilous and detrimental factors as these procedures are, adults have substantially more autonomy to do to their bodies what they like.

Since your reading comprehension is exceedingly poor, I called a post that compared trans surgery to child sacrifice and labeling it as a "desolation of abominations" as religions hatred.

You said: "People talk about 'caring for children' but their religious hatred of trans people existing makes it hard to take any of their arguments at face value."

That seemed pretty expansive.

15 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And correctly identified the religious disgust behind it.

This too.  You are imputing these things.

15 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I have no ideal if religious disgust drives *your ideology here.

Again: "It is not.  It is concern for my fellow man."  That is my ideology.

So you should have some "idea," since I am expressly denying having any "religious disgust."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 10, 2024 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You said: "People talk about 'caring for children' but their religious hatred of trans people existing makes it hard to take any of their arguments at face value."

That seemed pretty expansive.

 

And this is why conversation with you is pointless. You break down thoughts and lose the forest for the trees. The very next sentence said "I do think there are people arguing from good faith to restrict access to this procedure, and I think sensible precautions could be agreed upon by most, but it’s hard to separate facts from fear mongering when it’s hard to tell if their real motivation is like Longview here." I stand by that. 

 

Longview is willing to say the quiet part out loud. Good for him.  What truly drives you? I have no idea. I notice that you have plenty of energy for the boogey men out there making too much of a deal out of #metoo, but no energy to take your fellow board member to task for comparing trans-surgery to child sacrifice. Just saying.

Edited October 10, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

25 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

And that's fine but the whole movement is getting out of hand. 

Indeed. If only they had stopped when they got you the right to live *your life as you choose. 

[Dario_M]

17 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Indeed. If only they had stopped when they got you the right to live *your life as you choose. 

Uhm...what do you mean if i may be so free to ask? The woke movement began a bit in 2016 when that weird remake movie came out from ghostbusters. But this time only with woman in it because the message was that a woman boss had a lot of power...or something allong those lines. And i can remember that a lot of people hated the new remake. Not because there where only woman in that movie. But just because of the weird message that was in it. Most people are not ready for this. And will never be. Hollywood and Disney are also responsible for this new fasion. 

 

I hope this post was not all to much about politics btw? 😖

Edited October 10, 2024 by Dario_M

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

You said: "People talk about 'caring for children' but their religious hatred of trans people existing makes it hard to take any of their arguments at face value."

That seemed pretty expansive.

And this is why conversation with you is pointless. You break down thoughts and lose the forest for the trees. The very next sentence said "I do think there are people arguing from good faith to restrict access to this procedure, and I think sensible precautions could be agreed upon by most, but it’s hard to separate facts from fear mongering when it’s hard to tell if their real motivation is like Longview here." I stand by that. 

Oh.  So you think I am one of the people "arguing from good faith"?

20 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Longview is willing to say the quiet part out loud. Good for him.  What truly drives you?

I have said it twice.  Here's a third time: 

Quote

I have substantial moral, ethical and legal objections to these treatments as to minors.  In no particular order:

• Comorbidities. 
• Informed consent. 
• Compromised assessments of the best interests of the child. 
• Irreversibility. 
• Sterilization. 
• Cutting off healthy body parts. 
• Longitudinal studies essentially absent. 
• Lifelong medical regimens. 
• Massive ideological/sociopolitical influences/pressures on medical care. 
• Massive social contagion risks. 
• Massive risk of financial devastation for the individual (and burden on society).

I also have the more or less the same concerns (as opposed to objections) about these treatments as to adults.  However, as fraught with perilous and detrimental factors as these procedures are, adults have substantially more autonomy to do to their bodies what they like.

SeekingUnderstanding calls this "religious disgust" and "religious hatred."  It is not.  It is concern for my fellow man.

Emphases added.

20 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I have no idea. 

I've told you my position twice before, and now a third time.  Despite this, you persist in saying you do not know if I am driven by "religious hatred" and/or "religious disgust."

20 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I notice that you have plenty of energy for the boogey men out there making too much of a deal out of #metoo,

Not really.  I think #MeToo has gone off the rails in some respects, but overall it was an important development.

20 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

but no energy to take your fellow board member to task for comparing trans-surgery to child sacrifice. Just saying.

longview said:

Quote

I am pretty sure that you would agree that there is a segment of those people that do NOT always make rational decisions. Some do it to gain acclaim from their woke and/or radical associates. The child do it for the excitement or praise from people around him/her/it. The point is surgical mutilation or chemical castration are IRREVERSIBLE and a lifelong desolation of abominations. @smac97 has documented numerous examples that call into question their poor judgement.

This made me think of massive holocaust of certain religions in the past. Such as Baal requiring parents to sacrifice their children or making them walk thru fire. Terah sacrificing his son Abram (Abraham) being a well-known example.

I think we all of us, including myself and longview, need to be circumspect and cautious in our discussions about difficult topics such as these.  This can include choosing terminology and descriptions that are apt and yet not unduly provocative.  For example, describing medical interventions as "butchering" or "mutilation" might be better described as "electively chopping off healthy body parts" and/or "electively sterilizing children."  These are calculated to be evocative and direct, but not sensationalistic or intended to offend.

Similarly, allowing for reasonable minds to disagree, without the imputation of motives onto online strangers, is likewise a good idea.  Perhaps the people who are disagreeing with you on this topic are as concerned about the welfare of children and their fellow man as you are, so broad and repeated assertions about other people being driving by "religious hatred" and "religious disgust" are unduly provocative and offensive.

As to Longview's point, I do think that there are grounds for concern that some parents and doctors are compromised in their assessment of children receiving the medical treatments under discussion.  For example, I think there are some parents who have been essentially coerced into authorizing these procedures on their children by way of a false dilemma (radical surgery or suicide).  I also think some parents and doctors have been unduly influenced by ideological and/or sociopolitical pressures to pursue these medical treatments on children, without having given sufficient consideration to the issues I have previously noted:

• Comorbidities. 
• Informed consent. 
• Compromised assessments of the best interests of the child. 
• Irreversibility. 
• Sterilization. 
• Cutting off healthy body parts. 
• Longitudinal studies essentially absent. 
• Lifelong medical regimens. 
• Massive ideological/sociopolitical influences/pressures on medical care. 
• Massive social contagion risks. 
• Massive risk of financial devastation for the individual (and burden on society).

I have spoken about most of these at some length in various threads. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 10, 2024 by smac97

[Doctor Steuss]

10 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

Uhm...what do you mean if i may be so free to ask? The woke movement began a bit in 2016 when that weird remake movie came out from ghostbusters.

"Woke" has been around since the 1930s.  For about 80 years, it was primarily about an awareness of the political and social issues that disproportionately (and in some instances, solely) affected black Americans.  You can find consistent use of it by African-American artists ranging from in Lead Belly (in his 1938 song about the Scottsboro Boys) to more recent artists like Erykah Badu.

Ironically (or not), it didn't become a common pejorative amongst some until it gained a broader meaning of not only an awareness of social inequalities, and racial injustice, but focused also on the existence of sexism and LGBT rights.

It seems once an awareness of inequalities threatens to reach critical mass, it's time to re-marginalize and create a new snarl world to maintain the boundaries of the status quo.

[Dario_M]

10 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

"Woke" has been around since the 1930s.  For about 80 years, it was primarily about an awareness of the political and social issues that disproportionately (and in some instances, solely) affected black Americans.  You can find consistent use of it by African-American artists ranging from in Lead Belly (in his 1938 song about the Scottsboro Boys) to more recent artists like Erykah Badu.

I'm not agree with you i'm really sorry. 

10 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

Ironically (or not), it didn't become a common pejorative amongst some until it gained a broader meaning of not only an awareness of social inequalities, and racial injustice, but focused also on the existence of sexism and LGBT rights.

Gay people have been long accepted. At least that was the situation in the Netherlands back then. 

10 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

It seems once an awareness of inequalities threatens to reach critical mass, it's time to re-marginalize and create a new snarl world to maintain the boundaries of the status quo.

Yeah the only problem is that i believe..80% of the people or so...don't really wanna have anything to do with that. But that is a rough estimate i make right now. I'm not sure precisely. 

Edited October 10, 2024 by Dario_M

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

SeekingUnderstanding calls this "religious disgust" and "religious hatred."  It is not.  It is concern for my fellow man.

Seeking and others come to this decision not solely based on discussions like these, but on what is missing…for example providing free mental health care to these troubled kids because if the belief is it is a mental illness that leads them to want to transition, then if there was sincere concern, there would be treatment of the cause provided, not just banning of the procedure. 
 

It is similar to the abortion issue.   Rather than just banning abortions which likely will continue to occur in many cases, just illegally, if lawmakers and others want to be believed that they are sincere about the cause they would be providing free maternal and child health care, financially supporting mothers who cannot afford to take time off of work to be pregnant or have an infant, make adoption easier and much cheaper so good families dont have to go into debt to adopt, provide free birth control (unless there is a religious reason not to such as exists for Catholics besides not wanting to ‘fund someone’s extramarital sex because which is worse, abortion or fornication?).

Just assuming one has the right to tell someone else what they can and cannot do without providing the help to do what one sees as right is not sincerity, but a power trip in many people’s eyes. 
 

What would you think of a parent that decided their kid was old enough to be responsible for their own clothing and so insisted the minor had to wash and otherwise care for that clothing.  Not a big deal, some very good parents do in order to set their kids up better for independence.

But what if not only didn’t they teach their child how to use the washer and dryer, but they didn’t even give the minor access to the appliances or even soap for handwashing in the bathtub and instead told them to figure out where they were going find an accessible washer/dryer on their own and to buy the soap if they so badly needed it. After all, the parents knew there was a laundromat open 24/7 across town if the minor really wanted to use one.  And the stores were full of soap for anyone who wanted some.  No matter to the parents that the kid had no way to get to it since they couldn’t drive nor anyway to pay for either the laundromat or detergent since they weren’t given an allowance and weren’t allowed to get a job or even babysit because they needed to work at home to earn their food, etc.

And if the result of this restriction on using the home’s washer/dryer was the kid had to go to school in dirty clothes?  Which meant he got mocked and bullied or even kicked out of class for not following the rules for basic hygiene?

What would you think of such parents who claimed they were only looking out for their child, being sure they would be able to care for themselves as adults?

If you care about someone and you don’t want them to harm themselves or others, doesn’t it make more sense to help them to do what will prevent the harm rather than just forbid them from doing it and making their life even harder if they go ahead anyway because they don’t see any other option?

Edited October 10, 2024 by Calm

[Malc]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Seeking and others come to this decision not solely based on discussions like these, but on what is missing…for example providing free mental health care to these troubled kids because if the belief is it is a mental illness that leads them to want to transition, then if there was sincere concern, there would be treatment of the cause provided, not just banning of the procedure. 
 

It is similar to the abortion issue.   Rather than just banning abortions which likely will continue to occur in many cases, just illegally, if lawmakers and others want to be believed that they are sincere about the cause they would be providing free maternal and child health care, financially supporting mothers who cannot afford to take time off of work to be pregnant or have an infant, make adoption easier and much cheaper so good families dont have to go into debt to adopt, provide free birth control (unless there is a religious reason not to such as exists for Catholics besides not wanting to ‘fund someone’s extramarital sex because which is worse, abortion or fornication?).

Just assuming one has the right to tell someone else what they can and cannot do without providing the help to do what one sees as right is not sincerity, but a power trip in many people’s eyes. 

Careful, Calm - with views like that you may be accused of being "woke"

[Doctor Steuss]

23 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

I'm not agree with you i'm really sorry. 

No need to apologize.  I'm not hurt in any way by this.

Just know that your disagreement is with reality, and documented history.  Not with me.

Recording of Lead Belly's 1938 song regarding the Scottsboro Boys, from the Smithsonian:

 

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

SeekingUnderstanding calls this "religious disgust" and "religious hatred."  It is not.  It is concern for my fellow man.

Seeking and others come to this decision

"This decision" being . . . the imputation of religious hatred and disgust on people who disagree with him?

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

not solely based on discussions like these, but on what is missing…for example providing free mental health care to these troubled kids because if the belief is it is a mental illness that leads them to want to transition, then if there was sincere concern, there would be treatment of the cause provided, not just banning of the procedure. 

First, how does this pertain to private citizens like Longview and myself?  

Second, I don't think anyone is suggesting "just banning {} the procedure."  Again, there are a lot of issues that need to be addressed:

• Comorbidities. 
• Informed consent. 
• Compromised assessments of the best interests of the child. 
• Irreversibility. 
• Sterilization. 
• Cutting off healthy body parts. 
• Longitudinal studies essentially absent. 
• Lifelong medical regimens. 
• Massive ideological/sociopolitical influences/pressures on medical care. 
• Massive social contagion risks. 
• Massive risk of financial devastation for the individual (and burden on society).

Third, I am on board with mental health care, including financial assistance to those who need it.  

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is similar to the abortion issue.   Rather than just banning abortions which likely will continue to occur in many cases, just illegally, if lawmakers and others want to be believed that they are sincere about the cause they would be providing free maternal and child health care, financially supporting mothers who cannot afford to take time off of work to be pregnant or have an infant, make adoption easier and much cheaper so good families dont have to go into debt to adopt, provide free birth control (unless there is a religious reason not to such as exists for Catholics besides not wanting to ‘fund someone’s extramarital sex because which is worse, abortion or fornication?).

Sure.  

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

Just assuming one has the right to tell someone else what they can and cannot do

Who is assuming this?

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

without providing the help to do what one sees as right is not sincerity, but a power trip in many people’s eyes. 

Perhaps we should ask people like Longview what he thinks about such things.

@longview, can you weigh in here?  Are you opposed to therapy for minors dealing with Gender Dysphoria and such issues?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Dario_M said:

Uhm...what do you mean if i may be so free to ask? The woke movement began a bit in 2016 when that weird remake movie came out from ghostbusters. But this time only with woman in it because the message was that a woman boss had a lot of power...or something allong those lines. And i can remember that a lot of people hated the new remake. Not because there where only woman in that movie. But just because of the weird message that was in it. Most people are not ready for this. And will never be. Hollywood and Disney are also responsible for this new fasion. 

 

I hope this post was not all to much about politics btw? 😖

Dario, you can disagree with me as well, but “woke” has a long history of use and has nothing to do with a ghostbuster movie except as a caricature of the movement.  

If you are going to use the word, it would be better if you study its background rather than assume you already know because using it in the wrong way makes you look uneducated and even bigoted (and I assume you are not).  Please don’t assume that those using it here to insult others are using it correctly.

Think of how you would view someone who was criticizing the gay rights movement by acting as if it hadn’t existed until a few years ago and had started with a bad movie?

Edited October 10, 2024 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

Seeking and others come to this decision not solely based on discussions like these, but on what is missing…for example providing free mental health care to these troubled kids because if the belief is it is a mental illness that leads them to want to transition, then if there was sincere concern, there would be treatment of the cause provided, not just banning of the procedure. 

Great idea except that states have made laws banning "conversion therapy"- making them broad enough to bar psychologist from pretty much anything that hints at trying to get people to rethink their homosexuality.

Edited October 10, 2024 by ZealouslyStriving

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, Malc said:

Careful, Calm - with views like that you may be accused of being "woke"

I will be proud to wear the label, though I am not sure I would deserve it.  I am probably clueless about much discrimination.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Great idea except that states have made laws banning "conversion therapy"- making them broad enough to bar psychologist from pretty much anything that hints at trying to get people to rethink their homosexuality.

Transitioning is not about who you are attracted to, but how you feel about yourself, so conversion therapy is irrelevant. 

[Dario_M]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Dario, you can disagree with me as well, but “woke” has a long history of use and has nothing to do with a ghostbuster movie except as a caricature of the movement.

Okay well.. i experienced like that, that it started with that movie in 2016. Never mind. 🤷‍♀️

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

If you are going to use the word, it would be better if you study it’s background rather than assume you already know because using it in the wrong way makes you look uneducated and even bigoted (and I assume you are not).

No that is def not who i am. Oh my oh my. 

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Think of how you would view someone who was criticizing the gay rights movement by acting as if it hadn’t existed until a few years ago and had started with a bad movie?

But gay people have been accepted from the early 50 in the Netherlands. Even then it was accepted. I'm not sure how the situation was in the US. But it meight be that we Dutchies were ahead of the curve in terms of gay rights compared to the US. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Transitioning is not about who you are attracted to, but how you feel about yourself, so conversion therapy is irrelevant. 

I have a sneaking suspicion it's very relevant to those advocating such laws 

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

But gay people have been accepted from the early 50 in the Netherlands. Even then it was accepted. I'm not sure how the situation was in the US. But it meight be that we Dutchies were ahead of the curve in terms of gay rights compared to the US

And this is a good thing in many ways. 
 

It would also make someone who claimed gay rights in the Netherlands was a new thing look pretty uninformed, right?  Since they would be very wrong. 

Edited October 10, 2024 by Calm

[Dario_M]

Just now, ZealouslyStriving said:

I have a sneaking suspicion it's very relevant to those advocating such laws 

It's not relevant because it has nothing to do with being gay. But more with feeling like you are a girl while you're in a boys body. Or the other way around. I'm gay but i still feel like i'm a man. Not a woman. 

[Dario_M]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

And this is a good thing in many ways. 
 

It would also make someone who claimed gay rights in the Netherlands was a new thing look pretty uninformed, right?  Since they would be very wrong. 

Yes Calm. 

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I have substantial moral, ethical and legal objections to these treatments as to minors.  In no particular order:

• Comorbidities. 
• Informed consent. 
• Compromised assessments of the best interests of the child. 
• Irreversibility. 
• Sterilization. 
• Cutting off healthy body parts. 
• Longitudinal studies essentially absent. 
• Lifelong medical regimens. 
• Massive ideological/sociopolitical influences/pressures on medical care. 
• Massive social contagion risks. 
• Massive risk of financial devastation for the individual (and burden on society).

I also have the more or less the same concerns (as opposed to objections) about these treatments as to adults.  However, as fraught with perilous and detrimental factors as these procedures are, adults have substantially more autonomy to do to their bodies what they like.

SeekingUnderstanding calls this "religious disgust" and "religious hatred."  It is not.  It is concern for my fellow man.

Thanks,

-Smac

I one thousand percent agree a minor should never get this surgery, but haven't seen that this happens maybe rarely. I will have to check. No way Jose' though if people are doing this. Teens are often unsure and don't fully mature until their mid twenties. But I guess they are an adult at 18 and will choose. I don't mind the cross dressing though, but the permanence is out of the question IMO. Because of the possibility of them feeling like they were wrong or even if not, maybe they don't like the end product. 

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

5 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

It's not relevant because it has nothing to do with being gay. But more with feeling like you are a girl while you're in a boys body. Or the other way around. I'm gay but i still feel like i'm a man. Not a woman. 

In the States that won't matter to the crowd pushing for redefining traditional social norms.