smac97 Posted March 6, 2025 Author Posted March 6, 2025 2 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said: Quote I think not. This is not hatred. This is not stigmatization. This is simple disagreement. This is me declining to play along with falsehoods, declining to act as if mental delusions reflect reality. This is me saying, quietly but clearly, that "the emperor has no clothes." Every bigot will claim that not only are they not acting in a bigoted fashion - but that their behavior is justified and perhaps even necessary. The problem here is that you are the emperor. I am not attempting to shame others into capitulation and submission. That's your gig. The "Emperor Has No Clothes" story is not the only comparison available. In a Latter-day Saint context, I see rhetoric such as yours coming out of the Great and Spacious Building. Another one comes out of Inherit the Wind, with you and yours stepping into the role of zealots demanding compliance with creationism: The text: Quote Rachel: Bert, you've got to call the whole thing off now. Drummond: Who are you, young lady? Bert: This is Rachel Brown. We're engaged. Drummond: Brown? Rev. Brown's daughter? Rachel: Don't you see what's happening, Bert They're using you as a weapon against your own people. What you think or believe isn't the point anymore. You're helping something bad. Drummond: No, young lady, it's not as simple as all that... good or bad, black or white, day or night. Do you know that at the top of the world the twilight is 6 months long… Rachel: Bert and I don't live on top of the world. We live in Hillsboro. and when the sun goes down, it's dark. And why do you have to come here to make it different? Drummond: I didn't come here to make Hillsboro different. I came here to defend his right to be different. And that's the point. How about it, boy? Bert: I don't know what the point is anymore. I tried to open their kids' minds... their kids. I tried to give them knowledge they could use. They're using it... as a stranglehold on me. Hornbeck: You're learning, Cates. Disillusionment is what little heroes are made of. Bert: Where do I finish? Dead with a paper medal on my chest "Bert Cates, world's biggest chump... he died fighting. " Let's face it... to him, I'm a headline. To you, I'm a cause. Drummond: And to yourself? All right, let's face it. Now, you chose to get into this by yourself. You didn't get into it because of his headline or because of my cause, or maybe even because of their kids. You got in to it because of yourself... Because of something you believed in for yourself. Bert: I didn't believe it would happen this way. Hornbeck: It can get worse. Those people are in a lean and hungry mood. Bert: They look at me as if I was a murderer. Drummond: In a way, you are. You know, you... you kill one of their fairy-tale notions, and they'll bring down the wrath of god, Brady and the state legislature on you every time. Rachel: You make a joke out of everything. Drummond: Young lady, I know what Bert is going through. It's the loneliest feeling in the world. It's like walking down an empty street listening to your own footsteps. But all you have to do is to knock on any door and say, "If you'll let me in, I'll live the way you want me to live, and I'll think the way you want me to think," and all the blinds will go up, and all the doors will open, and you'll never be lonely, ever again. Now, it's up to you, Cates. You just say the word, and we'll change the plea... that is, of course, if you honestly believe that the law is right and you're wrong. Now, if that's the case, just tell me, and I'll pack my bag and go back to Chicago where it's a nice, cool 100 in the shade. Rachel: Bert, I've gone to my father's church every Sunday as long as I can remember. This is where I live. This is where my children will be born. What kind of a life could we have? Bert: Well, what kind of a life could we have if I gave up now? Your father's kind? Hallelujah, and ignorance, here we come? Rach, what goes on in this town is not necessarily the Christian religion everyplace else. Rach, I can't live the way you want me to You're the one who's got to decide. It's his church or our house. You can't live in both. "{A}ll you have to do is to knock on any door and say, 'If you'll let me in, I'll live the way you want me to live, and I'll think the way you want me to think," and all the blinds will go up, and all the doors will open, and you'll never be lonely, ever again." Nobody likes being publicly disparaged in the ways you and Nehor mete out. All I have to do to avoid it is . . . submit. Knock on your door and ask you to not call me a bigot. Conform. "Think the way you want me to think" (or else be publicly labeled a "bigot," by a fellow Latter-day Saint, no less). Capitulate. Praise the emperor's beautiful clothes. I'll pass. The fundamental tenets of trans ideology are facially absurd and incongruent with reality. A man does not become a women by "identifying" as one. Sex is not merely a social construct. "Gender" is either a synonym for "biological sex" (the position taken by the Church), or else it is a vague reference to a pastiche of stereotypes and generalizations in terms of behaviors and affectations. Men should not be in women's bathrooms, changing rooms, sports, prisons, and so on. This is not stigmatization. This is not bigotry. This is simply disagreement. Excerpts from 1 Nephi 8 are apt: Quote 26 And I also cast my eyes round about, and beheld, on the other side of the river of water, a great and spacious building; and it stood as it were in the air, high above the earth. 27 And it was filled with people, both old and young, both male and female; and their manner of dress was exceedingly fine; and they were in the attitude of mocking and pointing their fingers towards those who had come at and were partaking of the fruit. 28 And after they had tasted of the fruit they were ashamed, because of those that were scoffing at them; and they fell away into forbidden paths and were lost. ... 32 And it came to pass that many were drowned in the depths of the fountain; and many were lost from his view, wandering in strange roads. 33 And great was the multitude that did enter into that strange building. And after they did enter into that building they did point the finger of scorn at me and those that were partaking of the fruit also; but we heeded them not. Fortunately, your "finger of scorn" schtick isn't working. Thanks, -Smac 1
Calm Posted March 6, 2025 Posted March 6, 2025 (edited) 2 hours ago, smac97 said: think the study merits discussion Not if it has a major fundamental flaw. If it is comparing two different groups rather that the same group with and without surgery, that is a huge problem. And since they don’t identify what percentage of the no surgery group didn’t want surgery, they are comparing two different groups. It would be like claiming Americans were more depressed after therapy than before while using all North Americans as the no treatment group and Americans only in the treatment one (Canada and Mexico have lower depression rates according to skimming a few google hits). Or one could just use all Americans as the no treatment group and claim that therapy didn’t help levels of depression…without identifying that the majority of the no treatment group weren’t depressed in the first place. Adding my position to show bias: I am against gender affirming surgery (cosmetic purpose) for any minor (including reduction of breasts in boys to make them appear more ‘male’ and enhancement in girls) though am open to possible exceptions. I am concerned about surgical complications as well as issues that may resolve as they get older without surgery (all for therapy and possibly medication though, not saying ignore the issues). Edited March 6, 2025 by Calm 3
smac97 Posted March 6, 2025 Author Posted March 6, 2025 4 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Quote I have never condemned transgender people generally (I have specifically condemned people who are, in my view, grooming children by exposing them to highly sexualized stuff at parades, drag shows, etc.). Again, that is not how grooming works or has ever worked and calling that grooming has led many to misunderstand what grooming is so they might miss out of catching people who actually are grooming children. So great work everyone on helping out the actual groomers. Exposing children to sexualized content is perverse and gross. I think there are plenty in the LGBT community that are as repulsed as I am with that stuff. 4 minutes ago, The Nehor said: I am going to a Drag King show on Friday with some friends. We are all free to choose, I suppose. 4 minutes ago, The Nehor said: I intend to groom myself before I go but if they choose to give me some extra grooming while I am there I won’t object. All snark, no substance. Thanks, -Smac
Kenngo1969 Posted March 6, 2025 Posted March 6, 2025 Quaere, I'm not trying to take the thread in any direction the OP does not wish to, but I do think I have a worthwhile, not irrelevant comparison to consider that might shed light on what should be done about Gender Dysphoria. How far should the "alter-the-body-[purportedly]-to-protect-the-psyche" paradigm be taken? After all, Gender Dysphoria isn't the only such disorder extant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_integrity_dysphoria
smac97 Posted March 6, 2025 Author Posted March 6, 2025 18 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Quote Quote Also I read history. Transgender rights are not going to be secured based on reasoned analytical study of anti-transgender propaganda any more than Gay Rights, Civil Rights, Women’s Rights, or basic human rights are secured that way. It requires marching, fighting, shooting authoritarians and fascists, court battles, burning things, throwing pies into the faces of bigots, and all the rest. Hopefully it won’t require the more violent options. Sometimes we pull off change without those. Still, I think we should bring back the pie thing. You are publicly endorsing violence and murder as a means of affecting political change. No, I just said that it is often an effective tool to cause change. You have elsewhere enthusiastically endorsed physical violence in response to political disagreement. 18 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Monsters like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln knew this. They also probably wished there were other ways but sometimes there aren’t. Such is life. From my sigline: Quote "When we disagree with the laws, we take it up with the people who write them; we speak out with our pens, our voices, our votes. Not with guns. We don't settle grievances or perceived injustices with violence." -- Jack McCoy Thanks, -Smac 1
The Nehor Posted March 6, 2025 Posted March 6, 2025 (edited) 15 minutes ago, smac97 said: Exposing children to sexualized content is perverse and gross. I think there are plenty in the LGBT community that are as repulsed as I am with that stuff. Of course you are equally repulsed by people who take their 8 year old sons to Hooter’s for their birthday party and take pictures with deliberately sexualized women. This happens a lot more of course. Only a few pride parades and events have that level of sexualized content. Yet they focus on the rare pride parades and not the parents that are deliberately exposing prepubescent children to women dressed to tittilate. For some reason I don’t see the same level of outrage about exposing kids to that kind of sexualization. Hell, the cheerleaders at major sporting events are often as sexualized as the more kinky pride parades. Yet where is the outrage? Maybe it is not about the kids being exposed to sexualized content. Maybe it is really about kids being exposed to the wrong kind of sexualization? Or maybe it isn’t actually about protecting children at all and this is just an excuse to hate on queer people? I know which one I bet on. 15 minutes ago, smac97 said: We are all free to choose, I suppose. That is a rather weak defense of agency. 15 minutes ago, smac97 said: All snark, no substance. Is that just what you say when you don’t understand what I said? That would make a lot of sense actually. Edited March 6, 2025 by The Nehor 1
Benjamin McGuire Posted March 6, 2025 Posted March 6, 2025 15 minutes ago, smac97 said: I am not attempting to shame others into capitulation and submission. That's your gig. No, this is exactly what you are doing Spencer. 1
The Nehor Posted March 6, 2025 Posted March 6, 2025 5 minutes ago, smac97 said: You have elsewhere enthusiastically endorsed physical violence in response to political disagreement. Still do. Punch a Nazi! It is what your grandfathers would have wanted! 5 minutes ago, smac97 said: From my sigline: Beautiful and idealistic but also naive and simplistic and privileged. Sometimes violence is the answer. Even the scriptures acknowledge this. Or were the Revolutionary War and the American Civil War big mistakes that could have been avoided by putting more ink on paper? I doubt it.
smac97 Posted March 6, 2025 Author Posted March 6, 2025 23 minutes ago, The Nehor said: It is cute how you are pretending to be fighting falsehoods Men do not become women by "identifying" as one. That is the falsehood I reject. 23 minutes ago, The Nehor said: If those people are mentally ill just for identifying as a wolf (which does not involve acting like a wolf 24/7) then most religious people are mentally ill for thinking they are under the care of invisible divine beings. That a man cannot become a woman by "identifying" as one is empirically testable. That a person cannot become a wolf by "identifying" as one is empirically testable. I agree that this second one is the product of mental illness. So is the first one. That is unfortunate. Religious beliefs are, in the main, both A) not empirically testable, and B) protected by the First Amendment. 23 minutes ago, The Nehor said: They aren’t science/reality deniers which is what you try to paint them as. They have a different worldview that includes mystical or spiritual or psychological elements you find weird. So what? So . . . nothing. I am overwhelmingly indifferent to a person who "identifies" as a wolf. Until, that is, that person shows up at my door and demands that I go along with that counterfactual notion. Until that person expects me and the rest of society to act as if she actually is a wolf. Until that person seeks to have the government impose punitive measures to compel me to go along with that factual notion. Then the calculus changes a bit. So it is with other people who "identify" as something they objectively are not, and yet who are expecting society to go along with that counterfactual notion. What they do and think on their own is generally no concern of mine, but when they start to try to force me to go along with their falsehoods, then the calculus changes. 23 minutes ago, The Nehor said: No one is trying to convince you you are a wolf or proselyting about how you should accept the wolf within. Just like no one is trying to convince you you have gender dysphoria and need to start altering your body. Leave other people alone. Happy to. Until men start going into women's bathrooms, changing rooms, sports, prisons, etc. Then the calculus has changed. 23 minutes ago, The Nehor said: If you stigmatize incorrect beliefs be careful. Our faith is not a majority in a position to survive if we start making religious and spiritual beliefs into mental disorders. Fortunately, I don't see any such coercive attempts, either now or on the horizon. The only coercive efforts I see are from people like you, who seek to shame and shout others down. 23 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Which is where you are wrong of course. Religious belief is a delusion in which the rest of society is expected to acknowledge and accommodate as valid. The First Amendment doesn't require anyone to agree with or validate my religious beliefs. Thanks, -Smac 1
smac97 Posted March 6, 2025 Author Posted March 6, 2025 2 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Quote You have elsewhere enthusiastically endorsed physical violence in response to political disagreement. Still do. Punch a Nazi! Including an 80-year old woman crossing the street with a walker, whom you designated a "nazi," and against whom you endorsed physical violence. 2 minutes ago, The Nehor said: It is what your grandfathers would have wanted! My wife's grandfather fought in the Ardennes. Amazing story. I met him several times. He would not have endorsed your sentiments. The use or threatened use of violence in a political context is something the brownshirts did in Germany, and the blackshirts did in Italy. How very sad and ironic, then, to see you adopt those tactics. And proudly, too. 2 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Beautiful and idealistic but also naive and simplistic and privileged. Sometimes violence is the answer. In extremis, possibly. But we are nowhere near that. Meanwhile, you are endorsing physical violence, including murder, as legitimate means to advance trans ideology. I think that is deeply disturbing. Thanks, -Smac 1
smac97 Posted March 6, 2025 Author Posted March 6, 2025 9 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said: Quote I am not attempting to shame others into capitulation and submission. That's your gig. No, this is exactly what you are doing Spencer. No, Ben. I haven't publicly called anyone a bigot. I have not endorsed physical violence (as Nehor has). I have, instead, cited news items, medical journal articles, and Church publications. I am attempting to persuade, not coerce. The public shaming bit is all yours. And has been for a while. thanks, -Smac 3
ttribe Posted March 6, 2025 Posted March 6, 2025 Am I the only one who finds it odd that Spencer is so very concerned about what other people do with their genitals? 1
Calm Posted March 6, 2025 Posted March 6, 2025 (edited) 10 hours ago, MrShorty said: This statement struck me, as we sit here trying to tease out cause and effect and correlation -- not to mention claims of what God believes about these things. How much of the continued struggles for transgender people stems from their community's (and their church, if there is a church that is part of their community) failure to support and encourage them? I'm reminded of a study that was done to look at self-reported reasons given by those who detransition. As cited in this Newsweek article (https://www.newsweek.com/what-data-shows-about-transgender-detransition-regret-1807448 After interviewing about 2000 adults who had a history of detransitioning, they observed that the vast majority (82%) "said their decision was influenced by external factors such as family pressure and societal stigma." Continuing on, they indicate that only about 16% of these adults reported an "internal" driving factor, such as continued uncertainty about their gender identity. If I had the time, expertise, and access to the data to query it properly, this is the biggest question I see for those of us in their community. How much of transgender people's struggles are internal, and how much do we as a community contribute (perhaps unwittingly) to their difficulties. Since things like "societal stigma" seem to be significant contributors to their struggles, perhaps the best thing I, as a random Joe in the community, can do is try not to perpetuate the stigma. Yes, it would be tragic if someone detranstioned, not because the change had made them feel worse, it had in fact made a positive impact, but because others shamed them for it. Would we see it as a good thing that women refuse to get mastectomies for breast cancer or when they had uterine cancer or severe bleeding because of the implication in some cultures that they were somehow less of a woman, less feminine without a womb? (There has been a lot of stigma around breast removal especially when reconstruction wasn’t that great and menopause in general in the past based on loss of fertility/femininity). Would we interpret a study that showed women who had no mastectomies due to breast cancer were happier than those who had the surgery as evidence breast removal was detrimental for breast cancer patients or would we take a closer look at the study wondering what the heck was going on? Edited March 7, 2025 by Calm 3
The Nehor Posted March 6, 2025 Posted March 6, 2025 4 minutes ago, smac97 said: Men do not become women by "identifying" as one. That is the falsehood I reject. And transmen are erased yet again. Le sigh. 4 minutes ago, smac97 said: That a man cannot become a woman by "identifying" as one is empirically testable. That a person cannot become a wolf by "identifying" as one is empirically testable. And we have Take 653 of smac pretending he doesn’t understand the difference between gender and biological sex. 4 minutes ago, smac97 said: I agree that this second one is the product of mental illness. So is the first one. That is unfortunate. And if this person followed an animistic faith tradition where they feel they channeled or possessed some spiritual element or tie to a wolf would that be a mental disorder that needs treatment? Freedom of belief or just freedom of religion 4 minutes ago, smac97 said: Religious beliefs are, in the main, both A) not empirically testable, and B) protected by the First Amendment. So . . . nothing. I am overwhelmingly indifferent to a person who "identifies" as a wolf. Until, that is, that person shows up at my door and demands that I go along with that counterfactual notion. Until that person expects me and the rest of society to act as if she actually is a wolf. Until that person seeks to have the government impose punitive measures to compel me to go along with that factual notion. Then the calculus changes a bit. Now you know why many people hate our missionaries or having to humor us about being divine beings in human form. You can’t empirically test whether I have a spiritual tie to a dobermen and channel it. I don’t of course. I am more of a golden retriever. 4 minutes ago, smac97 said: So it is with other people who "identify" as something they objectively are not, and yet who are expecting society to go along with that counterfactual notion. What they do and think on their own is generally no concern of mine, but when they start to try to force me to go along with their falsehoods, then the calculus changes. Again you insist on mischaracterizing what people are saying by pretending they believe something they do not. They do not deny their biological sex or that their physical body is human. You look like an idiot when you pretend you don’t get this point. 4 minutes ago, smac97 said: Happy to. Until men start going into women's bathrooms, changing rooms, sports, prisons, etc. Then the calculus has changed. One would imagine that this is a plague upon the whole nation with scandals and horrific behavior occurring all the time. Of course it is not and we are figuring out how to deal with it. 4 minutes ago, smac97 said: Fortunately, I don't see any such coercive attempts, either now or on the horizon. As long as you are safe the rights of other don’t matter of course. 4 minutes ago, smac97 said: The only coercive efforts I see are from people like you, who seek to shame and shout others down. Speech is now coercion? 4 minutes ago, smac97 said: The First Amendment doesn't require anyone to agree with or validate my religious beliefs. Hilarious that you put the First Amendment here right after you pretended that people decrying someone’s speech is somehow coercive. That is how free speech works genius. 1
smac97 Posted March 6, 2025 Author Posted March 6, 2025 22 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Of course you are equally repulsed by people who take their 8 year old sons to Hooter’s for their birthday party and take pictures with deliberately sexualized women. Yes, I am repulsed at that. Same goes with Mardi Gras and other public displays of sexual licentiousness and depravity. 22 minutes ago, The Nehor said: This happens a lot more of course. Only a few pride parades and events have that level of sexualized content. And those are the events I find problematic. 22 minutes ago, The Nehor said: For some reason I don’t see the same level of outrage about exposing kids to that kind of sexualization. I think plenty of people are repulsed at any sort of efforts to sexualize/groom children. Consider these: Yes, kink belongs at Pride. And I want my kids to see it. Don't Look Away: These Are the 'Family-Friendly' Pride Events the Left Is Pushing On Kids Prepping Kids for a Pride Parade ‘GROOMING FESTIVAL’: Journalist Witnesses Naked Men Playing with Kids at Pride Children as Sex Objects: Why NYC Gay Pride Parade Is Being Called a 'Celebration of Pedophilia' DC Pride parade marked by depravity, grooming of children despite ‘family friendly’ billing Pride Parade Clips Show Shocking and Bizarre Moments — with Children in Attendance Pride Month Jumps the Shark Yale Professor Wants Your Kids To See Sex At Pride Parades So They’re Not ‘Homophobes’ And on and on and on. If and when you find articles endorsing the sexualization of children in a "heterosexual" context, feel free to post them and I will join you in condemning them. Meanwhile, though, do you condemn the actions described in the above articles? 22 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Hell, the cheerleaders at major sporting events are often as sexualized as the more kinky pride parades. Yet where is the outrage? Maybe it is not about the kinds being exposed to sexualized content. Maybe it is really about kids being exposed to the wrong kind of sexualization? Or maybe it isn’t actually about protecting children at all and this is just an excuse to hate on queer people? I know which one I bet on. Vitriol and accusation. That's all you've got. Thanks, -Smac 3
The Nehor Posted March 6, 2025 Posted March 6, 2025 9 minutes ago, smac97 said: Including an 80-year old woman crossing the street with a walker, whom you designated a "nazi," and against whom you endorsed physical violence. The old lady going to the fascist rally? Yeah, she was a fascist. 9 minutes ago, smac97 said: My wife's grandfather fought in the Ardennes. Amazing story. I met him several times. He would not have endorsed your sentiments. The use or threatened use of violence in a political context is something the brownshirts did in Germany, and the blackshirts did in Italy. How very sad and ironic, then, to see you adopt those tactics. And proudly, too. And my grandpa who fought in the Pacific could beat up your wife’s grandpa. Slightly more seriously he was literally using violence in a political context. War is politics. 9 minutes ago, smac97 said: Meanwhile, you are endorsing physical violence, including murder, as legitimate means to advance trans ideology. Nope, I said it is sometimes necessary. I did not say it was necessary in all contexts. So, CFR on that one.
smac97 Posted March 6, 2025 Author Posted March 6, 2025 2 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Quote Men do not become women by "identifying" as one. That is the falsehood I reject. And transmen are erased yet again. Le sigh. I thought it would be obvious that I reject the corollary falsehood (that women do not become men by "identifying" as such). 2 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Quote That a man cannot become a woman by "identifying" as one is empirically testable. That a person cannot become a wolf by "identifying" as one is empirically testable. And we have Take 653 of smac pretending he doesn’t understand the difference between gender and biological sex. "Gender" was originally a linguistic concept, not a biological or sociological one. Then came the execrable Dr. Money, who started out by introducing it as a synonym for "sex," then later differentiating it from sex. This is a large-scale exercise in equivocation, that's all. 2 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Quote Religious beliefs are, in the main, both A) not empirically testable, and B) protected by the First Amendment. So . . . nothing. I am overwhelmingly indifferent to a person who "identifies" as a wolf. Until, that is, that person shows up at my door and demands that I go along with that counterfactual notion. Until that person expects me and the rest of society to act as if she actually is a wolf. Until that person seeks to have the government impose punitive measures to compel me to go along with that factual notion. Then the calculus changes a bit. Now you know why many people hate our missionaries or having to humor us about being divine beings in human form. You can’t empirically test whether I have a spiritual tie to a dobermen and channel it. I don’t of course. I am more of a golden retriever. No substance. Just snark. 2 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Quote So it is with other people who "identify" as something they objectively are not, and yet who are expecting society to go along with that counterfactual notion. What they do and think on their own is generally no concern of mine, but when they start to try to force me to go along with their falsehoods, then the calculus changes. Again you insist on mischaracterizing what people are saying by pretending they believe something they do not. They do not deny their biological sex or that their physical body is human. You look like an idiot when you pretend you don’t get this point. "Trans women are women" is an exercise in equivocation. Men in women's bathrooms, changing rooms, sports, prisons, etc. are engaged in that behavior because of this equivocation. I am happy that we are moving away from this stuff. Thanks, -Smac 1
The Nehor Posted March 6, 2025 Posted March 6, 2025 2 minutes ago, smac97 said: Yes, I am repulsed at that. Same goes with Mardi Gras and other public displays of sexual licentiousness and depravity. Yet despite their greater prevalence you never bring them up. You aren’t posting articles here about it (they are out there). You are straining at a gnat of queer licentiousness and making it out as a great evil and talk about it a lot but other than a token comment that you find it bad too you don’t do anything about all the pervasive everywhere heterosexual licentiousness. Why? 2 minutes ago, smac97 said: Yes, kink belongs at Pride. And I want my kids to see it. Don't Look Away: These Are the 'Family-Friendly' Pride Events the Left Is Pushing On Kids Prepping Kids for a Pride Parade ‘GROOMING FESTIVAL’: Journalist Witnesses Naked Men Playing with Kids at Pride Children as Sex Objects: Why NYC Gay Pride Parade Is Being Called a 'Celebration of Pedophilia' DC Pride parade marked by depravity, grooming of children despite ‘family friendly’ billing Pride Parade Clips Show Shocking and Bizarre Moments — with Children in Attendance Pride Month Jumps the Shark Yale Professor Wants Your Kids To See Sex At Pride Parades So They’re Not ‘Homophobes’ Please don’t post the contents of your outrage porn collection. It is unseemly. 2 minutes ago, smac97 said: If and when you find articles endorsing the sexualization of children in a "heterosexual" context, feel free to post them and I will join you in condemning them. Nah, I figure straight people can deal with it without my help if they want to. They don’t. They would prefer to police queer spaces. Because they’re weird. 2 minutes ago, smac97 said: Meanwhile, though, do you condemn the actions described in the above articles? No idea. I don’t have the time to research those and find out if they are as lurid and sexualized as your favorite outrage porn channels say they are. Plus there could be scantily clad twinks or femboys or tomboys in those pictures and some of us are trying to keep the Law of Chastity here.
smac97 Posted March 6, 2025 Author Posted March 6, 2025 14 minutes ago, ttribe said: Am I the only one who finds it odd that Spencer is so very concerned about what other people do with their genitals? And the effort to shame/silence continues. As I noted previously: Quote I am overwhelmingly indifferent to a person who "identifies" as a wolf. Until, that is, that person shows up at my door and demands that I go along with that counterfactual notion. Until that person expects me and the rest of society to act as if she actually is a wolf. Until that person seeks to have the government impose punitive measures to compel me to go along with that factual notion. Then the calculus changes a bit. So it is with other people who "identify" as something they objectively are not, and yet who are expecting society to go along with that counterfactual notion. What they do and think on their own is generally no concern of mine, but when they start to try to force me to go along with their falsehoods, then the calculus changes. Thanks, -Smac 1
The Nehor Posted March 6, 2025 Posted March 6, 2025 4 minutes ago, smac97 said: I thought it would be obvious that I reject the corollary falsehood (that women do not become men by "identifying" as such). "Gender" was originally a linguistic concept, not a biological or sociological one. Then came the execrable Dr. Money, who started out by introducing it as a synonym for "sex," then later differentiating it from sex. This is a large-scale exercise in equivocation, that's all. No substance. Just snark. "Trans women are women" is an exercise in equivocation. So you are unwilling to engage with the actual argument you are facing and try to reduce it to a semantics debate that *checks notes* has already been lost. 4 minutes ago, smac97 said: Men in women's bathrooms, changing rooms, sports, prisons, etc. are engaged in that behavior because of this equivocation. I am happy that we are moving away from this stuff. Hope the cost is worth it for this short-term win. I am already running out of popcorn watching it.
The Nehor Posted March 6, 2025 Posted March 6, 2025 3 minutes ago, smac97 said: And the effort to shame/silence continues. Smac is the true victim of the transgender movement. Can we have a moment of silence for all he has lost in this grand struggle? Okay, that is long enough. Moving on… 1
smac97 Posted March 6, 2025 Author Posted March 6, 2025 1 minute ago, The Nehor said: Yet despite their greater prevalence you never bring them up. Show me articles by PhDs attempting to justify and rationalize the sexualization of children, and I'll join you in condemning such things. 1 minute ago, The Nehor said: You aren’t posting articles here about it (they are out there). Feel free to post them, then. 1 minute ago, The Nehor said: You are straining at a gnat of queer licentiousness I think issues involving the sexualization and grooming of children by exposing them to highly sexualized content in parades, drag shows, etc. is more than "a gnat" of an issue. 1 minute ago, The Nehor said: and making it out as a great evil Well, yes. Sexualizing and grooming little kids is "a great evil." I endorse that statement. 1 minute ago, The Nehor said: Please don’t post the contents of your outrage porn collection. It is unseemly. Vitriol and snark. That's all you've got. 1 minute ago, The Nehor said: Quote If and when you find articles endorsing the sexualization of children in a "heterosexual" context, feel free to post them and I will join you in condemning them. Nah, I figured as much. Thanks, -Smac
ttribe Posted March 6, 2025 Posted March 6, 2025 2 minutes ago, smac97 said: And the effort to shame/silence continues. I just think it's odd that you care what other people do with their genitals. I mean, really, is it any of your business? Quote What they do and think on their own is generally no concern of mine, but when they start to try to force me to go along with their falsehoods, then the calculus changes. Who, specifically, is trying to force you to do something, Spencer? If by "forcing" you actually mean someone asked you to be respectful and not misgender them, that sure seems to be a mild inconvenience being "forced" on you. Unlike, oh...I don't know, being ostracized, shunned, mocked, discriminated against, and being subjected to violent threats for being trans. If we are going to measure who is being "forced" to do something, the "calculus" sure doesn't seem to be in your favor. 4
smac97 Posted March 6, 2025 Author Posted March 6, 2025 1 minute ago, The Nehor said: So you are unwilling to engage with the actual argument you are facing and try to reduce it to a semantics debate that *checks notes* has already been lost. All snark, no substance. 1 minute ago, The Nehor said: Hope the cost is worth it for this short-term win. I am already running out of popcorn watching it. From the guy who also said this: Quote Transgender rights are not going to be secured based on reasoned analytical study of anti-transgender propaganda any more than Gay Rights, Civil Rights, Women’s Rights, or basic human rights are secured that way. It requires marching, fighting, shooting authoritarians and fascists, court battles, burning things, throwing pies into the faces of bigots, and all the rest. Hopefully it won’t require the more violent options. Sometimes we pull off change without those. Still, I think we should bring back the pie thing. Thanks, -Smac
The Nehor Posted March 6, 2025 Posted March 6, 2025 20 minutes ago, ttribe said: Am I the only one who finds it odd that Spencer is so very concerned about what other people do with their genitals? Transphobes think about transgender people more than transgender people do. This isn’t just a joke. The more transphobic an area is the more they search for transgender and transgender-adjacent “material”. Far too many hate it because they secretly want it in some way: https://lawsuit.org/general-law/republicans-have-an-obsession-with-transgender-pornography/ This is also why a lot of transgender people end up being assaulted. Being closeted is a hell of a drug.
Recommended Posts