Society/Culture Hypocrisy of The Left - part 3

[Taylor]

You suggested people were scared of the headlines, I was suggesting that people were scared of the very high probability of an assault occurring. And are we completely certain that it's simply a choice? Like, are their negative outcomes if people are not allowed to transition and be treated as the gender they identify as?

If the suicide rate is the same before as after transition then perhaps it's a sign of mental illness.

 

[ShanDog]

There are two very separate issues that are being conflated, just as Father Jack is saying.

One is the penal system not adequately vetting someone entering it.

One is a prisoner raping/sexually assaulting another prisoner.

The two are linked, but not causally outside this particular instance, so therefore it's illogical to discuss it in the manner that it has been. Believe it or not, it is common for biologically female inmates to sexually assaulted other biologically female inmates. That the prisoner in this instance was trans (or falsely claimed to be) was not the cause of the assault - their criminal nature was.

 

[its free real estate]

Believe it or not, it is common for biologically female inmates to sexually assaulted other biologically female inmates.

Is it?

The argument is not solely related to one instance of a prisoner. There is the case in Canada where a man is suing waxing salons for refusing to wax his female-identified balls.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canad...ts-complaint-after-being-denied-brazilian-wax

Many such cases!

 

[ShanDog]

Is it?

The argument is not solely related to one instance of a prisoner. There is the case in Canada where a man is suing waxing salons for refusing to wax his female-identified balls.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canad...ts-complaint-after-being-denied-brazilian-wax

Many such cases!

It is. And I'm aware of that salon case - it's reportedly someone considered to be a serial complainant. Not sure what it has to do with the prison issue directly.

 

[FireKrakouer]

Instead of complicating the issue of who goes to which bathroom or prison or whatever, how about this. People with dicks use the facilities for people with dicks. People without willies use the other facilities.

I'm sceptical of gender reassignment surgery, not knowing whether it is beneficial to the recipient or not overall. But at least my blanket rule simplifies things, and protects women from having to deal with dicks in dick-free areas.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Further proof that left wing politics is dead.

https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/201...tion-after-guarding-trumps-walk-of-fame-star/

 

[Mike Smyth]

What if, hear me out here, that the rapist involved wasn’t actually transgender, but used a loophole in modern society’s misplaced sense of empathy to gain access to women?

And that as such, we shouldn’t implicitly trust people based on little more than self identification and assertions?

Given this creature had attacked women before and has a history of devious crimes (actually deplorable criminal history) this is not a stretch. It would be interesting to know how long this person has identified as transgender.

"all I need to do is throw on a dress and abit of lippy and I'll get full access to a smorgasbord of women". The prosecutor seems to have thought the same as you - "alleged transgender".

 

[Proud SJW]

More, that an invidious individual - Mike Smyth - decided on a sickening way to demean the opposition, to smear them with pretty much the worst thing I can think of, and a whole heap of individuals decided to argue his part in his absence.

Seriously. I wouldn't smear the right with anything other than aggressive self interest and/or fear. That some in here have decided to try and tell the left that they're collectively pedophiles is as ludicrous as it is just stupid. It demeans everyone involved in the discussion; those that have tried to argue against the thing - as is natural to do - because they're being forced to defend themselves against a heinous false accusation/troll, and the slime who have tried to make the fecal mud stick.

This is a waste, of a number of reasonably good intellects on both sides of the political spectrum. Even yours.

What's being lost amid the noise, and the point Taylor made a few pages ago (the one Jacky boy replied to, and to which I responded in turn) was

It's not the left's comfort with homosexuality that would be the slope. It's the left's comfort with gender and sexuality twisting of children that could.
Creating sexuality for a child in it's world before it's ready so it can, ironically, fit in with the adult world by showing how it doesn't fit in with established norms.

Followed by

The definition of ability to consent is the loophole you're building.
Children are being encouraged to divert their biological future with hormone treatment, becoming sexual and adult decision makers before the age of adulthood.
The step sideways to children having agency over their genitals in regards to others is not big.

Now those two quotes allude to those in defence of children being permitted to seek out gender reassignment surgery in some countries (including Australia), but at the same time making the assumption that they cannot govern consent at that stage of their development. IOW, its ok for a 13-year old to go and get his dick chopped off, but not ok for him to engage in sex with an adult woman. That's a crime. See?

It doesn't have anything to do with "slippery slope" arguments, as Father Jack is trying to steer the conversation to, and as his original reply to those posts indicates.

These are the mental gymnastics I was referring to. The most annoying thing, and partially why this thread exists to begin with, is that the more intelligent comments are ignored by those who really don't understand them, and attention is diverted to silly arguments about slippery slopes, logical fallacies, and prison sex.

It is the opposite line of thought that should be being discussed. I doubt anyone is arguing for paedophilia based upon it being a natural phenomenon. I think that the line of argument is that if paedophilia is considered to be against common decency, for the reasons outlined regarding the ability of children to comprehend sexuality, then the argument for children being diagnosed with and treated for gender dysphoria should be rejected for precisely the same reasons.

if a child cannot give consent to sex due to age and inexperience with sexual identity, then it is absolutely ridiculous that gender reassignment surgery, which is an outgrowth of sexuality and sexual identity, can be condoned by society on the strength of the word of that same child.

Yet that is what is happening. It is absurd.

 

[CM86]

What's being lost amid the noise, and the point Taylor made a few pages ago (the one Jacky boy replied to, and to which I responded in turn) was

Followed by

Now those two quotes allude to those in defence of children being permitted to seek out gender reassignment surgery in the some countries (including Australia), but at the same time making the assumption that they cannot govern consent at that stage of their development. IOW, its ok for a 13-year old to go and get his dick chopped off, but not ok for him to engage in sex with an adult woman. That's a crime. See?

It doesn't have anything to do with "slippery slope" arguments, as Father Jack is trying to steer the conversation to, and as his original reply to those posts indicates.

These are the mental gymnastics I was referring to. The most annoying thing, and partially why this thread exists to begin with, is that the more intelligent comments are ignored by those who really don't understand them, and attention is diverted to silly arguments about slippery slopes, logical fallacies, and prison sex.

It is the opposite line of thought that should be being discussed. I doubt anyone is arguing for paedophilia based upon it being a natural phenomenon. I think that the line of argument is that if paedophilia is considered to be against common decency, for the reasons outlined regarding the ability of children to comprehend sexuality, then the argument for children being diagnosed with and treated for gender dysphoria should be rejected for precisely the same reasons.

if a child cannot give consent to sex due to age and inexperience with sexual identity, then it is absolutely ridiculous that gender reassignment surgery, which is an outgrowth of sexuality and sexual identity, can be condoned by society on the strength of the word of that same child.

Yet that is what is happening. It is absurd.

A teenager can be aware that he is gay, that doesn't mean it's ok for an adult to have sex with him/her.

A kid can be educated about it, taught about safe practices, taught that s/he has nothing to be ashamed of... His family can accept him/her for what they are, and adjust things accordingly. But that still doesn't mean that an adult can have sex with them...

They can have an incredibly strong understanding of who they are sexually, and in terms of gender... but that still doesn't mean that they are at an age where they are safe from being taken advantage of.

E.g. A male boy, sexually active at 14, knows he is male, straight, and frequently masturbates over women. Possibly even has sex with girls his age.
His parents might buy him mags or online subscriptions, and they might also buy him condoms.
That still in no way means it's ok for an adult to take advantage of him and rape him.

 

[Proud SJW]

See? You're still doing it.

 

[Noidenous]

A teenager can be aware that he is gay, that doesn't mean it's ok for an adult to have sex with him/her.

A kid can be educated about it, taught about safe practices, taught that s/he has nothing to be ashamed of... His family can accept him/her for what they are, and adjust things accordingly. But that still doesn't mean that an adult can have sex with them...

They can have an incredibly strong understanding of who they are sexually, and in terms of gender... but that still doesn't mean that they are at an age where they are safe from being taken advantage of.

E.g. A male boy, sexually active at 14, knows he is male, straight, and frequently masturbates over women. Possibly even has sex with girls his age.
His parents might buy him mags or online subscriptions, and they might also buy him condoms.
That still in no way means it's ok for an adult to take advantage of him and rape him.

You still haven't provided an answer to an earlier hypothetical:

If you were to sexually engage (top or bottom, doesn't matter) with a 50-year old man who, in all clinical senses, decides to identify as a 4-year old girl; have you legitimately obtained compasse consent?

 

[TheWoodenSlug]

What's being lost amid the noise, and the point Taylor made a few pages ago (the one Jacky boy replied to, and to which I responded in turn) was

Followed by

Now those two quotes allude to those in defence of children being permitted to seek out gender reassignment surgery in some countries (including Australia), but at the same time making the assumption that they cannot govern consent at that stage of their development. IOW, its ok for a 13-year old to go and get his dick chopped off, but not ok for him to engage in sex with an adult woman. That's a crime. See?

It doesn't have anything to do with "slippery slope" arguments, as Father Jack is trying to steer the conversation to, and as his original reply to those posts indicates.

These are the mental gymnastics I was referring to. The most annoying thing, and partially why this thread exists to begin with, is that the more intelligent comments are ignored by those who really don't understand them, and attention is diverted to silly arguments about slippery slopes, logical fallacies, and prison sex.

It is the opposite line of thought that should be being discussed. I doubt anyone is arguing for paedophilia based upon it being a natural phenomenon. I think that the line of argument is that if paedophilia is considered to be against common decency, for the reasons outlined regarding the ability of children to comprehend sexuality, then the argument for children being diagnosed with and treated for gender dysphoria should be rejected for precisely the same reasons.

if a child cannot give consent to sex due to age and inexperience with sexual identity, then it is absolutely ridiculous that gender reassignment surgery, which is an outgrowth of sexuality and sexual identity, can be condoned by society on the strength of the word of that same child.

Yet that is what is happening. It is absurd.

Yeah, when it's laid out like that it is quite ridiculous.

Two hypothetical scenarios:

- A 13 year old boy decides that he wants to have sex with a 25 year old woman who also wants to have sex with him. So he does, but he later regrets the decision.
- That same 13 year old boy decides that he wants to get his dick chopped off and live life as a woman. So he does, but he later regrets the decision.

I wonder, what are the potential ramifications later in life for each scenario; and which are worse? I certainly know which one I'd prefer!

 

[Snake_Baker]

You still haven't provided an answer to an earlier hypothetical:

If you were to sexually engage (top or bottom, doesn't matter) with a 50-year old man who, in all clinical senses, decides to identify as a 4-year old girl; have you legitimately obtained compasse consent?

I wouldn't hold my breath for a response.

Because.............

 

[its free real estate]

It is. And I'm aware of that salon case - it's reportedly someone considered to be a serial complainant. Not sure what it has to do with the prison issue directly.

It is not about the prison issue, it is about whether transgender self-identification can cause others harm. It clearly can, when the self-id person asserts specific rights and uses state coercion to get what they want. Which is evident in both the prison case and the salon case.

 

[Gough]

You sound like an anti gay campaigner from the 1980s, you lost that fight and you'll lose this one. Give it up now mate, save yourself the angst.

 

[its free real estate]

You sound like an anti gay campaigner from the 1980s, you lost that fight and you'll lose this one. Give it up now mate, save yourself the angst.

The “right side of history” arguer enters the debate.

Where is CM86 to tell you homosexual rights have nothing to do with transgender rights?

 

[Gough]

The “right side of history” arguer enters the debate.

Not wrong though am I? You can rail against this sort of thing all you like but in the end it will be like butting your head against a brick wall and ultimately people will just point and laugh at you like they do Lyle Shelton and his ilk. Do you really want to be that guy?

 

[its free real estate]

Not wrong though am I? You can rail against this sort of thing all you like but in the end it will be like butting your head against a brick wall and ultimately people will just point and laugh at you like they do Lyle Shelton and his ilk. Do you really want to be that guy?

This is the rhetoric I love. When the likes of Lyle Shelton opposes polygamy, paedophilia, eugenics, which side will you be on?

When men win women’s sports, when creeps inveigh themselves in women’s spaces, which side will you be on?

Oh wait, you’re the creepy guy who goes to protests to score.

 

[CM86]

The “right side of history” arguer enters the debate.

Where is CM86 to tell you homosexual rights have nothing to do with transgender rights?

You argued they were inherently linked.

So now you agree that they are not?

I was under the impression that the only significant part of your argument was 'If you fight against discrimination of homosexuals, you must fight against discrimination against transsexuals, which means via slippery slope that you will fight against discrimination against paedophiles'.

Gough questions if your rhetoric against transsexuals is similar to the discrimination he faced as a homosexual, and now you deflect.

 

[its free real estate]

You argued they were inherently linked.

So now you agree that they are not?

I was under the impression that the only significant part of your argument was 'If you fight against discrimination of homosexuals, you must fight against discrimination against transsexuals, which means via slippery slope that you will fight against discrimination against paedophiles'.

Gough questions if your rhetoric against transsexuals is similar to the discrimination he faced as a homosexual, and now you deflect.

Gough doesn’t question that at all. He supposes that we are on a progressive path where there are victors and losers, and he belongs to the victors.

 

[Father Jack]

I just don't understand the logic that dictates that if you are for providing basic human rights to as many people as possible then one day you'll inevitably end up removing human rights from children.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Professor Tatiana's "slam poetry" response to hateful comedy:

Spoiler

 

[Claude Balls]

What is and has been the major religion is Europe ? Christianity

Without Christanity we would of been nothing more than animals in a struggle for survival were the strong conquer the week.

You are the one who should learn some history, you have no clue how Christianity has given us the best quality of life mankind has ever had.

For example the idea of the weekend and an 8 hour working day can be traced back to the 4th commandment remember the sabbath and keep it holy. The meaning of this commandment don't be a slave to your work.

Can you point to what specifically in the NT has held back western society ?

Without science and the enlightenment, which is to say, with and only with Christianity, we’d still be burning witches at the stake and killing people for working on the sabbath.

One need only realise that the criteria by which we reject immoral passages and concepts from the bible comes, by definition, from somewhere other than the bible, to understand that we don’t derive our morality from the bible. The idea that religion is the source of morality and that without it we’d be heathens, is bogus.

 

[Taylor]

I just don't understand the logic that dictates that if you are for providing basic human rights to as many people as possible then one day you'll inevitably end up removing human rights from children.

If you can't describe the "why", then you run the risk of permanently disfiguring children through hormonal treatments or surgery in the name of their human rights. Human psychological science hasn't got a long history of winning.

Adults should be able to do whatever they want and live however they want, but children are too easily manipulated and unintentionally coached into acting out validated behaviour contrary to their reality.

They should be kept away from it, but the current culture is leading into directing these children into transitions with the best of intentions, it's all accepting and loving. But that's what children are wired to behave to receive.

I already worry that we will have a generation of unvaccinated cripples, but now also a generation of hormonally altered at best or surgically altered people who were lead into the procedures with the best of intentions.

They can't have agency over themselves, you can't give it to them.

 

[Gethelred]

...

Against my better judgement...

Why is it solely what occurs when you twist the left into a pretzel that you make your ludicrous argument? Could you not twist the right - specifically, rampant obnoxious individualism - in the same way??? Do not people have sufficient ability to consent to things? If they do, do they not possess the right to consent, and what government should be able to say they cannot? Why do governments get afforded the dubious right of determining where the line of consent is?

That's as far as I'm willing to go to accomodate this nonsense. You can twist political ideas and ethics into all sorts of shapes, but this is a dubious use of intellect by a number of individuals I thought a bit better of. The mental gymnastics required to get to the point argued is so absurd as to be gibberish, and it concerns something horrible to contemplate. No government or left wing organisation is really going to chemically castrate a child based on gender dysphoria, and to undergo surgery below a certain age requires parental consent in Australia.

Why this has people trying to smear the left with whatever they're accusing them of is not only beyond me, but is sordid, tawdry, beneath most of you. Suffice to say, I expected more.