There’s definitely a lot of guilt wound up in this thing. What’s odd to me is that if you are religious, you can never find enough evidence for people who don’t want to believe..and it’s ok for them to continuously demean a religious belief system.. but if it’s about trans or queer issues, one can never be allowed to rest on a rebuttal or allowed their “cognitive liberty” to not believe. It’s a total double-standard in society. Believe or else.
So my challenge is there is ALWAYS a rebuttal to a rebuttal. We need some kind of definitive guide to walk through this stand-off. Take this USA opinion piece. It’s like we have to systematically go through that claims in order to stand on a qualified rebuttal. I dunno Peter, we could use some more help in this, like some kind of guide for talking through these claims. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2024/12/12/north-carolina-trans-healthcare-supreme-court/76860654007/
- this specific quote got me: “Once she was able to receive the gender-affirming care, it was like the puzzle pieces fell into place,” the service member’s spouse said. “We could see her, she was happy, her grades got better, she started to make so many more friends. It was beautiful. It was a veil that got removed, and then you could fully see your kid and celebrate them.”
People will say these things… and it’s like you can’t say anything back, I mean how can one argue against that statement..
You can argue against it by pointing out that it is biologically/chromosomally impossible to "transition" to the opposite sex, that her "joy" is fundamentally due to a temporary emotional high brought about by the novelty of the "transition". Once the realities of it become manifest--the infertility, etc.--unless she chooses to be committed to being in denial, those realities will dope-slap her with the irreversible and lifelong consequences of that "gender-affirmation". Reality is a harsh and indifferent teacher. Waging war against it is one that no one can ever win.
The difficulty with all this is to explain why anyone would wish to make such claims. Going back a little way, we find the Communist Manifesto calling for the nationalisation of sex via the 'legalisation' of an already extant 'community of women'. After a number of quite prim remarks, Marx and Engels move on, having established to their own satisfaction that the family is nothing more than a bad dream.
Coming nearer the present, we find NSDAP 'race theorists' such as Hans Andre in the 1930s arguing in a similar way to the Communist Wilhelm Reich. Here, the argument differs slightly in that it is about 'Judeo-Christian sex repression'. This same argument re-appears with the Dutch 'Provos' in the mid-60s, who advocated a 'white woman' scheme, where women volunteered their services for nothing.
And this is contemporary thinking. Private sexual relations are frowned upon and women should behave as tarts, or 'sex workers' as we euphemise the problem away (cp Madonna, Nikki Minaj etc.).
The real intention is to destroy the protections of the family, and replace them with 'experts' who believe, as Marx and Engels believed, in the pointlessness of life under 'Capitalism'. They thus launch murderous attacks on children's fantasies (eg fairy tales), consigning them to the 'dustbin of history' - as Marx and Engels were so fond of saying.
If their ideology tells them that Gender is not ultimately determined by their physical make-up, then changing themselves at that level wouldn't be needed.
Therein lies its contradiction, and it suggests that what many who claim to be "transgender"--a metaphysical impossibility--are really subscribing to a paraphilia, either autogynephilia or autoandrophilia.
There is a perversity in verbosity on evil. Concisely, these are wicked fuckers.
That's a powerful comment. They are that.
There’s definitely a lot of guilt wound up in this thing. What’s odd to me is that if you are religious, you can never find enough evidence for people who don’t want to believe..and it’s ok for them to continuously demean a religious belief system.. but if it’s about trans or queer issues, one can never be allowed to rest on a rebuttal or allowed their “cognitive liberty” to not believe. It’s a total double-standard in society. Believe or else.
So my challenge is there is ALWAYS a rebuttal to a rebuttal. We need some kind of definitive guide to walk through this stand-off. Take this USA opinion piece. It’s like we have to systematically go through that claims in order to stand on a qualified rebuttal. I dunno Peter, we could use some more help in this, like some kind of guide for talking through these claims. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2024/12/12/north-carolina-trans-healthcare-supreme-court/76860654007/
Here’s another example..
https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/defense-trans-minors-care-ban-bill-military-families-rcna184156.
- this specific quote got me: “Once she was able to receive the gender-affirming care, it was like the puzzle pieces fell into place,” the service member’s spouse said. “We could see her, she was happy, her grades got better, she started to make so many more friends. It was beautiful. It was a veil that got removed, and then you could fully see your kid and celebrate them.”
People will say these things… and it’s like you can’t say anything back, I mean how can one argue against that statement..
You can argue against it by pointing out that it is biologically/chromosomally impossible to "transition" to the opposite sex, that her "joy" is fundamentally due to a temporary emotional high brought about by the novelty of the "transition". Once the realities of it become manifest--the infertility, etc.--unless she chooses to be committed to being in denial, those realities will dope-slap her with the irreversible and lifelong consequences of that "gender-affirmation". Reality is a harsh and indifferent teacher. Waging war against it is one that no one can ever win.
Yes we all know its a false ideology. Shining a bright light on it or using logic doesn't seem to work.
The difficulty with all this is to explain why anyone would wish to make such claims. Going back a little way, we find the Communist Manifesto calling for the nationalisation of sex via the 'legalisation' of an already extant 'community of women'. After a number of quite prim remarks, Marx and Engels move on, having established to their own satisfaction that the family is nothing more than a bad dream.
Coming nearer the present, we find NSDAP 'race theorists' such as Hans Andre in the 1930s arguing in a similar way to the Communist Wilhelm Reich. Here, the argument differs slightly in that it is about 'Judeo-Christian sex repression'. This same argument re-appears with the Dutch 'Provos' in the mid-60s, who advocated a 'white woman' scheme, where women volunteered their services for nothing.
And this is contemporary thinking. Private sexual relations are frowned upon and women should behave as tarts, or 'sex workers' as we euphemise the problem away (cp Madonna, Nikki Minaj etc.).
The real intention is to destroy the protections of the family, and replace them with 'experts' who believe, as Marx and Engels believed, in the pointlessness of life under 'Capitalism'. They thus launch murderous attacks on children's fantasies (eg fairy tales), consigning them to the 'dustbin of history' - as Marx and Engels were so fond of saying.
If their ideology tells them that Gender is not ultimately determined by their physical make-up, then changing themselves at that level wouldn't be needed.
Therein lies its contradiction, and it suggests that what many who claim to be "transgender"--a metaphysical impossibility--are really subscribing to a paraphilia, either autogynephilia or autoandrophilia.