Today in Trump

[X]

Just as the Roman Empire eventually collapsed under the weight of its decadence, political and social separatism and a succession of clearly untalented and unsuitable leaders …. So we now have a ringside seat at the death of the 20th Century Empire.

Polarisation to the extent that people loath their countrymen more than their real enemies abroad, where there is a very real danger of a civil war, where the ‘best’ candidates for leadership are a geriatric mummy or a geriatric narcissist, where the democratic fundamentals that underpin the entire country are being rejected internally and where the population are turning into ill educated fatsos bleating about trans rights is only going to end one way if history teaches us anything.

Even their heavyweights are shit now

And by the way, things aren’t much better over here in the Uk!

[TitoFan]

Hillary Clinton would not have caused the division to the nation that Trump did if she won in 2016.

It may have got rid of Trump then and there.

The Republicans should stand up to Trump including DeSantis. Trump has got himself in this trouble, no one else, he is not an innocent victim. They should say it loud and proud.

Agreed. But Trump brought out the bad element of American society. Those who were in hiding, waiting for someone to appeal to their prejudices... their hatred... their ignorance... their fear of the unknown... their superiority complexes... their disdain for anything foreign... their disdain for educated people... all those bad elements came pouring out from their hiding places like so many Minions marching in step to Trump's every utterance. Swallowing every lie... repeating every bullshit line... believing every illogical statement made by Trump. Becoming as polarized as a people can be. I've always said Trump has been THE MOST DIVISIVE WORLD LEADER IN HISTORY.

Yeah.... Hillary, however unlikable, would have still been an improvement over Trump.

[Kirkland Laing]

[QUOTE=TitoFan;1636419]

Please note the "lost track of" point. Hmm... throws a monkey-wrench right in the middle of the "research," doesn't it. Seems you can't make reliable assumptions about the quality of life (or lack thereof) of transitioned people if you can't consistently keep track of them, eh?

I could quote more passages... but I'll leave it there.

I realize neither of us will ever convince the other that we're right. It boils down to opinions and personal preferences. But I come from a position of... and it bears repeating as many times as needed...

I don't, and have never, advocated for denying people of their personal rights, save for some notable exceptions:

• Your rights do not infringe upon MINE.
• Children are kept out of the equation. WHY the insistence on reaching kids at an age where even traditional gender education is still inappropriate? Let parents do their job.
• Women's sports. You can continue scoffing about the minute nature of these incursions... whereas I'll counter that ONE female athlete that is denied a victory, medal, or scholarship, is one athlete TOO MUCH.
• Beauty pageants. Once again... not my bag. But something that was designed strictly for biological women. Leave them as be... and make up your OWN pageants. Is that too much of an ask??
• Other gender-specific examples. Female sports and pageants are but a couple of other endeavors that are meant to be gender-specific.
• Education. Quit punishing members of our esteemed societal sub-group... teachers. The refusal to accomodate someone who identifies as a deer is hardly grounds for dismissal or suspension.
• Vocabulary. THANKFULLY, the "Real Academia Española" (Spain) has so far refused to cave on including these "made-up" pronouns as part of the accepted vernacular. I only wish the English language authorities would have the backbone to do the same.

I fully realize that the LGBTQXYZ Gestapo will eventually win the war. So right now I'm fully enjoying the battles being won by the rest of us. If you want to characterize us by labeling everyone not on your side with words like: "radical right-wing", "demonizing", "picking on the poor, defenseless, unfortunates", etc. I guess that is your prerogative.

Thankfully, I've already raised my own kids... and never had to personally deal with any of this social decay. PLUS... as you accurately stated a couple of posts ago... I do live in a comparatively conservative society, where trends from the States tend to have a lag time. I only wish I could borrow Trump's wall and put it up, complete with state-of-the-art technology to only keep out bullshit societal movements like this one.


P.S. - Sorry to not have included your full quote. But I was "character-limited" by the site. Basically it was your continued, emotional, obviously vested opinions... painting all objectors as "demon, abusive, pitchfork-wielding, bullies", preying on "Bambi-like, defenseless, "please-and-thank-you-muttering", unfortunate, minority" people.

You're passionate about what you defend. Your specialty is business and finance, obviously your field of study. That's fine. I'm highly educated myself. But mostly I'm (life) wise enough to pick my battles. Oh... and unlike some on here (not alluding to you) ... I DO know the difference between scientific research and social media research.

You were originally claiming that "trans kids" was downright nonsense and that they're not able to work out their sexuality at a young age. I showed you a study showing that isn't true. You replied with a completely different argument about surgery and treatment not working.

For what it's worth every major professional medical body in America and elsewhere support current medical treatments for these people:

https://glaad.org/medical-associatio...iscriminatory/

and the place you got your information on has spent forty years on a jihad against anything gay or trans related:

https://glaad.org/gap/heritage-foundation/

The overwhelming evidence of studies and professional medical associations in the western world all say the opposite.



And however you want to justify siding with the bigots on this is up to you. The fact is you're siding with this horrific hate campaign that's terrorising these poor unfortunate people and their families. Most Americans thankfully aren't like this and appear to want to treat these people with love and compassion. You don't have to agree with them, that's your right as an American but you're on the wrong side of history on this one. And we're not heading towards social decay on this. We're heading out of a period of social decay where a bunch of haters and bigots can inflict misery and injury on minorities whether they're black, gay or whatever into an age where human beings of all types can coexist with each other in relative peace and tolerance.

You keep mentioning my "siding with bigots" and other such accusations. Very well. I can see this is leading nowhere, as do most passionate arguments on here.

I'll just leave you with one final question that has gone unanswered.

What part of "not wanting ANY group infringing upon MY rights" do you not understand?

And have you just chosen to ignore my constant distinction between between gays and trans?

What rights do you have here exactly? You have a constitutional right not to have to see trans people take part in athletic events? You have a right to not be confronted with trans people living their lives in various ways that offend you in exactly the same way as the parents of trans kids have a right not to have their kids bullied and hounded into suicide by an angry mob.

[Kirkland Laing]

I've also tried to keep this, however passionate, on a strictly respectable level.

But you've chosen to jump on my wording to say I've claimed that "trans are grabbing kids and taking them to gender clinics", when I clearly clarified that it is the parents of these kids that are doing so.

You said, and I quote, that "There is nothing that you people can't be persuaded to wet the bed over." With that statement alone, you unveiled your unwillingness to even try to see another person's point of view.... personally vested as you seem to be in this topic. I don't think I've addressed you in this manner throughout this whole argument. If someone lumped you into a group you don't belong, you'd rip them a new one. So don't do to others what you don't want done to you.

You joked about me being "terrified of tranny swimmers", always choosing to hyperbolize and draw attention that way. Yet you choose to ignore the questions and points I put forth. To you, it's more convenient to paint me as a homophobic, rifle-toting, MAGA hat-wearing, hate-filled right-wing extremist. You paint the LGBTQXYZ Gestapo as a helpless, unfortunate, quiet, please-and-thank-you, little bunch. You ignore the fact they want to PUSH their agendas, changes, etc, into segments of society where THEY DON'T BELONG.

In short, you're incapable of carrying on a logical argument without your rainbow-waving passion showing through the cracks.

So believe what you will. If you're not going to respect my points of view, don't expect the opposite from me.

Here's what you originally wrote:

Should they have the same rights as everybody else? Absolutely. Should they be allowed to dictate what my kids are taught in elementary school besides the traditional subject matter? Hell no. Should they be allowed to take kids to transgender clinics when little boys say they feel like girls at 5 years old? Or when a girl plays with boys or like boys? Something formerly known as a tomboy? Hell no. Should they be allowed to invade women's sports and beauty pageants? Hell no.

I pointed out that they don't take kids to transgender clinics and you then clarified that you didn't mean what you wrote.

[Kirkland Laing]

How dumb are Republicans?

Trump is tearing the party apart and they will not get back into government until they purge themselves of this narcissist.

Screenshot 2023-08-02 at 20-43-43 Republicans F cked Around. Now We All Have to Find Out.jpg




I'm not sure how representative this is from conservative media but definitely part of it is at this level. This is definitely not good. If you destroy faith in the justice system and the election system you're setting the stage for Trump or some other authoritarian to seize power. If you take Trump and the rest of the top candidates at their word they're going to take control of the justice department and any other department that regulates business and the economy and they're going to take control of the now state level election system. There'd never be a fair election again. The country would be convulsed with endless demonstrations and god knows what kind of law enforcement response. Recall that several governors in response to the BLM demonstrations passed a law allowing people to drive cars into groups of demonstrators. Imagine how bad protests could get against Trump if he wins again and he easily could.


https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...p-term/674872/


Can people read this or is there a paywall blocking it?



It's the 2020s. A couple of years ago there were numerous examples of people so furious at multiethnic groups of protestors campaigning for black civil rights that they drove their cars into groups of demonstrators. Imagine the level of anger and hatred that must take. In the 2020s.

And how did several state governors respond to that? Here's the guy running second in the current GOP presidential nomination race:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021...anti-riot-bill


Everything this guy has done for years now has been grandstanding for the GOP base so this was done for a national audience. He seems to think his target market would approve.



Things are in a bad way over there. If America goes authoritarian it's going to have a significant effect on Britain too. The people who brought you Brexit will be all on board to follow America's lead. South America will backslide and there'll be Europe under pressure, you already have a fascist party running things in Italy and Germany and France have surging extreme right movements. The one good thing is that people see how badly it would be going in America like they saw Britain after Brexit and became more pro EU. Things are going the wrong way though. As a big fan of the United States of America I'm scared for the future.

[palmerq]

The Atlantic one is paywall, vanity fair is not.

[TitoFan]

I've also tried to keep this, however passionate, on a strictly respectable level.

But you've chosen to jump on my wording to say I've claimed that "trans are grabbing kids and taking them to gender clinics", when I clearly clarified that it is the parents of these kids that are doing so.

You said, and I quote, that "There is nothing that you people can't be persuaded to wet the bed over." With that statement alone, you unveiled your unwillingness to even try to see another person's point of view.... personally vested as you seem to be in this topic. I don't think I've addressed you in this manner throughout this whole argument. If someone lumped you into a group you don't belong, you'd rip them a new one. So don't do to others what you don't want done to you.

You joked about me being "terrified of tranny swimmers", always choosing to hyperbolize and draw attention that way. Yet you choose to ignore the questions and points I put forth. To you, it's more convenient to paint me as a homophobic, rifle-toting, MAGA hat-wearing, hate-filled right-wing extremist. You paint the LGBTQXYZ Gestapo as a helpless, unfortunate, quiet, please-and-thank-you, little bunch. You ignore the fact they want to PUSH their agendas, changes, etc, into segments of society where THEY DON'T BELONG.

In short, you're incapable of carrying on a logical argument without your rainbow-waving passion showing through the cracks.

So believe what you will. If you're not going to respect my points of view, don't expect the opposite from me.

Here's what you originally wrote:

Should they have the same rights as everybody else? Absolutely. Should they be allowed to dictate what my kids are taught in elementary school besides the traditional subject matter? Hell no. Should they be allowed to take kids to transgender clinics when little boys say they feel like girls at 5 years old? Or when a girl plays with boys or like boys? Something formerly known as a tomboy? Hell no. Should they be allowed to invade women's sports and beauty pageants? Hell no.

I pointed out that they don't take kids to transgender clinics and you then clarified that you didn't mean what you wrote.

I pointed out that I obviously meant parents taking their kids to transgender clinics, and you understood that's what I meant... even if that's not how it sounded at first.

[TitoFan]

[QUOTE=Kirkland Laing;1636585]

Please note the "lost track of" point. Hmm... throws a monkey-wrench right in the middle of the "research," doesn't it. Seems you can't make reliable assumptions about the quality of life (or lack thereof) of transitioned people if you can't consistently keep track of them, eh?

I could quote more passages... but I'll leave it there.

I realize neither of us will ever convince the other that we're right. It boils down to opinions and personal preferences. But I come from a position of... and it bears repeating as many times as needed...

I don't, and have never, advocated for denying people of their personal rights, save for some notable exceptions:

• Your rights do not infringe upon MINE.
• Children are kept out of the equation. WHY the insistence on reaching kids at an age where even traditional gender education is still inappropriate? Let parents do their job.
• Women's sports. You can continue scoffing about the minute nature of these incursions... whereas I'll counter that ONE female athlete that is denied a victory, medal, or scholarship, is one athlete TOO MUCH.
• Beauty pageants. Once again... not my bag. But something that was designed strictly for biological women. Leave them as be... and make up your OWN pageants. Is that too much of an ask??
• Other gender-specific examples. Female sports and pageants are but a couple of other endeavors that are meant to be gender-specific.
• Education. Quit punishing members of our esteemed societal sub-group... teachers. The refusal to accomodate someone who identifies as a deer is hardly grounds for dismissal or suspension.
• Vocabulary. THANKFULLY, the "Real Academia Española" (Spain) has so far refused to cave on including these "made-up" pronouns as part of the accepted vernacular. I only wish the English language authorities would have the backbone to do the same.

I fully realize that the LGBTQXYZ Gestapo will eventually win the war. So right now I'm fully enjoying the battles being won by the rest of us. If you want to characterize us by labeling everyone not on your side with words like: "radical right-wing", "demonizing", "picking on the poor, defenseless, unfortunates", etc. I guess that is your prerogative.

Thankfully, I've already raised my own kids... and never had to personally deal with any of this social decay. PLUS... as you accurately stated a couple of posts ago... I do live in a comparatively conservative society, where trends from the States tend to have a lag time. I only wish I could borrow Trump's wall and put it up, complete with state-of-the-art technology to only keep out bullshit societal movements like this one.


P.S. - Sorry to not have included your full quote. But I was "character-limited" by the site. Basically it was your continued, emotional, obviously vested opinions... painting all objectors as "demon, abusive, pitchfork-wielding, bullies", preying on "Bambi-like, defenseless, "please-and-thank-you-muttering", unfortunate, minority" people.

You're passionate about what you defend. Your specialty is business and finance, obviously your field of study. That's fine. I'm highly educated myself. But mostly I'm (life) wise enough to pick my battles. Oh... and unlike some on here (not alluding to you) ... I DO know the difference between scientific research and social media research.

You were originally claiming that "trans kids" was downright nonsense and that they're not able to work out their sexuality at a young age. I showed you a study showing that isn't true. You replied with a completely different argument about surgery and treatment not working.

For what it's worth every major professional medical body in America and elsewhere support current medical treatments for these people:

https://glaad.org/medical-associatio...iscriminatory/

and the place you got your information on has spent forty years on a jihad against anything gay or trans related:

https://glaad.org/gap/heritage-foundation/

The overwhelming evidence of studies and professional medical associations in the western world all say the opposite.



And however you want to justify siding with the bigots on this is up to you. The fact is you're siding with this horrific hate campaign that's terrorising these poor unfortunate people and their families. Most Americans thankfully aren't like this and appear to want to treat these people with love and compassion. You don't have to agree with them, that's your right as an American but you're on the wrong side of history on this one. And we're not heading towards social decay on this. We're heading out of a period of social decay where a bunch of haters and bigots can inflict misery and injury on minorities whether they're black, gay or whatever into an age where human beings of all types can coexist with each other in relative peace and tolerance.

You keep mentioning my "siding with bigots" and other such accusations. Very well. I can see this is leading nowhere, as do most passionate arguments on here.

I'll just leave you with one final question that has gone unanswered.

What part of "not wanting ANY group infringing upon MY rights" do you not understand?

And have you just chosen to ignore my constant distinction between between gays and trans?

What rights do you have here exactly? You have a constitutional right not to have to see trans people take part in athletic events? You have a right to not be confronted with trans people living their lives in various ways that offend you in exactly the same way as the parents of trans kids have a right not to have their kids bullied and hounded into suicide by an angry mob.

If I'm a female athlete, I have the right to NOT have to compete against a trans who identifies as a female. Numbers don't matter here. One disgruntled, displaced, affected female athlete is one athlete too much.
What prevents transgenders from forming their own competition categories?

If I'm a teacher of professor, I have the right to NOT have to call a student by a made-up pronoun. It is disruptive, it's wrong, it's incorrect, and it's accommodating personal nonsense which hopefully will go away soon.

If I'm the parent of a 5 or 6-year-old child, I have the right to NOT have my child subjected to "education" about transgenders. It is not age appropriate... and it is removing my RIGHT to educate my child about gender issues at home, at my pace, and with my criteria.

Should I continue?



P.S. - "Bullied and hounded into suicide by an angry mob" is you once again allowing your vested passion in the subject color your arguments. I've already told you that for every argument about transgenders committing suicide because they're denied... there's another argument about transitioned people committing suicide after realizing how they've fucked up their lives without having gotten the right counseling and tender/loving care that may have avoided such a life-changing decision.

[NoSavingByTheBell]

See below, I meant to say that the "P.S." point coincides precisely with a conversation I had two days back here with a hotel worker

[NoSavingByTheBell]

[QUOTE=TitoFan;1636613]

Please note the "lost track of" point. Hmm... throws a monkey-wrench right in the middle of the "research," doesn't it. Seems you can't make reliable assumptions about the quality of life (or lack thereof) of transitioned people if you can't consistently keep track of them, eh?

I could quote more passages... but I'll leave it there.

I realize neither of us will ever convince the other that we're right. It boils down to opinions and personal preferences. But I come from a position of... and it bears repeating as many times as needed...

I don't, and have never, advocated for denying people of their personal rights, save for some notable exceptions:

• Your rights do not infringe upon MINE.
• Children are kept out of the equation. WHY the insistence on reaching kids at an age where even traditional gender education is still inappropriate? Let parents do their job.
• Women's sports. You can continue scoffing about the minute nature of these incursions... whereas I'll counter that ONE female athlete that is denied a victory, medal, or scholarship, is one athlete TOO MUCH.
• Beauty pageants. Once again... not my bag. But something that was designed strictly for biological women. Leave them as be... and make up your OWN pageants. Is that too much of an ask??
• Other gender-specific examples. Female sports and pageants are but a couple of other endeavors that are meant to be gender-specific.
• Education. Quit punishing members of our esteemed societal sub-group... teachers. The refusal to accomodate someone who identifies as a deer is hardly grounds for dismissal or suspension.
• Vocabulary. THANKFULLY, the "Real Academia Española" (Spain) has so far refused to cave on including these "made-up" pronouns as part of the accepted vernacular. I only wish the English language authorities would have the backbone to do the same.

I fully realize that the LGBTQXYZ Gestapo will eventually win the war. So right now I'm fully enjoying the battles being won by the rest of us. If you want to characterize us by labeling everyone not on your side with words like: "radical right-wing", "demonizing", "picking on the poor, defenseless, unfortunates", etc. I guess that is your prerogative.

Thankfully, I've already raised my own kids... and never had to personally deal with any of this social decay. PLUS... as you accurately stated a couple of posts ago... I do live in a comparatively conservative society, where trends from the States tend to have a lag time. I only wish I could borrow Trump's wall and put it up, complete with state-of-the-art technology to only keep out bullshit societal movements like this one.


P.S. - Sorry to not have included your full quote. But I was "character-limited" by the site. Basically it was your continued, emotional, obviously vested opinions... painting all objectors as "demon, abusive, pitchfork-wielding, bullies", preying on "Bambi-like, defenseless, "please-and-thank-you-muttering", unfortunate, minority" people.

You're passionate about what you defend. Your specialty is business and finance, obviously your field of study. That's fine. I'm highly educated myself. But mostly I'm (life) wise enough to pick my battles. Oh... and unlike some on here (not alluding to you) ... I DO know the difference between scientific research and social media research.

You were originally claiming that "trans kids" was downright nonsense and that they're not able to work out their sexuality at a young age. I showed you a study showing that isn't true. You replied with a completely different argument about surgery and treatment not working.

For what it's worth every major professional medical body in America and elsewhere support current medical treatments for these people:

https://glaad.org/medical-associatio...iscriminatory/

and the place you got your information on has spent forty years on a jihad against anything gay or trans related:

https://glaad.org/gap/heritage-foundation/

The overwhelming evidence of studies and professional medical associations in the western world all say the opposite.



And however you want to justify siding with the bigots on this is up to you. The fact is you're siding with this horrific hate campaign that's terrorising these poor unfortunate people and their families. Most Americans thankfully aren't like this and appear to want to treat these people with love and compassion. You don't have to agree with them, that's your right as an American but you're on the wrong side of history on this one. And we're not heading towards social decay on this. We're heading out of a period of social decay where a bunch of haters and bigots can inflict misery and injury on minorities whether they're black, gay or whatever into an age where human beings of all types can coexist with each other in relative peace and tolerance.

You keep mentioning my "siding with bigots" and other such accusations. Very well. I can see this is leading nowhere, as do most passionate arguments on here.

I'll just leave you with one final question that has gone unanswered.

What part of "not wanting ANY group infringing upon MY rights" do you not understand?

And have you just chosen to ignore my constant distinction between between gays and trans?

What rights do you have here exactly? You have a constitutional right not to have to see trans people take part in athletic events? You have a right to not be confronted with trans people living their lives in various ways that offend you in exactly the same way as the parents of trans kids have a right not to have their kids bullied and hounded into suicide by an angry mob.

If I'm a female athlete, I have the right to NOT have to compete against a trans who identifies as a female. Numbers don't matter here. One disgruntled, displaced, affected female athlete is one athlete too much.
What prevents transgenders from forming their own competition categories?

If I'm a teacher of professor, I have the right to NOT have to call a student by a made-up pronoun. It is disruptive, it's wrong, it's incorrect, and it's accommodating personal nonsense which hopefully will go away soon.

If I'm the parent of a 5 or 6-year-old child, I have the right to NOT have my child subjected to "education" about transgenders. It is not age appropriate... and it is removing my RIGHT to educate my child about gender issues at home, at my pace, and with my criteria.

Should I continue?



P.S. - "Bullied and hounded into suicide by an angry mob" is you once again allowing your vested passion in the subject color your arguments. I've already told you that for every argument about transgenders committing suicide because they're denied... there's another argument about transitioned people committing suicide after realizing how they've fucked up their lives without having gotten the right counseling and tender/loving care that may have avoided such a life-changing decision.

On at last point and I guess I sometimes believe in coincidences but just yesterday here in Budapest I was having a conversation with one of the front desk workers that our hotel and he would just saying that his brother attempted suicide a few days back for this very reason that he had undergone some kind of surgery and then realized afterwards that it was a horrible and tragic and irreversible mistake.

[TitoFan]

[QUOTE=NoSavingByTheBell;1636646]

Please note the "lost track of" point. Hmm... throws a monkey-wrench right in the middle of the "research," doesn't it. Seems you can't make reliable assumptions about the quality of life (or lack thereof) of transitioned people if you can't consistently keep track of them, eh?

I could quote more passages... but I'll leave it there.

I realize neither of us will ever convince the other that we're right. It boils down to opinions and personal preferences. But I come from a position of... and it bears repeating as many times as needed...

I don't, and have never, advocated for denying people of their personal rights, save for some notable exceptions:

• Your rights do not infringe upon MINE.
• Children are kept out of the equation. WHY the insistence on reaching kids at an age where even traditional gender education is still inappropriate? Let parents do their job.
• Women's sports. You can continue scoffing about the minute nature of these incursions... whereas I'll counter that ONE female athlete that is denied a victory, medal, or scholarship, is one athlete TOO MUCH.
• Beauty pageants. Once again... not my bag. But something that was designed strictly for biological women. Leave them as be... and make up your OWN pageants. Is that too much of an ask??
• Other gender-specific examples. Female sports and pageants are but a couple of other endeavors that are meant to be gender-specific.
• Education. Quit punishing members of our esteemed societal sub-group... teachers. The refusal to accomodate someone who identifies as a deer is hardly grounds for dismissal or suspension.
• Vocabulary. THANKFULLY, the "Real Academia Española" (Spain) has so far refused to cave on including these "made-up" pronouns as part of the accepted vernacular. I only wish the English language authorities would have the backbone to do the same.

I fully realize that the LGBTQXYZ Gestapo will eventually win the war. So right now I'm fully enjoying the battles being won by the rest of us. If you want to characterize us by labeling everyone not on your side with words like: "radical right-wing", "demonizing", "picking on the poor, defenseless, unfortunates", etc. I guess that is your prerogative.

Thankfully, I've already raised my own kids... and never had to personally deal with any of this social decay. PLUS... as you accurately stated a couple of posts ago... I do live in a comparatively conservative society, where trends from the States tend to have a lag time. I only wish I could borrow Trump's wall and put it up, complete with state-of-the-art technology to only keep out bullshit societal movements like this one.


P.S. - Sorry to not have included your full quote. But I was "character-limited" by the site. Basically it was your continued, emotional, obviously vested opinions... painting all objectors as "demon, abusive, pitchfork-wielding, bullies", preying on "Bambi-like, defenseless, "please-and-thank-you-muttering", unfortunate, minority" people.

You're passionate about what you defend. Your specialty is business and finance, obviously your field of study. That's fine. I'm highly educated myself. But mostly I'm (life) wise enough to pick my battles. Oh... and unlike some on here (not alluding to you) ... I DO know the difference between scientific research and social media research.

You were originally claiming that "trans kids" was downright nonsense and that they're not able to work out their sexuality at a young age. I showed you a study showing that isn't true. You replied with a completely different argument about surgery and treatment not working.

For what it's worth every major professional medical body in America and elsewhere support current medical treatments for these people:

https://glaad.org/medical-associatio...iscriminatory/

and the place you got your information on has spent forty years on a jihad against anything gay or trans related:

https://glaad.org/gap/heritage-foundation/

The overwhelming evidence of studies and professional medical associations in the western world all say the opposite.



And however you want to justify siding with the bigots on this is up to you. The fact is you're siding with this horrific hate campaign that's terrorising these poor unfortunate people and their families. Most Americans thankfully aren't like this and appear to want to treat these people with love and compassion. You don't have to agree with them, that's your right as an American but you're on the wrong side of history on this one. And we're not heading towards social decay on this. We're heading out of a period of social decay where a bunch of haters and bigots can inflict misery and injury on minorities whether they're black, gay or whatever into an age where human beings of all types can coexist with each other in relative peace and tolerance.

You keep mentioning my "siding with bigots" and other such accusations. Very well. I can see this is leading nowhere, as do most passionate arguments on here.

I'll just leave you with one final question that has gone unanswered.

What part of "not wanting ANY group infringing upon MY rights" do you not understand?

And have you just chosen to ignore my constant distinction between between gays and trans?

What rights do you have here exactly? You have a constitutional right not to have to see trans people take part in athletic events? You have a right to not be confronted with trans people living their lives in various ways that offend you in exactly the same way as the parents of trans kids have a right not to have their kids bullied and hounded into suicide by an angry mob.

If I'm a female athlete, I have the right to NOT have to compete against a trans who identifies as a female. Numbers don't matter here. One disgruntled, displaced, affected female athlete is one athlete too much.
What prevents transgenders from forming their own competition categories?

If I'm a teacher of professor, I have the right to NOT have to call a student by a made-up pronoun. It is disruptive, it's wrong, it's incorrect, and it's accommodating personal nonsense which hopefully will go away soon.

If I'm the parent of a 5 or 6-year-old child, I have the right to NOT have my child subjected to "education" about transgenders. It is not age appropriate... and it is removing my RIGHT to educate my child about gender issues at home, at my pace, and with my criteria.

Should I continue?



P.S. - "Bullied and hounded into suicide by an angry mob" is you once again allowing your vested passion in the subject color your arguments. I've already told you that for every argument about transgenders committing suicide because they're denied... there's another argument about transitioned people committing suicide after realizing how they've fucked up their lives without having gotten the right counseling and tender/loving care that may have avoided such a life-changing decision.

On at last point and I guess I sometimes believe in coincidences but just yesterday here in Budapest I was having a conversation with one of the front desk workers that our hotel and he would just saying that his brother attempted suicide a few days back for this very reason that he had undergone some kind of surgery and then realized afterwards that it was a horrible and tragic and irreversible mistake.

It happens more often than anyone knows. But of course, like in other walks of life, these statistics are hidden, downplayed, or otherwise concealed and ignored because they don't fit the general narrative.

[Kirkland Laing]

The Atlantic one is paywall, vanity fair is not.

The First Great Crisis of a Second Trump Term

If reelected, the former president would move to make his legal troubles disappear. Constitutional chaos and political mayhem would ensue.





Both his supporters and and his opponents assume that former President Donald Trump’s legal jeopardy will go away if he can win the 2024 presidential election. That’s a big mistake. A Trump election in 2024 would settle nothing. It would generate a nation-shaking crisis of presidential legitimacy. Trump in 2024 means chaos—and almost certainly another impeachment.
Trump’s proliferating criminal exposures have arisen in two different federal jurisdictions—Florida and the District of Columbia—and in two different state jurisdictions, New York and Georgia. More may follow.
As president, Trump would have no power of his own to quash directly any of these proceedings. He would have to act through others. For example, the most nearly unilateral thing that Trump could try would be a presidential self-pardon. Is that legal? Trump has asserted that it is. Only the Supreme Court can deliver a final verdict, which presents a significant risk to Trump, because the Court might say no. Self-pardon defies the history and logic of the presidential-pardon power. Would a Supreme Court struggling with legitimacy issues of its own take such a serious risk with its reputation to protect Trump from justice?
Tom Nichols: Trump seems to be afraid, very afraid
Trump has one way he might avert the hazard of the Supreme Court ruling against him. He could order his attorney general to order the special counsel not to bring a case against his self-pardon, and then order the Department of Justice to argue in court that nobody but the special counsel has standing to bring a case.
Then things get complicated. Would the attorney general do it? Would the special counsel submit? Would the professionals in the Department of Justice stay in their jobs? And what would happen in Congress and in the country?
The situation becomes even more complicated if you assume that Trump couldn’t win a majority of the popular vote (given that he has twice failed to win one). If he returns to office, he’d most likely do so thanks to a fluke in the Electoral College.
So a criminally indicted president would have to argue that he’s entitled to self-pardon, and also that he’s entitled to forbid the prosecutors to challenge that in court, and also that he can order his Department of Justice to fight in court against anybody else who seeks to sue in the prosecutors’ stead. He’d have to do all of this based on a claim that he represents the will of the people, even though he likely did not win a majority of the popular vote.
David A. Graham: This indictment is different
And after all that, he’d still face indictments in state courts, where he has no pardon power. So, for his next move, he would have to order the Department of Justice to argue that state courts have no criminal jurisdiction over a serving president. He could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue in New York City, or on the street in any state, and nobody could do anything about it until his term was up, if then.
As the absurdity of this situation would play out, it’s probable that within a couple of days of an attempt at self-pardoning, Trump wouldn’t have a Department of Justice. There would be mass resignations, and probably no way to confirm replacement senior officials in the U.S. Senate. (The first Trump administration repeatedly relied on acting appointees rather than on Senate-confirmed officials, but a second administration intentionally bypassing the Senate in order to shut down the courts would invite a constitutional crisis all of its own.)
Trump’s other routes to the same destination run into the same problems. Trump could try a more indirect maneuver to shut down the federal indictments: Order Special Counsel Jack Smith to stand down, and fire him if he refuses. That approach bypasses the courts, but it depends even more heavily on finding a compliant attorney general to cancel the indictment, and on the acquiescence of Congress in what would look like an outright nullification of federal law enforcement. The federal Department of Justice would dissolve. The state cases would continue regardless. Trump scandals would be the only order of business in Congress.
Trump himself may not care: He was neither chastened nor deterred even by impeachment. But Trump leads a minority faction in the country, and the kind of permanent crisis a second presidential term would generate would invite a 2026 Democratic congressional landslide big enough to jolt even a Trump-led GOP.
Trump may imagine that he’s got a one-and-done fight on his hands: Strike hard, strike fast, then settle back to enjoy the corrupt perquisites of lawless power. If so, he and his followers are deluding themselves. The entire term would be consumed by the battle over Trump’s project to use the power of the presidency to protect himself from the consequences of his alleged crimes.
Benjamin Wittes: Trump’s self-pardon fantasy will meet a harsh reality
Trump’s past practice when in trouble was to deflect attention from one scandal by lurching into another scandal. Maybe this time he’d try to cut off aid to Ukraine or blow up NATO or start a culture war against drag queens. But none of those stunts would distract Americans; they would only embitter them.
A Trump bid for self-pardon would not be the equivalent of President Gerald Ford pardoning former President Richard Nixon, a decision unpopular at the time but ultimately accepted by many of its fiercest critics as well as a majority of the public. A self-pardon attempt would convulse the country. It would never gain acceptance as a legitimate act undertaken for public-spirited, bipartisan ends. The furor would not subside; the constitutional injury would not heal.
A second Trump presidency would offer only division, chaos, and paralysis that would never be quieted. Nor would it cease—until that presidency itself ceased, and perhaps not even then.

[Kirkland Laing]

To get past pretty much every paywall other than Wall Street Journal, Financial Times and Washington Post use this:

https://noscript.net/

Best to use it with a browser that you keep exclusively for it otherwise you have to click a button to enable javascript on every site you go to. It works fine with firefox to get past paywalls, don't know about Chrome. I use Firefox and enable javascript on every page but it can be a bugger when you're buying something. So maybe use a separate browser.

[Kirkland Laing]

If I'm a female athlete, I have the right to NOT have to compete against a trans who identifies as a female. Numbers don't matter here. One disgruntled, displaced, affected female athlete is one athlete too much.
What prevents transgenders from forming their own competition categories?

If I'm a teacher of professor, I have the right to NOT have to call a student by a made-up pronoun. It is disruptive, it's wrong, it's incorrect, and it's accommodating personal nonsense which hopefully will go away soon.

If I'm the parent of a 5 or 6-year-old child, I have the right to NOT have my child subjected to "education" about transgenders. It is not age appropriate... and it is removing my RIGHT to educate my child about gender issues at home, at my pace, and with my criteria.

Should I continue?



P.S. - "Bullied and hounded into suicide by an angry mob" is you once again allowing your vested passion in the subject color your arguments. I've already told you that for every argument about transgenders committing suicide because they're denied... there's another argument about transitioned people committing suicide after realizing how they've fucked up their lives without having gotten the right counseling and tender/loving care that may have avoided such a life-changing decision.

If you're a female athlete you do not have the right not to compete against a trans athlete. Every week there is some event where trans athletes compete against female athletes. If such a right existed there'd be endless lawsuits from religious and other anti trans groups seeking injunctions and ruling the participation of trans athletes unconstitutional. What you do have is a bunch of recent laws passed in certain states that ban trans athletes from taking part in sports events. In this case it's the rights of trans athletes that have been taken away.

If you're a teacher or professor you do not have the right not to call students by their preferred pronouns. You can read about it here:

An Indiana school district did not violate a former music teacher's rights by pushing him to resign after the man refused to use transgender students' names and gender pronouns, a federal appeals court said in an order released Friday.
The decision from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a prior ruling in the case by a federal judge.



https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/loca...nouns/3115061/



There have been various cases going the other way in state courts but this is the first federal ruling and it's one step below Supreme Court level. I don't think even this Supreme Court will waste its capital and credibility on this issue so this would appear to be the law of the land as far as federal laws apply in various states. There is certainly no right derived from the constitution for teachers to refuse to use whatever pronouns students prefer and that's from the second highest court in the land.


And you don't have a constitutional right to not have your kids taught whatever. Right now in the majority of the country kids are given some level of sex and gender at elementary school even though it boils the piss of millions of parents. Just they live in areas where the school boards support this being done. They have no right to prevent it as the law in pretty much every state is that local school boards decide the curriculum.


This short video will help you understand the difference between laws and rights and how they're applied an interpreted in your country:






As far as bullied kids go there are dozens of suicides every year by kids far too young to get any kind of gender treatments. As far as transgender people overall what you've done is mention that you've read a couple of stories about trans people who had treatment killing themselves. But the plural of anecdote is not data. The data is quite clear:

The truth is that data from more than a dozen studies of more than 30,000 transgender and gender-diverse young people consistently show that access to gender-affirming care is associated with better mental health outcomes—and that lack of access to such care is associated with higher rates of suicidality, depression and self-harming behavior. (Gender diversity refers to the extent to which a person’s gendered behaviors, appearance and identities are culturally incongruent with the sex they were assigned at birth. Gender-diverse people can identify along the transgender spectrum, but not all do.) Major medical organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the Endocrine Society, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association, have published policy statements and guidelines on how to provide age-appropriate gender-affirming care. All of those medical societies find such care to be evidence-based and medically necessary.



https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...really-shows/#



It's just possible that the people undergoing these treatments, and genital surgery is only performed on adults, have looked at all of the evidence and determined that the best/least worst/percentage move for them is surgery. That these people are fragile mentally in significant numbers even with surgery and still commit suicide in some cases isn't a reason to deny them opportunity to have a better life and certainly no reason to add to the ongoing hate campaign against them.

[TitoFan]

If you're a female athlete you do not have the right not to compete against a trans athlete. Every week there is some event where trans athletes compete against female athletes. If such a right existed there'd be endless lawsuits from religious and other anti trans groups seeking injunctions and ruling the participation of trans athletes unconstitutional. What you do have is a bunch of recent laws passed in certain states that ban trans athletes from taking part in sports events. In this case it's the rights of trans athletes that have been taken away.

Wow. Ok. I guess we'll just have to agree to (vehemently) disagree.

If you're a teacher or professor you do not have the right not to call students by their preferred pronouns. You can read about it here:

An Indiana school district did not violate a former music teacher's rights by pushing him to resign after the man refused to use transgender students' names and gender pronouns, a federal appeals court said in an order released Friday.
The decision from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a prior ruling in the case by a federal judge.



https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/loca...nouns/3115061/



There have been various cases going the other way in state courts but this is the first federal ruling and it's one step below Supreme Court level. I don't think even this Supreme Court will waste its capital and credibility on this issue so this would appear to be the law of the land as far as federal laws apply in various states. There is certainly no right derived from the constitution for teachers to refuse to use whatever pronouns students prefer and that's from the second highest court in the land.

Whatever. You can quote all the laws you want. It doesn't make it right. All it does is prove what a fucked-up world we live in, where reality is being destroyed by the made-up fantasies of a deluded (but powerful) few.

And you don't have a constitutional right to not have your kids taught whatever. Right now in the majority of the country kids are given some level of sex and gender at elementary school even though it boils the piss of millions of parents. Just they live in areas where the school boards support this being done. They have no right to prevent it as the law in pretty much every state is that local school boards decide the curriculum.


This short video will help you understand the difference between laws and rights and how they're applied an interpreted in your country:

Forget it. I don't need to watch a video to help me understand what's wrong and what's right. Laws are routinely drawn up to satisfy the people with the most pull in a society. Morals and values be damned.
You obviously have no kids... or you'd be a little more sympathetic to the need of parents to be able to raise their little tykes according to their own principles and morals.
If this is wrong and obscene to you... there's little more to talk about.

As far as bullied kids go there are dozens of suicides every year by kids far too young to get any kind of gender treatments. As far as transgender people overall what you've done is mention that you've read a couple of stories about trans people who had treatment killing themselves. But the plural of anecdote is not data. The data is quite clear:

Stop for a second, Kirk. I'm not gonna go toe-to-toe with you on statistics you're going to skew anyway. There's hard evidence on the existence of transitioned suicides that don't come out in the news, because it doesn't fit the LGBTQXYZ Gestapo narrative. ALSO.... have you given a 2nd thought as to WHY these "bullied kids" that are far too young for gender treatment commit suicide?? No... I guess not. Could it possibly be because they weren't given the necessary counseling, love, and direction at home?? No... I guess not. Again... it doesn't fit the narrative.



Just to be clear, you haven't proven a DAMN thing throughout all these arguments. All you have are (passionate, vested, obviously personal-based) opinions. They're no better nor any accurate than mine.