11 yr/old drag kid worshiped within LGBTQ community (Mod warning op)

DanDan6592

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Came up on my youtube, maybe of interest to some. Pity about the Video title.

The guy with the headphones is having issues sustaining his argument, that’s for sure.

Annasopra

Zorya wrote: »

Top US childhood gender expert Johana Olson Kennedy got funding last year to administer cross sex hormones to children from the age of 8.

That is not merely puberty blockers, that is catastrophic manipulation of a young body.

There have been multiple resignations from the Tavistock clinic in the UK due to senior medical personnel objecting to what is going on there.

Anyone who sneers at people expressing alarm at present day approaches to children with dysphoria issues, which in 70 to 90% of cases present with serious CO morbidities like autism and anxiety, is gaslighting, pure and simple.

I asked a question about surgery. Lies are being spread here that 6 or 7 year olds are having surgery.

I dont know why
A) You answered a question when I didnt ask you
You gave a political reply of answering the question but didnt answer the question at all.

Annasopra

donaghs wrote: »

No, they weren't. Same simple answer, let them be kids and make the irreversible life altering decisions when they are older.

Why the ideological dogma that if a child says they are a different sex/gender that what they are assigned at birth, then this MUST be the new reality?

Seeing as your a forum mod, consider how many gay adults today may have have gender/identity issue growing up?



It is a relatively new linguistic construct but I find it useful to have "sex" and "gender" as having different meanings to help discussion of these issues.

Some languages only have on word to describe sex/gender, so have to use context to make distinctions.

You appear to be making up something I didnt say.

Sir Oxman

AllForIt wrote: »

None whatsoever. It seems to me trans rights activism teamed up with gay rights activism somewhere along the line. I think that was a big mistake for gay rights movement because of all these contentious trans issues are seen as the consequence of gay acceptance including marriage and leaves the door open for ppl to say it's all a slippery slope leading to a 'anything goes' kinda attitude and I think this has set the gay rights movement back a bit.

As a gay man I knew no more about transgenderism than any heterosexual ordinarily would and that is because there is absolutely no connection between the two per se. It is only because of all the recent controversy's that I have gotten up to speed on the issues. I socialized on the gay scene for years in a number of cities and I don't ever recall meeting a single transgender person. It's just a myth that the 2 communities mix and socialize together. Some transgender ppl go to gay bars, that's it.

One thing that really annoys me is the assumption that gay folk are fully behind the more contentious transgender causes. They most certainly are not. It's only the T activists that would promote that idea and in fact from what I see in the LGBT forum those that don't will be treated like a traitor. When you see Martian Navratilova being kicked out of an equality advocacy group it's plain to see something has gone badly wrong.

Totally agree.


Check out Stonewall UK - now do not use the term sexual orientation merely sexual preference <--see the difference?

It's unbelieveable in the UK and especially Canada.

Lesbians being sidelined from meetings and marches etc and basically being told to accept "girldick" :eek: or be labelled with the dreaded "transphobe" hat.
Any science based debate being shutdown, "deplatformed", professionals employers being contacted to sack.

You take sex based rights out of the equation, there's only one sex losing out and it's not men.

Follow the money.
As always.

Sir Oxman

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Came up on my youtube, maybe of interest to some. Pity about the Video title.

I watched/listened to that.
A total takedown of a woke ars"hole.
I lost count the amount of times the motormouth guest said he didn't really know what he was talking about but knew he was right.


this is what is happening now in serious circles.

Wibbs

Sir Oxman wrote: »

I lost count the amount of times the motormouth guest said he didn't really know what he was talking about but knew he was right.

Aye. A near universal feature among the ideologue and even more prevalent with the newly converted to whatever church they feel they belong with.

Zorya

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Came up on my youtube, maybe of interest to some. Pity about the Video title.

I just love Joe Rogan. Humane, sensible, cool, out there and thanks be to goodness..funny! As I keep telling my kids when they think I am old, I was born in the same week as Joe Rogan, he is my soul brother.. so back off ya dweebs

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Wibbs wrote: »

The parts that state that gender is cultural and societal rather than biological, nurture rather than nature. In the wider scientific realm the two are seen as complimentary, whereas in some areas, sociology and some areas of psychology the nurture side have kept the faith. A faith largely born out of some Left wing philosophies of the 1960's and 70's(though behaviourist ideology has deeper roots). It's very evident in areas like sexuality and gender and the political philosophies of American university campuses and the like. Just as the "alt Right" types tend strongly towards biological determinism, evolutionary psychology and nature, the "Social Justice" types tend strongly towards blank slatism, culture and nurture. This is reflected in the statements you've made and the statements of those you linked. Contrary to the science that is out there on the matter of both sexuality and gender, which is showing more and more that while cultural influences may shape the expression of some gender norms, gender and sexuality are much more innate and "nature" than nurture.

But that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that they transgenderism exists in the scientific world, regardless of whether it's nature or nurture. The original post that I challenged questioned the reality, not the origin.

It was argued that there was no such thing as transgender, full stop. Once born male, a person was male until the end of their days.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

DanDan6592 wrote: »

In your post (#2009). You literally highlighted the word culture yourself!

Gender identity is based on culture. The existence of transgenderism is not. Your initial point was that it was a mental disorder rather than an identity.

When I said based in scientific reality I meant in the sense that there is a scientific consensus a la climate change, and there isn't with regards to culture and society having an influence on gender. Thus I believe the modern definition to not be based on one of science, but one of feminist critical studies (which is where from the modern definition became seemingly more common-place).
It's like with racism, where a small element are trying to redefine racism as being based more on power structures as opposed to simply discriminating against someone based on their race, which is what it has meant thus far.

The study you linked to is dealing with helping (supposed) transgender children cope with how they feel and thus proves nothing.

In fairness, that's shifting the goalposts a little! You said scientific reality as opposed to the individual transgender person's reality. Again, you likened it to a medical proven mental illness.

The scientific reality is that it is real thing - THIS is my point - regardless of whether it's nature or nurture.

sbsquarepants

klaaaz wrote: »

That's hypocritical. You and others object to a boy playing with or wearing girl things like clothes as it's against "gender norms" but yet you support a girl wearing and playing with boy things. Remove the genderisation from clothes and toys , then we'll have a better society where anyone who dresses differently to the "gender norms" is not penalised and ridiculed by the conservatives.

You're talking out your arse I'm afraid klaaaz, and not for the first time either

I don't object to anything of the sort. I have 2 sons (an adult and a baby - at times it's hard to tell which is which but that's a different story)

I have no objection whatsoever to either of them wearing whatever they want, or playing with whatever they want, or with whoever they want.

That's just not who or what I am, I'm in no way a conservative!.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Gender identity is based on culture. The existence of transgenderism is not. Your initial point was that it was a mental disorder rather than an identity.

This doesn't doesn't make sense. Transgenderism is a gender identity (right?). If this is the case, and gender identity is based on culture, then Transgenderism is based on culture as it's a gender identity.

Regardless, that wasn't my original point however maybe I didn't make it so clear as to what my original point was so I'll hold my hands up to that.

I don't believe it is a mental disorder as I believe transgender-ism is innate

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

In fairness, that's shifting the goalposts a little! You said scientific reality as opposed to the individual transgender person's reality. Again, you likened it to a medical proven mental illness.

The scientific reality is that it is real thing - THIS is my point - regardless of whether it's nature or nurture.

Ok I see we where we got mixed up with eachother. Transgenderism to me is a real thing. However, I don't believe it possible to change your gender as it's innate. Also, the idea that gender is somehow influenced by culture to me doesn't make sense and is an unproven issue. The ways in which the genders behave maybe to some extent, but not the persons gender itself. The reason I say this is because of cases such as David Reimer and even Caitlin Jenner (raised a blokey bloke for all intents and purposes).

I do accept that in these types of debates it helps to have a distinction in terms. Imo thus, sex should be how you are born chromosomely (if thats a word!) and gender should be your own sense of what sex you are that is innate (i.e. not influenced by culture). But this is not the modern meaning of the word gender, though I believe it is what the old meaning was. Because of this for the vast majority of people the two terms had the same meaning as most peoples sex and gender are the same.

So to clarify, a person is born and they are born transgender. They are of the male sex (which is for life as you cannot change your genes and chromosomes) and thus have a male body (not for life) but possess a female gender (also for life, as your gender is innate).

The Rape of Lucretia

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Transgenderism is a gender identity (right?). If this is the case, and gender identity is based on culture, then Transgenderism is based on culture as it's a gender identity.

Not necessarily. Transgenderism may not be a gender identity. It does more seem like a disorder to me. Gender identities might just be male and female, and by whether one is male of female. Misalignment of the two being just that, a misalignment in error.

We might indulge a child crawling around on the floor barking and pretending to be a dog, and not insist they stop it because they are not dogs. But we dont conclude from the behaviour that they really want to be dogs.

p1akuw47h5r3it

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Not necessarily. Transgenderism may not be a gender identity. It does more seem like a disorder to me. Gender identities might just be male and female, and by whether one is male of female. Misalignment of the two being just that, a misalignment in error.

We might indulge a child crawling around on the floor barking and pretending to be a dog, and not insist they stop it because they are not dogs. But we dont conclude from the behaviour that they really want to be dogs.

I don't believe it is a gender identity necessarily either as there are only 3 genders imo (male, female and intersex). But my understanding is Princess C does believe it a gender identity.

Zorya

Noooooooooooooooo!!! No no no Make it stop.

No more ships as 'she'... The Scottish Maritime Museum are replacing their signs with gender neutral pronouns due to protestors' vandalism.

I love ships being feminine. My car is certainly a lady! Whither in the future mother-land, mother-ship, Mother Earth?

klaaaz

sbsquarepants wrote: »

You're talking out your arse I'm afraid klaaaz, and not for the first time either

I don't object to anything of the sort. I have 2 sons (an adult and a baby - at times it's hard to tell which is which but that's a different story)

I have no objection whatsoever to either of them wearing whatever they want, or playing with whatever they want, or with whoever they want.

That's just not who or what I am, I'm in no way a conservative!.

Your original statement

sbsquarepants wrote:

I have no problem with a man in a dress.

I have an issue with the man in a dress being around my kids.

So you're ok for your son to wear a dress if they so wish(progress!) but you have a problem with a man in a dress around your kids, why?? That doesn't make sense.

klaaaz

klaaaz wrote:

So you're ok for your son to wear a dress if they so wish(progress!) but you have a problem with a man in a dress around your kids, why?? That doesn't make sense.

I think the issue was with Glitter Hole, an adult orientated group who label themselves as queer feminists being around his children.

I think that makes perfect sense.

Sir Oxman

Zorya wrote: »

Noooooooooooooooo!!! No no no Make it stop.

No more ships as 'she'... The Scottish Maritime Museum are replacing their signs with gender neutral pronouns due to protestors' vandalism.

I love ships being feminine. My car is certainly a lady! Whither in the future mother-land, mother-ship, Mother Earth?

Hmm.
It makes a change from Women's Rape Centres being open to men "identifying" as women <edit: i realise previous term might be upsetting to some people, not my intention) in Canada I suppose.



Without convulated bullshíte back and forth etc etc
This is simply an erasing of sex based rights to facilitate - men.
This is the goal.
Only one sex loses in all of this absolute criminology going on - women.




A social media gen virus which if not stopped IN ITS TRACKS will fúck the world up even more in advanced Western states.
Look at Canada. Duckduckgo it. It's horrendous.



Former homosexual (they don't like that word either) orgs like Stonewall etc have already fallen and used their not inconsiderable influence to populate advisory bodies left right and centre in the UK thus police force regs dictate Graham Linehan et al are priority cases (police travelling from one region to another) while real crimes go by the wayside.


It's a dangerous cult, ideology akin to Scientology or any other lunatic fckbrained dopiness.
Ireland is too small to register but the same infiltration on advisory boards will happen, the same "deplatforming" to anyone who dares question about 50 people.
This is why Ireland's dickwaving in 2015 was so wrong in passing GID with fck all debate.


For clarity, I am left in politics before I'm labelled an altright cnt.

sbsquarepants

klaaaz wrote: »

Your original statement


So you're ok for your son to wear a dress if they so wish(progress!) but you have a problem with a man in a dress around your kids, why?? That doesn't make sense.

What doesn't make sense is that you don't seem to realise there is a difference between kids and adults.

Why on earth should there be no distinction between what's acceptable for each of those two entirely disparate groups?

I have no problem with porn, I have no problem with drugs, I have no problem with any kind of consensual sexual activity, I have no problem with all manner of things I don't want around my kids. Drag queens fall into that category.

I assume you're a bloke? If you want to prance around in fishnets and suspenders I don't care. Blow sailors till the cows come home, I don't care. If you want to do either in front of my kids we're going to have a problem.

It's not rocket science klaaaz - adult shít is fine for adults!

klaaaz

sbsquarepants wrote: »

What doesn't make sense is that you don't seem to realise there is a difference between kids and adults.

Why on earth should there be no distinction between what's acceptable for each of those two entirely disparate groups?

I have no problem with porn, I have no problem with drugs, I have no problem with any kind of consensual sexual activity, I have no problem with all manner of things I don't want around my kids. Drag queens fall into that category.

I assume you're a bloke? If you want to prance around in fishnets and suspenders I don't care. Blow sailors till the cows come home, I don't care. If you want to do either in front of my kids we're going to have a problem.

It's not rocket science klaaaz - adult shít is fine for adults!

Again, you're linking a man in a dress to adult sexy items like fishnets and suspenders, drugs, porn, sexual activity to try to degrade them and deflect. It's simply a man in a dress, an item of clothing worn by many people in society.

Why object to a man in a item of clothing around your kids? You never answered except "you don't like them" and linking unrelated stuff.

_Godot_

Noone's trying to wear fishnets or "blow sailors" around kids, they just wanted to read some books.

Zorya

_Godot_ wrote: »

Noone's trying to wear fishnets or "blow sailors" around kids, they just wanted to read some books.

Yesh, Beth just wanted to read some nice stories to the little kids .



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D4MKLhZWkAArz3U.jpg

Anyways I have reached fed up to fcuk point with the Glitter Arse Holes.

People who are interested in the general area - and it's a big area - might want to read around it, to see the other sides of the story, besides the one where everyone is being big meanies to the trans activists.

Detrans on reddit is informative ....and heart-breaking

https://www.reddit.com/r/detrans/

You will come across stories such as the one this poor 21 year old has to tell now that he regrets the surgical removal of his balls....Honestly, in years to come people will compare this shyte to Mengele's work. There MUST be longer waiting periods and much more serious counselling and consideration before young people are catastrophically interfered with.



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D4897rbXkAYeld-.jpg

sbsquarepants

Klaaaz - you can argue all you like that the queer feminist drag troupe named after a gay mans arsehole does not involve gender politics or any sexual element whatsoever - but you'd be talking bollox.

Now - do I think the act is going to be overtly or even covertly sexual in nature on the day - no I don't. But I see no reason for them to be involved whatsoever, I don't want my kids exposed to them. There is absolutely nothing for my kids to gain from this experience, that they couldn't just as easily get if this glitter hole crowd where not involved.

So why involve them? I can't answer that - can you?

So with that in mind - why exactly do you think I would bring my kids to something I don't like, which they won't gain from, for reasons I don't comprehend, to promote someone elses agenda?

Maybe that's your idea of a good day out, but it's not mine.

And it's also worth noting that this thread started about an 11 year old kid - who as far as I'm concerned is being abused and endangered by his asshole parents.

I want no part of this "scene" or whatever the hell it's called. I don't care if you do, I won't try to stop you, or limit you in anyway - I genuinely couldn't care less. I just won't be involved - and frankly you should just accept that!

klaaaz

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Klaaaz - you can argue all you like that the queer feminist drag troupe named after a gay mans arsehole does not involve gender politics or any sexual element whatsoever - but you'd be talking bollox.

Now - do I think the act is going to be overtly or even covertly sexual in nature on the day - no I don't. But I see no reason for them to be involved whatsoever, I don't want my kids exposed to them. There is absolutely nothing for my kids to gain from this experience, that they couldn't just as easily get if this glitter hole crowd where not involved.

So why involve them? I can't answer that - can you?

So with that in mind - why exactly do you think I would bring my kids to something I don't like, which they won't gain from, for reasons I don't comprehend, to promote someone elses agenda?

Maybe that's your idea of a good day out, but it's not mine.

And it's also worth noting that this thread started about an 11 year old kid - who as far as I'm concerned is being abused and endangered by his asshole parents.

I want no part of this "scene" or whatever the hell it's called. I don't care if you do, I won't try to stop you, or limit you in anyway - I genuinely couldn't care less. I just won't be involved - and frankly you should just accept that!

sbsquarepants - if the troupe were not called "glitter hole" or involved in "covertly sexual in nature" or any politics at all, would you still object to a man in a dress reading a book to your kids? If so, why?

sbsquarepants

klaaaz wrote: »

sbsquarepants - if the troupe were not called "glitter hole" or involved in "covertly sexual in nature" or any politics at all, would you still object to a man in a dress reading a book to your kids? If so, why?

Probably not.

But I also just wouldn't see the point!

klaaaz

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Probably not.

Good!

sbsquarepants wrote:

But I also just wouldn't see the point!

No-one should bat an eyelid just like they do now when a woman wearing trousers reads a book to kids.

Wibbs

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Klaaaz - you can argue all you like that the queer feminist drag troupe named after a gay mans arsehole does not involve gender politics or any sexual element whatsoever - but you'd be talking bollox

Fluently too.

klaaaz wrote: »

No-one should bat an eyelid just like they do now when a woman wearing trousers reads a book to kids.

Should being the operative word. Society shouldn't, but outside of fluffy fantasy land, they do and will. A woman wearing pants is not making a statement in our culture, a man outside of pantomime wearing a dress is.

klaaaz

Wibbs wrote: »

Should being the operative word. Society shouldn't, but outside of fluffy fantasy land, they do and will. A woman wearing pants is not making a statement in our culture, a man outside of pantomime wearing a dress is.

How is it making a statement, a person in a democracy should have the choice to wear trouser/dress/skirt/any everyday clothing as they wish.

klaaaz

klaaaz wrote: »

How is it making a statement, a person in a democracy should have the choice to wear trouser/dress/skirt/any everyday clothing as they wish.

I agree what someone chooses to wear shouldn't be considered an issue.

Do you think the clothing choices of children should be used to diagnose gender dysphoria?

sbsquarepants

klaaaz wrote: »

No-one should bat an eyelid just like they do now when a woman wearing trousers reads a book to kids.

And are you some sort of authority on what people should and shouldn't think?

Lets say your brother, husband, son or some other male close to you is up in court for some reason, or going for a job interview or something like that.

They come and ask you for your advice - should I wear -

A: A suit and tie

B: A high heels, fishnets and mini skirt combo

C: A nice floral frock, just like dear old granny used to.

They're leaning toward B or C

What do you tell them, sure no one should bat an eyelid should they - it's just clothes!

klaaaz

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree what someone chooses to wear shouldn't be considered an issue.

Do you think the clothing choices of children should be used to diagnose gender dysphoria?

No, wearing an item of clothing does not indicate gender dysphoria as evidenced by millions of girls wearing trousers. But the traditional conservative posters in this thread get upset and offended when a boy wishes to wear an item of clothing that was traditionally reserved for girls.