Rand Paul Confronts Biden's Transgender Health Nominee

[IndyDave1776]

All I’m saying is, I’ve never seen Levine and Bib Fortuna in the same room at the same time...

View attachment 128290

Both about equally evil.

 

[Mikey1911]

All I’m saying is, I’ve never seen Levine and Bib Fortuna in the same room at the same time...

View attachment 128290

But why would you want to see that??

 

[Mikey1911]

It's more than that.
Any time you hear "settled science"...

“Settled Science” once asserted that the Sun, planets, and stars revolved around the Earth, and that atoms were indivisible.

I’m not interested in what politicians and self-anointed, self-appointed “activists” assert to be “settled science”.

 

[tbhausen]

I am in agreement.

The gay marriage/acceptance movement, which I still fully support, sought equality and coexistence. They wanted the same rights as the general straight public and, otherwise, the right to simply be left alone and live. That's one of the reasons they developed such broad support, by appealing to universality and not division.

I believe in the same thing for adult trans people. My personal opinion is that they are mutilating their bodies to treat a mental illness and it's ridiculous, but my personal opinion doesn't matter and I don't generally voice it. They're adults with the right to do that if they choose. Where I differ is in the same area they differ from the gay rights movement: They don't just want equality and coexistence, they want to dictate massive changes in our lives and culture, and they want to push their ideology into our children instead of waiting for our children to come of age and decide for themselves.

And, yes, I wonder if the end goal of getting small children declared mentally competent to transition is to accomplish a step toward getting small children declared mentally competent to have sex with adults. Maybe not, maybe that's an unfounded fear, but everywhere else on the left we have seen social victories immediately followed by an even greater push to create new dragons to slay.

Spot on. I agree with everything you’ve written.

 

[Tombs]

I am in agreement.

The gay marriage/acceptance movement, which I still fully support, sought equality and coexistence. They wanted the same rights as the general straight public and, otherwise, the right to simply be left alone and live. That's one of the reasons they developed such broad support, by appealing to universality and not division.

I believe in the same thing for adult trans people. My personal opinion is that they are mutilating their bodies to treat a mental illness and it's ridiculous, but my personal opinion doesn't matter and I don't generally voice it. They're adults with the right to do that if they choose. Where I differ is in the same area they differ from the gay rights movement: They don't just want equality and coexistence, they want to dictate massive changes in our lives and culture, and they want to push their ideology into our children instead of waiting for our children to come of age and decide for themselves.

And, yes, I wonder if the end goal of getting small children declared mentally competent to transition is to accomplish a step toward getting small children declared mentally competent to have sex with adults. Maybe not, maybe that's an unfounded fear, but everywhere else on the left we have seen social victories immediately followed by an even greater push to create new dragons to slay.

The trans movement is predatory, seeking converts to their cause. Because mental illness is contagious, contrary to popular belief.

This isn't really a thing that was going on in the gay community, that I've seen.

Ultimately I view it like the emo self mutilation fad that was going on in the early 00s. The difference is, authoritative voices aren't calling it out for what it is, as they were back then. Self harm is never okay and should never, ever, be encouraged from the top down.

It was supposed to be 0.01% of the population, and within just a few years, a large percentage of generation Z is identifying as trans. That's a pandemic.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I am in agreement.

The gay marriage/acceptance movement, which I still fully support, sought equality and coexistence. They wanted the same rights as the general straight public and, otherwise, the right to simply be left alone and live. That's one of the reasons they developed such broad support, by appealing to universality and not division.

I believe in the same thing for adult trans people. My personal opinion is that they are mutilating their bodies to treat a mental illness and it's ridiculous, but my personal opinion doesn't matter and I don't generally voice it. They're adults with the right to do that if they choose. Where I differ is in the same area they differ from the gay rights movement: They don't just want equality and coexistence, they want to dictate massive changes in our lives and culture, and they want to push their ideology into our children instead of waiting for our children to come of age and decide for themselves.

And, yes, I wonder if the end goal of getting small children declared mentally competent to transition is to accomplish a step toward getting small children declared mentally competent to have sex with adults. Maybe not, maybe that's an unfounded fear, but everywhere else on the left we have seen social victories immediately followed by an even greater push to create new dragons to slay.

I am largely in agreement with the above sentiments. One point of objection is with the gay marriage issue, not in affording equal rights but in allowing government to redefine language. Too much harm has already been done here (think reasonable, regulate, or infringe for example) and the trend needs to stop. We are on the way to having both law and constitution interpreted through the Humpty Dumpty standard of language.

In the immediate term, it is pretty obvious that all politically correct positions on personal life have one common thread in that they limit population sustainability. The leftist ivory tower has been saying for years that the world human population should be limited to about 500 million people. That leaves the problem of finding a way to get rid of approximately 7 billion people. If, between abortion and an assortment of non-procreative sexual arrangements, reproduction can be lowered to levels significantly below sustainable levels, they can have their mass eradication without having to round people up and kill them presumably over the objection of those being killed.

 

[Ark]

The trans movement is predatory, seeking converts to their cause. Because mental illness is contagious, contrary to popular belief.

This isn't really a thing that was going on in the gay community, that I've seen.

Ultimately I view it like the emo self mutilation fad that was going on in the early 00s. The difference is, authoritative voices aren't calling it out for what it is, as they were back then. Self harm is never okay and should never, ever, be encouraged from the top down.

It was supposed to be 0.01% of the population, and within just a few years, a large percentage of generation Z is identifying as trans. That's a pandemic.

Trans is absolutely a social contagion. See Abigail Shirer's work on that.

But, you know, adults have a right to fall victim to social contagion. We should try to keep those recruiting efforts out of schools (but, good luck keeping information out, that's impossible), but past 18 they're fair game. At 18 you can leave home and go join R Kelly's sex cult, the law can't stop you.

 

[Ark]

I am largely in agreement with the above sentiments. One point of objection is with the gay marriage issue, not in affording equal rights but in allowing government to redefine language. Too much harm has already been done here (think reasonable, regulate, or infringe for example) and the trend needs to stop. We are on the way to having both law and constitution interpreted through the Humpty Dumpty standard of language.

In the immediate term, it is pretty obvious that all politically correct positions on personal life have one common thread in that they limit population sustainability. The leftist ivory tower has been saying for years that the world human population should be limited to about 500 million people. That leaves the problem of finding a way to get rid of approximately 7 billion people. If, between abortion and an assortment of non-procreative sexual arrangements, reproduction can be lowered to levels significantly below sustainable levels, they can have their mass eradication without having to round people up and kill them presumably over the objection of those being killed.

I don't think the redefinition from marriage being two people to marriage being two people was especially disruptive or ultimately had any effect on straight people's existing marriages.

On the second point, it seems interesting that this stuff isn't being pushed in the parts of the world where all the population growth is taking place. Declining US population doesn't mean much if it's replaced by open borders and billion of the world's poor flooding in.

Interesting theory, though. Ever read The Forever War?

 

[jsx1043]

“Settled Science” once asserted that the Sun, planets, and stars revolved around the Earth, and that atoms were indivisible.

I’m not interested in what politicians and self-anointed, self-appointed “activists” assert to be “settled science”.

In all honesty, I give zero ****s about what “settled science” says and whether those in charge infringe upon my natural right of liberty.

They could say that oxygen is bad and I’ll go out and suck up huge gulps of air just in spite of them because I am a free man.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I don't think the redefinition from marriage being two people to marriage being two people was especially disruptive or ultimately had any effect on straight people's existing marriages.

On the second point, it seems interesting that this stuff isn't being pushed in the parts of the world where all the population growth is taking place. Declining US population doesn't mean much if it's replaced by open borders and billion of the world's poor flooding in.

Interesting theory, though. Ever read The Forever War?

I don't disagree specifically in this case but I still find it dangerous in the larger context to allow government to redefine language under any circumstances. I still object just like I would object to someone shooting at me even if he missed this time.

I will also point out that I am disturbed that people who have goals similar to my own--to enjoy life and be left alone--are pulled in as part of an aggregate and made into political footballs.