Transgender Rights

this is anecdotal but, in my experience, Transgender men (FtM) tend to be a lot more chill and more socially...stable??? (I don't know if that's the right term.) ...They also seem statistically to be the most likely to transition back and have an easier time transitioning back.

what that means (If anything) I'm sure everyone has their own interpretation. At this point I don't think any research will come out without it being politically tainted.
That's sorta like saying that male schizophrenics are slightly more stable when we lean into their delusions compared to female and we can more easily convince them to get back on their meds. My counter is so what?
 
Meaning I think there is more going on under the hood as they say. It's almost as if gender reassignment surgery isn't really a long term solution.

But whatever misfires are going on in the brain i don't think is ever going to beresearched properly as politically speaking the conclusion is already set in most people's minds.
 
Meaning I think there is more going on under the hood as they say. It's almost as if gender reassignment surgery isn't really a long term solution.

But whatever misfires are going on in the brain i don't think is ever going to beresearched properly as politically speaking the conclusion is already set in most people's minds.
Lol. You think this sort of thing isn't exactly the sorta easy gimme that researchers will latch onto for grants? It's politically advantageous to research the topic because of the current ruling class' pandering to the pro-transgender base. Now, whether we get good, replicable research out of the money that pours into this pop-sci shit is a different question.
 
It's not anti-LGBT though. Seriously, I'm bi. I never needed to know that when I was 7. There was no need for me to explore my sexuality as a kid, or any other kid for that matter. It's a good bill.
Essentially, the bill is used to stop groomers in the government education system.

And the subsequent amount of reeing has exposed the sheer number of groomers in the government education system and the number of people who support them.

Guess the Catholic priests have some "stiff" competition now.
 
It's not anti-LGBT though. Seriously, I'm bi. I never needed to know that when I was 7. There was no need for me to explore my sexuality as a kid, or any other kid for that matter. It's a good bill.
I doubt kids can even think of sexuality before the hormones kick in when they become teenagers.
 
I doubt kids can even think of sexuality before the hormones kick in when they become teenagers.
The hormones depend on when puberty hits. 11-12 is normal these days.

For some it's a year or two younger. Kids that young aren't mature enough to be left unsupervised while you go run some quick errands.
 
The hormones depend on when puberty hits. 11-12 is normal these days.

For some it's a year or two younger. Kids that young aren't mature enough to be left unsupervised while you go run some quick errands.
12 is a lot older than 7, and that is when it starts.TBH the boys at least didn't go nuts with hormones before 13 - 14, no idea about girls, but most got their knockers fully filled out around their teens, too.No idea when they start becoming really horny, tbh.
Obviously some explanations about the mechanics of coitus will have to be provided to them, like mating is brought about by a biological need for reproduction and sexual intercourse can lead to lots of undesirable side effects, like pregnancy and STDs.
 
I doubt kids can even think of sexuality before the hormones kick in when they become teenagers.
I was a pretty horny 10 year old.
The hormones depend on when puberty hits. 11-12 is normal these days.
There we go. Girls also started going through puberty earlier, mix of soy products and more nutrition (epigenetics).
12 is a lot older than 7
Math checks out.
Yeah, this. To be clear, you have one before that age, but almost always is unconsciously expressed, if at all.
Yeah, I mean I had a crush on some chick when I was around 5. I doubt it had any sexual connotations, but rather aesthetic.
 
Yeah, I mean I had a crush on some chick when I was around 5. I doubt it had any sexual connotations, but rather aesthetic.
You were good friends with a girl/boy, big lol.
I had a sort of crush to the Vietnamese girl that lived in the same apartment building as me when I was 4-6 too, mainly because of:
1) Her dark, short hair.
2) Almond-shaped eyes.

I couldn't stop staring.

That is not sexual, it is you wanting a playmate, or a big sis/mom type figure to play with and you probably locked onto something exotic or well-kept looking.
Later I knew a rather tomboyish girl that I enjoyed talking to about cartoons and action movies and scifi with, this is before puberty hit.
Some years later, after our paths crossed, I met her again.She'd filled out, was no longer a tomboy, and had zero interest in Star Trek or Babylon 5 or The X Files.
Estrogen spoils girls, IMHO. 😂

So do you think kids need to get an explanation regarding sex when they are preteens?

Cause that is like it sounds.
 

Trans ‘mom’ forces his 7 year old daughter into porn.

giphy.gif

Needs puke tribble.

And people wonder why there is massive pushback against all of this Trans nonsense.

My view, you do not fix a bent cucumber by bending it into a hoop.

This trans stuff is probably a mix of peer pressure and hormonal disbalance, and all of the therapies and pronouns crap is making things worse, not better.
Also we have degenerates like these probably using it to outright enable their sick fetishes or the hormones and the delusion that they are female making them into perverts and child predators.
 
Essentially, the bill is used to stop groomers in the government education system.

And the subsequent amount of reeing has exposed the sheer number of groomers in the government education system and the number of people who support them.

Guess the Catholic priests have some "stiff" competition now.
The amount of grooming/sexual abuse in public schools has always been greater in both raw numbers and as a percent than abuse by not just Catholic Priests, but with Christian religious officials in general. It's also just as systematically covered up by a large institution (in this case the Teachers Union) as it was by the Catholic Church.

The reason you think otherwise is quite simple: the media helps cover up the abuse by teachers, while amplifying the abuse by Priests. Why? Again, simple: the Teacher's Unions are fellow ideological travelers with the Media, whereas the Catholic Church generally stands opposed to the most sacred cows of the Progressive Media. Note: this is not consciously nefarious or conspiracy, this has to do with how people tend to think about people on "their side" vs "the other side". For the media abusive teachers are not examples of systemic abuse and cover up, but rather, isolated incidents of bad actors and the Teacher's Union covering for them is just the Teacher's Union holding to their contract as a Union. Meanwhile for abusive clergy, it's an example of how the "other side" is systematically corrupt and has issues and is evil, and how the institutions there covering for them are enabling that abuse.
 
The amount of grooming/sexual abuse in public schools has always been greater in both raw numbers and as a percent than abuse by not just Catholic Priests, but with Christian religious officials in general. It's also just as systematically covered up by a large institution (in this case the Teachers Union) as it was by the Catholic Church.

The reason you think otherwise is quite simple: the media helps cover up the abuse by teachers, while amplifying the abuse by Priests. Why? Again, simple: the Teacher's Unions are fellow ideological travelers with the Media, whereas the Catholic Church generally stands opposed to the most sacred cows of the Progressive Media. Note: this is not consciously nefarious or conspiracy, this has to do with how people tend to think about people on "their side" vs "the other side". For the media abusive teachers are not examples of systemic abuse and cover up, but rather, isolated incidents of bad actors and the Teacher's Union covering for them is just the Teacher's Union holding to their contract as a Union. Meanwhile for abusive clergy, it's an example of how the "other side" is systematically corrupt and has issues and is evil, and how the institutions there covering for them are enabling that abuse.
Uh, to be fair, when a school teacher is found to have sexually abused a kid, they usually get nailed for it immediately after it is found out.

The RCC shuffled pedo-priests from parish to parish to keep said priest from facing the same sort of consequences, stymied police investigations at nearly every turn, and did it for a long time.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top