Transgender Rights

[Captain X]

Right. The manifesto isn't anything we didn't already suspect. It's only a big deal because they tried so hard to hide it.

And still are, apparently.

 

[Abhorsen]

Calling ancient people "straight" is much of a laugh as calling them "gay". That one needed to, and had a social and familial responsibility to reproduce was uncontested for most of history, outside some religious circumstances.

I mean, this simply isn't true at all? We can that some were gay, and some were straight. They definitely didn't identify that way, but there were some people who only wanted to fuck women, and some who only wanted to fuck men. It's the desire that makes one straight or gay.

Pederasty was always at the forefront of almost every (I want to say flat out every) historical example of male homosexuality right through the post-enlightenment West. Until very recently, even relationships between adults followed pederastic forms: i.e. between a much older adult and a youth even if one post majority, or simply where the younger man had aged out of pubescence while the relationship was ongoing. I'd even argue that the rare examples of equal homosexuality are driven precisely by the "sucking cock at the gas station bathroom" phenomenon where social and legal banning forces gays to enter adult relationships by cutting off access to boys, and we are seeing some return to form today.

Literally the opposite happened. The gays were involved with pedos, then left it when they started to become accepted.

Also, note you are combining two things, fixated and lapsed pedophilia. Most of history didn't have the fucking of young boys, but instead young teens of all sexes (young women were commonly married right after puberty began, for example). I'm not saying it's good, but mainstream culture until the enlightenment west and industrial revolution basically had the same problem.

It's modern "gayness" that is the deviant form, not pederasty. Our current transgender and rainbow in general epidemic shows clearly that human sexuality can be twisted quite easily by social pressures during puberty, so maybe it's a deviation that can be permanently self-sustaining replacing the traditional pederastic grooming. Or not, going by the disasters, can't say with all scientific research in this field clearly contaminated by ideology.

The other thing you are missing is what is 'deviant'. Homosexuality is natural, and pretty normal in nature. There's a number of reasons for this, namely kin selection, but clearly there's some evolutionary pressure for this to happen so often.

So I doubt that pederasty specifically is what is hardwired, just attraction for the same sex.

You call it a "rant", but I say I was asking "what options are there except for these two because I can't see a third path". The evidence that the more tolerant a society is, the quicker things slide to the utter horrorfest we're seeing now, despite a lot of gays, Bis, and lesbians being just normal people with a different orientation, is clear to see.

I'm going to disagree with this. It's more that you simply didn't see the horrorfest before, but it was still happening in a variety of places with a ton of groups. Basically there's a group of evil people who will try to infiltrate any group they can so they can get away with shit. The LGBTs are just one of the many groups. And like every group, the groups first instinct is to defend the group.

I'm not even just talking about churches, but also Teachers & teachers unions, Martial arts classes, really any group. Over all, the LGBTs massively improved on all sorts of normalization. Now there's a movement (which is dogshit), but the community largely isn't.

 

[evilchumlee]

Here's the thing,in the vast majority of situations where a child is being taught a religion in America. It is either being taught by the parents themselves or woth the full knowledge and consent of the parents. Something which is fully within thier rights,constitutionally protected,and frankly at least 1/3 of the entire point of parenting. As opposed to when the LGBTQ+ ideology is being taught said lessons are being done. In direct opposition to the parents wishes,quite often without thier knowledge,and with absolutely no regard for thier consent. Not only that but it is usally being done by state actors in state funded and administered institutions.....Do you know what it's called when the state pushes an ideology onto children in direct defiance of thier parents wishes? It's called facism,and I don't mean that as hyperbole or fear mongering. Because the fact of the matter is you would be hard pressed to find anything more fascist then the state forcibly removing the rights of a parent to consent to what thier child is shown and how thier child is raised.....Your argument quite literally endorses a full on fascist public education education system.

As with most things, i'm generally in the middle here. I see what you're saying, but I think you're veering outrageously into "gay panic" territory. There's very little being taught in schools that (should be) particularly controversial. They're teaching that gay people exist, and that it's ok to be gay. That's basically it.

The public education system is exactly that... public. It's quite literally state run. It's in the name. The state has an outright obligation to ensure the kids in the public education system are being educated with what the majority of society accepts. The neat part is, if you're an outlier and you are argle bargled over a school teaching your child that gay people exist... you don't actually HAVE to send them to public school. You are entirely within your right to home school. No rights are being removed. If you CHOOSE to send a child to public school, you're consenting for them to be taught what the public school teaches. If you disagree with that, that's totally acceptable. Pull them out and home school, or perhaps search for a charter school that has a political bent more to your liking.

It's really not fascism when you have the choice to not participate. It's just... politics you don't like, so, "fascism".

 

[shangrila]

I mean, this simply isn't true at all? We can that some were gay, and some were straight. They definitely didn't identify that way, but there were some people who only wanted to fuck women, and some who only wanted to fuck men. It's the desire that makes one straight or gay.


Literally the opposite happened. The gays were involved with pedos, then left it when they started to become accepted.

Also, note you are combining two things, fixated and lapsed pedophilia. Most of history didn't have the fucking of young boys, but instead young teens of all sexes (young women were commonly married right after puberty began, for example). I'm not saying it's good, but mainstream culture until the enlightenment west and industrial revolution basically had the same problem.


The other thing you are missing is what is 'deviant'. Homosexuality is natural, and pretty normal in nature. There's a number of reasons for this, namely kin selection, but clearly there's some evolutionary pressure for this to happen so often.

So I doubt that pederasty specifically is what is hardwired, just attraction for the same sex.

If pederasty isn't what's hardwired, then why is the primary expression always pederasty? In any case, I don't think the homosexual umbrella is a single thing at all, that's purely an academia and media enforced construct. It's really many different disorders, with those driving pederasty being the largest group.

The rest of your claims are just pure establishment dogma. Pederasts were rarely pure pedos, but they were definitely the original community. Young girls marrying was never normal outside the nobility doing it for alliance purposes. Only people taking seriously period salacious quasi-porn and rabblerousing anti-noble screeds believe the meme. And the studies about homosexuality in "nature" are not just full blown replication crisis, they don't answer the points I raised at all. Consider how well pederastic grooming fits the theories of kin selection vs homosexuals forming adult monogamous pairs in their own family groups? Hmm, what could be most easily twisted from an instinct or obligation to care for children/youth?

 

[colorles]

All Star Swampscott Boy Destroys Dighton-Rehoboth Girl's Face, Scores Both Goals In 2-0 Field Hockey Playoff Victory - TB Daily News

creepy ass photo

 

[Abhorsen]

If pederasty isn't what's hardwired, then why is the primary expression always pederasty? In any case, I don't think the homosexual umbrella is a single thing at all, that's purely an academia and media enforced construct. It's really many different disorders, with those driving pederasty being the largest group.

... It isn't. If you want to look at what's hardwired, look at animals.

The rest of your claims are just pure establishment dogma. Pederasts were rarely pure pedos, but they were definitely the original community. Young girls marrying was never normal outside the nobility doing it for alliance purposes. Only people taking seriously period salacious quasi-porn and rabblerousing anti-noble screeds believe the meme. And the studies about homosexuality in "nature" are not just full blown replication crisis, they don't answer the points I raised at all. Consider how well pederastic grooming fits the theories of kin selection vs homosexuals forming adult monogamous pairs in their own family groups? Hmm, what could be most easily twisted from an instinct or obligation to care for children/youth?

Guess what else wasn't very common? Pederastry. It was something nobles/the well off in greece did and no one else.


Homosexuality in nature does not have a replication crisis. Do you even know what words you are saying? It's been replicated dozens and dozens of times just by observing.

Consider how well pederastic grooming fits the theories of kin selection vs homosexuals forming adult monogamous pairs in their own family groups? Hmm, what could be most easily twisted from an instinct or obligation to care for children/youth?

Here, you assume that kin selection necessarily means care for kin. It doesn't. It means that when a mother has some amount of her male children gay (especially if she has a bunch) it can aid in reducing intergroup rivalry for mates, making the group as a whole more fit, for example. Hence why we see that having an older brother leads to an increased chance of being gay in men. There's little evidence I've seen that animals that exhibit homosexual behavior actually care for kin's young, other than the stuff that looks pretty fake, like when a possibly real gay couple of penguins were given an egg in an aquarium. Maybe there are natural 'adoptions' in the wild, but then that again looks like monogamous pairs creating family groups, not the gay uncle babysitting a kid.

 

[shangrila]

Guess what else wasn't very common? Pederastry. It was something nobles/the well off in greece did and no one else.

. . . Also samurai, dynastic China, Afghan tribes, Victorian homosexual underground, Harvey Milk, and George Takei.

Also, lol at the "nobles/well off" line as if that's not because almost all records preserved are about them.

Homosexuality in nature does not have a replication crisis. Do you even know what words you are saying? It's been replicated dozens and dozens of times just by observing.

Here, you assume that kin selection necessarily means care for kin. It doesn't. It means that when a mother has some amount of her male children gay (especially if she has a bunch) it can aid in reducing intergroup rivalry for mates, making the group as a whole more fit, for example. Hence why we see that having an older brother leads to an increased chance of being gay in men. There's little evidence I've seen that animals that exhibit homosexual behavior actually care for kin's young, other than the stuff that looks pretty fake, like when a possibly real gay couple of penguins were given an egg in an aquarium. Maybe there are natural 'adoptions' in the wild, but then that again looks like monogamous pairs creating family groups, not the gay uncle babysitting a kid.

So, animals that don't care for children still don't care for children when homosexual. Compared to humans that invest by far the most resources into childcare of any species on Earth, with it being difficult to imagine the resource cost being eclipsed by any sort of "reduced internal conflict from some of the group straight up not reproducing".

But hey, random speculation backed by motivated reasoning of selective observation sure is why there is a scientific replication crisis.

 

[Abhorsen]

. . . Also samurai, dynastic China, Afghan tribes, Victorian homosexual underground, Harvey Milk, and George Takei.

Also, lol at the "nobles/well off" line as if that's not because almost all records preserved are about them.

The same argument can be used by someone talking about child marriages for only nobles.

Also, Samurai were literally nobles.

So, animals that don't care for children still don't care for children when homosexual. Compared to humans that invest by far the most resources into childcare of any species on Earth, with it being difficult to imagine the resource cost being eclipsed by any sort of "reduced internal conflict from some of the group straight up not reproducing".

You were the one who raised the arguments that the animals were caring for kin, and that this lead to pedarastry. It was a dumb argument, we agree.

As for the older brother part, that's fairly well documented. Being a male with multiple older brothers makes you more likely to be gay. The obvious explanation is reducing competition for mates between a family group.

But hey, random speculation backed by motivated reasoning of selective observation sure is why there is a scientific replication crisis.

Agreed, it really sucks that you are doing this, with all of your evidence that you never cited at all.

 

[Jormungandr]

If pederasty isn't what's hardwired, then why is the primary expression always pederasty? In any case, I don't think the homosexual umbrella is a single thing at all, that's purely an academia and media enforced construct. It's really many different disorders, with those driving pederasty being the largest group.

The rest of your claims are just pure establishment dogma. Pederasts were rarely pure pedos, but they were definitely the original community. Young girls marrying was never normal outside the nobility doing it for alliance purposes. Only people taking seriously period salacious quasi-porn and rabblerousing anti-noble screeds believe the meme. And the studies about homosexuality in "nature" are not just full blown replication crisis, they don't answer the points I raised at all. Consider how well pederastic grooming fits the theories of kin selection vs homosexuals forming adult monogamous pairs in their own family groups? Hmm, what could be most easily twisted from an instinct or obligation to care for children/youth?

Actually, I think that girls around the ages of 16--20 were expected to be married and start having children back in Medieval times, even peasant/farming community girls.

While not exactly "young" compared to the various nobilities and royalties marrying off daughters when they were like 12--13, it was still pretty common.

The richer you were/higher in status, the quicker a daughter was to be used as a piece for the benefit of the family.

 

[Terthna]

Parents raising their children to follow the same beliefs and values that they themselves believe in is natural and normal. Equating that pedophile teachers indoctrinating children into sexual perversion? There's something deeply wrong inside the heads of people who accept that.

But Atheists started the whole "teaching your religion to your children is child-abuse" nonsense well before this whole pedo-grooming thing was in the public eye. Though I wonder if there wasn't always some sort of link there...

My parents (who are protestants, for the record) tried very hard to teach me to think for myself, and to not just uncritically accept what they believed (or anything for that matter) as fact.

 

[Rocinante]

As with most things, i'm generally in the middle here. I see what you're saying, but I think you're veering outrageously into "gay panic" territory. There's very little being taught in schools that (should be) particularly controversial. They're teaching that gay people exist, and that it's ok to be gay. That's basically it.

The public education system is exactly that... public. It's quite literally state run. It's in the name. The state has an outright obligation to ensure the kids in the public education system are being educated with what the majority of society accepts. The neat part is, if you're an outlier and you are argle bargled over a school teaching your child that gay people exist... you don't actually HAVE to send them to public school. You are entirely within your right to home school. No rights are being removed. If you CHOOSE to send a child to public school, you're consenting for them to be taught what the public school teaches. If you disagree with that, that's totally acceptable. Pull them out and home school, or perhaps search for a charter school that has a political bent more to your liking.

It's really not fascism when you have the choice to not participate. It's just... politics you don't like, so, "fascism".

Sure, you can choose to homeschool. You can also, as a member of the public, choose to put in the work to change the public system, towards something you feel is better for the public.

You can, in fact, do both of these things simultaneously.

 

[King Arts]

Here's the thing,in the vast majority of situations where a child is being taught a religion in America. It is either being taught by the parents themselves or woth the full knowledge and consent of the parents. Something which is fully within thier rights,constitutionally protected,and frankly at least 1/3 of the entire point of parenting. As opposed to when the LGBTQ+ ideology is being taught said lessons are being done. In direct opposition to the parents wishes,quite often without thier knowledge,and with absolutely no regard for thier consent. Not only that but it is usally being done by state actors in state funded and administered institutions.....Do you know what it's called when the state pushes an ideology onto children in direct defiance of thier parents wishes? It's called facism,and I don't mean that as hyperbole or fear mongering. Because the fact of the matter is you would be hard pressed to find anything more fascist then the state forcibly removing the rights of a parent to consent to what thier child is shown and how thier child is raised.....Your argument quite literally endorses a full on fascist public education education system.

I agree with everything you said except your thing about the state teaching things contrary to parents wishes is facsism. No it’s not you are doing the liberal thing where you call every bad thing facsism when it does not apply.

 

[evilchumlee]

Sure, you can choose to homeschool. You can also, as a member of the public, choose to put in the work to change the public system, towards something you feel is better for the public.

You can, in fact, do both of these things simultaneously.

Also completely acceptable. Of course, other members of the public with different views from your own can and will also work to change the system to something they feel is better for the public.

 

[Ixian]

Homeschooling is the way to go. With homeschooling you know exactly what your child is being taught, and who is around influencing them.

Pair that with limited internet access until they are a teenager at least and you have a solid foundation to build from. Assuming you actually put in the work to teach the kid and don't slack off.

 

[Captain X]

All Star Swampscott Boy Destroys Dighton-Rehoboth Girl's Face, Scores Both Goals In 2-0 Field Hockey Playoff Victory - TB Daily News

creepy ass photo

I can see why he's playing on the girl's team, and why people thought he was trans.

 

[evilchumlee]

Homeschooling is the way to go. With homeschooling you know exactly what your child is being taught, and who is around influencing them.

Pair that with limited internet access until they are a teenager at least and you have a solid foundation to build from. Assuming you actually put in the work to teach the kid and don't slack off.

To me that sounds terrible, only good for raising a child with an incredibly narrow worldview who will almost certainly be at a disadvantage later in life.

I mean, you CAN do that. But by and large, more experience with more things is better than less experience with less things. Not to mention the issue of their social education, being largely cut off from others their age at school.

I've known homeschool kids. They're... weird.

 

[Abhorsen]

I've known homeschool kids. They're... weird.

And the ones who go to public schools and are convinced they are trans by teachers are normal?

Look, everything in life is a tradeoff. I don't know that I could trust my future kids in a public school. Maybe a private school, if I vet it, and don't see any DIE bullshit.

 

[evilchumlee]

And the ones who go to public schools and are convinced they are trans by teachers are normal?

Look, everything in life is a tradeoff. I don't know that I could trust my future kids in a public school. Maybe a private school, if I vet it, and don't see any DIE bullshit.

I think that's an incredibly overstated gay panic. I don't have kids myself, but many of friends have various school aged kids.... and I live in NJ, about as Blue as Blue States get. That... hasn't happened? They get taught tolerance and such but "convincing them they are trans" doesn't really seem to be any kind of widespread, major issue. It's definitely a tin foil hat conspiracy.

Seems like for the most part, "It's ok to be trans" gets translated out to "THEY'RE CUTTING ALL OUR KIDS DICKS OFF!"

 

[Abhorsen]

I think that's an incredibly overstated gay panic. I don't have kids myself, but many of friends have various school aged kids.... and I live in NJ, about as Blue as Blue States get. That... hasn't happened? They get taught tolerance and such but "convincing them they are trans" doesn't really seem to be any kind of widespread, major issue. It's definitely a tin foil hat conspiracy.

As a bisexual man who was at one point socially transitioned, it's definitely happening. It's not direct control of kids or anything, and as usual the people doing it think they are the good guys, but it is definitely happening.

If I had been younger, I'd likely have been put on hormones or more, and that would have fucked me up. There are countless examples of kids being socially (or more) transitioned without their parents even knowing about it, using different pronouns at school or even a different name.

The issue is that quite bluntly, most of them don't have actual gender dysphoria. They just want to cross dress or feel femine etc. Like me. I'd be very happy wearing a dress and going full femme face/doing drag. But that doesn't make me a woman, it makes me a dude who's got a lot of the gay in him. That's the issue. And kids, frankly, aren't equipped to handle this, and teachers are required to immediately accept them and go "so your trans, that's great!"

 

[shangrila]

The same argument can be used by someone talking about child marriages for only nobles.

Also, Samurai were literally nobles.


You were the one who raised the arguments that the animals were caring for kin, and that this lead to pedarastry. It was a dumb argument, we agree.

As for the older brother part, that's fairly well documented. Being a male with multiple older brothers makes you more likely to be gay. The obvious explanation is reducing competition for mates between a family group.

Agreed, it really sucks that you are doing this, with all of your evidence that you never cited at all.

As if you've cited any evidence. Samurai weren't nobles btw, that's yet another blatant falsehood you've pushed, and you are flat out ignoring all the other examples of pederastic homosexual culture. Are Harvey Milk and George Takei ancient Greek Nobles?

And lol no, you were the one to bring up kin selection to justify modern "gayness" being "natural". Ignoring of course how "naturalness" says nothing about whether humans should tolerate something for humans, I brought up the most obvious way pederastic grooming can be caused by genes driving kin selection. You were the one to go on about animals as a part of your "naturalness" argument, and try for speculation on alternative paths to avoid facing the obvious.

Actually, I think that girls around the ages of 16--20 were expected to be married and start having children back in Medieval times, even peasant/farming community girls.

While not exactly "young" compared to the various nobilities and royalties marrying off daughters when they were like 12--13, it was still pretty common.

The richer you were/higher in status, the quicker a daughter was to be used as a piece for the benefit of the family.

Nope, European commoner women married for the first time on average between 18 and the mid 20s. Marriage exists for raising children, and only the well to do have the resources to immediately reproduce on physical maturity.