Greg Abbott Declares War On Gender Nonconformity

[Metaphor]

So, you want to accuse gender nonconforming people of something but you won't tell anyone what you are accusing them OF...

Nobody will rid you of this meddlesome wizard.

No means no, Jarhyn. Learn about consent.

EDIT: Also, wrong on both counts. I haven't accused gender nonconforming people of anything in this case, nor did I say I wouldn't tell anyone. I'm just not telling you.

 

[Metaphor]

Well, you can make as much of a tantrum show as you wish over the fact that I am doggedly going to pester you about your vagaries until you clear them up. Whine, moan, complain, say that you don't like it all you want, but you consented to that by being a registered member here and participating in a thread, and you continue to consent to being so pressed in a thread where you pose loaded questions.

[removed]

You claim you won't tell me, but ZiprHead is the one who asked you to explain it:.

No.

 

[Jarhyn]

No.

I take it that you find gay men sleeping in the same cabin as year 5 girls to be inappropriate. Why?

It's not a hard question.

[removed]

You do realize that the longer you hold out on answering, especially if I am the one asking, the more petulant your replies shall seem, to the point where everyone sees you stamping your feet over being asked to define "inappropriate" on the basis of WHY it is "inappropriate"

 

[Metaphor]

It's not a hard question.

[removed]

You do realize that the longer you hold out on answering, especially if I am the one asking, the more petulant your replies shall seem, to the point where everyone sees you stamping your feet over being asked to define "inappropriate" on the basis of WHY it is "inappropriate"

No.

 

[Bomb#20]

I haven't proposed any [moral rule]

So you admit to using a vagary to load your question! That it is undefined and appeal to emotion?

All moral arguments are appeals to emotion. "Reason Is and Ought Only to Be the Slave of the Passions."

Moral judgement requires moral rules laid bare, especially in the face of vagary.

That's ridiculous. Laying moral rules bare is a modern phenomenon. Our lineage has been making moral judgments since before we came down from the trees.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's not a hard question.

Nobody will rid you of this meddlesome wizard.

You do realize that the longer you hold out on answering, especially if I am the one asking, the more petulant your replies shall seem, to the point where everyone sees you stamping your feet over being asked to define "inappropriate" on the basis of WHY it is "inappropriate"

No.

Well, you could put me on ignore..

All moral arguments are appeals to emotion.

No, they are not. You can claim this but you will have to back it up.

That's ridiculous. Laying moral rules bare is a modern phenomenon. Our lineage has been making moral judgments since before we came down from the trees

No, this is actually a forum where we defend our positions with reasons, and build our ethics on philosophy rather than hand waving.

You can TRY to abandon principles, but you will get ZERO respect from any human who is not a solipsistic asshole.

There's either something that makes it inappropriate rather than an invalid Appeal to emotions... Or you are participating in a witch hunt

 

[ZiprHead]

Then you are not here to discuss what you claim you are here to discuss.

You have explained many times that you did not understand something in my posts.

I am not here even claiming that much. I am claiming that you are trying to use a vague term, in base rhetoric. And you are.

We all know full well "inappropriate" carries with it a moral judgement. What you have not done is put forward the moral rule that you think ought render that judgement behind the question.

I have explained, more than once, that I will discuss with ZiprHead whether he thinks the incident is appropriate or inappropriate and why. Whilst I think the incident is inappropriate, I will not explain to you my reasons for that judgment, because my discussion with ZiprHead is with him and not you.

How can ZiprHead be expected to blindly accept your moral rule?

I haven't proposed any, so there is nothing for him to accept or reject. I am asking him whether he thinks it is appropriate or inappropriate.

There must be reasons, in a ratoonalist's worldview, for a moral rule to exist; else it is merely religion and sin hiding in yet another shitty vagary.

My conversation is not with you but with ZiprHead, should he choose to answer my question. So far he has decided not to, for reasons I can speculate about but cannot be entirely sure of.

One thing I am sure of is that my question was not directed at you and your answer to the question is of no interest to me, except perhaps to further confirm my assessment of your moral reasoning.

Okay, let me say this. I can't answer the question without knowing what you mean by appropriate.

Really? Don't you have your own understanding of the word 'appropriate' from which to draw? You must have had some idea of what you meant when you said the situation was 'as appropriate' as another situation that you named.

But, I can provide a definition of inappropriate which I already provided earlier.

inappropriate
/ɪnəˈprəʊprɪət/
adjective
not suitable or proper in the circumstances.

And a definition of appropriate:

appropriate
/əˈprəʊprɪət/
adjective
suitable or proper in the circumstances.

I take it that you find gay men sleeping in the same cabin as year 5 girls to be inappropriate. Why?

I already said I found the more general situation inappropriate (adult males), so it follows that I would also find particular instances of it (gay adult males) inappropriate.

Now, do you find it inappropriate? Why or why not?

(By the way, you can answer the first question without providing your reasoning, if for some reason you are 'testing' me and want me to provide my reasons first, which I will do if you answer the first question and promise to give me your own reasoning as well).

I would assume the counselors have their own sleeping quarters seperate from the childrens sleeping quarters, the same as a single parent father allowing his daughter and her friends to have slumber parties. Would you find that inappropriate?

 

[Jarhyn]

Then you are not here to discuss what you claim you are here to discuss.

You have explained many times that you did not understand something in my posts.

I am not here even claiming that much. I am claiming that you are trying to use a vague term, in base rhetoric. And you are.

We all know full well "inappropriate" carries with it a moral judgement. What you have not done is put forward the moral rule that you think ought render that judgement behind the question.

I have explained, more than once, that I will discuss with ZiprHead whether he thinks the incident is appropriate or inappropriate and why. Whilst I think the incident is inappropriate, I will not explain to you my reasons for that judgment, because my discussion with ZiprHead is with him and not you.

How can ZiprHead be expected to blindly accept your moral rule?

I haven't proposed any, so there is nothing for him to accept or reject. I am asking him whether he thinks it is appropriate or inappropriate.

There must be reasons, in a ratoonalist's worldview, for a moral rule to exist; else it is merely religion and sin hiding in yet another shitty vagary.

My conversation is not with you but with ZiprHead, should he choose to answer my question. So far he has decided not to, for reasons I can speculate about but cannot be entirely sure of.

One thing I am sure of is that my question was not directed at you and your answer to the question is of no interest to me, except perhaps to further confirm my assessment of your moral reasoning.

Okay, let me say this. I can't answer the question without knowing what you mean by appropriate.

Really? Don't you have your own understanding of the word 'appropriate' from which to draw? You must have had some idea of what you meant when you said the situation was 'as appropriate' as another situation that you named.

But, I can provide a definition of inappropriate which I already provided earlier.

inappropriate
/ɪnəˈprəʊprɪət/
adjective
not suitable or proper in the circumstances.

And a definition of appropriate:

appropriate
/əˈprəʊprɪət/
adjective
suitable or proper in the circumstances.

I take it that you find gay men sleeping in the same cabin as year 5 girls to be inappropriate. Why?

I already said I found the more general situation inappropriate (adult males), so it follows that I would also find particular instances of it (gay adult males) inappropriate.

Now, do you find it inappropriate? Why or why not?

(By the way, you can answer the first question without providing your reasoning, if for some reason you are 'testing' me and want me to provide my reasons first, which I will do if you answer the first question and promise to give me your own reasoning as well).

I would assume the counselors have their own sleeping quarters seperate from the childrens sleeping quarters, the same as a single parent father allowing his daughter and her friends to have slumber parties. Would you find that inappropriate?

You know, I can't quite recall where councilors slept when I went to camp. I know there was a cabin for them but I could swear they also had a bed for the councilor in each cabin?

Either way, I think it's pretty clear this is the same "witch hunt" as was borne against gay camp councilors in the 90's and 80's, just badly re-skinned and pointed at trans people instead.

 

[TomC]

It's like saying "it's not illegal to be gay, it's just illegal to have gay sex!"

It is illegal to have gay sex. Very illegal.

If one of the parties is prepubescent.

I don't entirely share Metaphor's outrage over the camp situation. But some army dudes bunking together is completely irrelevant because it doesn't involve kids.
Tom

So, no gay camp councilors then?

The same logic was used against gay camp councilors.

This has nothing to do with my post. It's a strawman.
I presume because @ZiprHead bringing up army dudes is also irrelevant to the topic.
None of this has anything to do with trans issues.

Now, imagining some reality where I get roped into that fresh hell for a summer, if I had an angry man bust in on my cabin for being a camp councilor of a cabin full of boys, I don't expect that he would have a great time of it.

Because you'll light up your staff and pelt him with flaming pinecones?*

Tom

*That's a The Hobbit reference, for the fantasy impaired.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's like saying "it's not illegal to be gay, it's just illegal to have gay sex!"

It is illegal to have gay sex. Very illegal.

If one of the parties is prepubescent.

I don't entirely share Metaphor's outrage over the camp situation. But some army dudes bunking together is completely irrelevant because it doesn't involve kids.
Tom

So, no gay camp councilors then?

The same logic was used against gay camp councilors.

This has nothing to do with my post. It's a strawman.
I presume because @ZiprHead bringing up army dudes is also irrelevant to the topic.
None of this has anything to do with trans issues.

It does, absolutely, insofar as it comes down to distrust of "suspect populations" whose only action has been nonconformity, rather than failure of consent.

Now, imagining some reality where I get roped into that fresh hell for a summer, if I had an angry man bust in on my cabin for being a camp councilor of a cabin full of boys, I don't expect that he would have a great time of it.

Because you'll light up your staff and pelt him with flaming pinecones?*

Tom

*That's a The Hobbit reference, for the fantasy impaired.

Oh, no, rather I assume the scene would play out more like the bridge scene with the Balrog.

 

[TomC]

It does, absolutely, insofar as it comes down to distrust of "suspect populations" whose only action has been nonconformity, rather than failure of consent.

Which is not at all what my post was about.
My post was about the difference between adults and young people. Which I think far more relevant to the OP topic.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

It does, absolutely, insofar as it comes down to distrust of "suspect populations" whose only action has been nonconformity, rather than failure of consent.

Which is not at all what my post was about.
My post was about the difference between adults and young people. Which I think far more relevant to the OP topic.
Tom

What brings it back to the OP is that this is a thinly veiled "°°° are rapists, probably, can't trust °°° with •••", when °°° neither = nor -> nor ≈ "rapist".

Gay men wish to have gay sex, in general with gay adults that want to have gay sex with them.

They do not in general any more than any other adult on average, wish to have sex with ••• that do not want to have sex with them.

The implication that they would drove gay bans and DADT.

The implication that they would drove fears against gay people acting as camp councilors.

The same is now being done to TRANS people as if some gay people never came to understand that it is just as shitty to do it to trans people as gay people.

 

[Emily Lake]

Let's consider a hypothetical drug: "Coin"--Half the time the person who takes it drops dead on the spot, but if they survive their cancer will be cured. Would the FDA approve it? Certainly, although perhaps with an emergency authorization at first while they direct the company to see if they can identify risk factors.

With a 50% lethality rate, the FDA would not approve.

Puberty blockers are NOT FDA approved for treatment of dysphoria, and they haven't been clinically tested for that indication. In fact, neither estrogen nor testosterone are FDA approved for treatment of dysphoria.

They're not explicitly disallowed, but use is off-label and has not been tested for efficacy at all.

Lupron in particular has well-know negative side effects when being used for genuine medical issues. Why on earth would anyone think those negative side effects are "safe and reversible" when it's being used as off-label treatment for a psychological issue?

 

[Emily Lake]

Inappropriate because of perceived sexual interest.

Frequently yes. Because the perpetrators of voyeuristic crimes, as well as exhibitionist crimes, and indeed ALL sex crimes, are vastly overwhelmingly male... and their victims are vastly overwhelmingly female.

 

[ZiprHead]

Mental Health Outcomes in Transgender and Nonbinary Youths Receiving Gender-Affirming Care

This cohort study investigates whether gender-affirming care is associated with decreased depression, anxiety, and suicidality among transgender and nonbinary youths.

jamanetwork.com

Key Points
Question Is gender-affirming care for transgender and nonbinary (TNB) youths associated with changes in depression, anxiety, and suicidality?

Findings In this prospective cohort of 104 TNB youths aged 13 to 20 years, receipt of gender-affirming care, including puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones, was associated with 60% lower odds of moderate or severe depression and 73% lower odds of suicidality over a 12-month follow-up.

Meaning This study found that access to gender-affirming care was associated with mitigation of mental health disparities among TNB youths over 1 year; given this population's high rates of adverse mental health outcomes, these data suggest that access to pharmacological interventions may be associated with improved mental health among TNB youths over a short period.

Abstract in link.

 

[Emily Lake]

You are, right now, accusing all people you perceive as male as "rapist, probably".

You did agree with bilby though, that everyone would be a rapist in the right circumstances. So...

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm not going to address this. Your statement is chock full of straw men. You are arguing dishonestly.

What part of it was a strawman or was dishonest?

The children were separated by sex. The parents assumed that the adults housed with those children would also be separated by sex. Up until very, very recently, that was an assumption that would have always been true, as a basic element of child safeguarding.

The councilors who slept in the girl's cabin were male. The parents had not been informed, and were not happy about it.

 

[ZiprHead]

I'm not going to address this. Your statement is chock full of straw men. You are arguing dishonestly.

What part of it was a strawman or was dishonest?

The children were separated by sex. The parents assumed that the adults housed with those children would also be separated by sex. Up until very, very recently, that was an assumption that would have always been true, as a basic element of child safeguarding.

The councilors who slept in the girl's cabin were male. The parents had not been informed, and were not happy about it.

Not that I'm doubting you but the only report on this incident in this thread was the statement by EmptyG who is a known liar and panderer of far right wing talking points and bigotry.

Do you have another link to this story?

And I've already addressed what Metaphor's strawmen were.

 

[Emily Lake]

By the way @ZiprHead , I'm still interested in whether you find adult males sleeping in the same cabin as year 5 females appropriate.

I would say it's just as appropriate as a gay drill sergeant sleeping in the same barracks as the young recruits.

So, you think an adult male sleeping in the same cabin as year 5 girls is as appropriate as a male drill sergeant sleeping in the same cabin as adult males?

This is completely a straw man. You are leaving out pertinant details to make your case.

What pertinent details are left out of this? You very clearly opined that adult males sleeping in the same cabin as year 5 girls was as appropriate as an adult male drill sergeant sleeping in the same cabin as other adult males. I fail to see what is a straw man in that.

 

[Emily Lake]

At least Emily admitted that's her concern openly.

No Emily fucking did NOT say that.