Mississippi Passes "More Dead Kids Please" bill. Texas responds w/ "hold my beer"

[Emily Lake]

Mostly because fundies bully them too much.

What are you basing this assumption on? Have you interacted with any detransitioners? Have you read their stories or bothered to find out anything about it at all?

FFS, at least look into the Keira Bell suit.

 

[Emily Lake]

Admitted lack of knowledge is not a convincing basis for a position in my view.

Well, no. I’m aware that many European countries have now reversed their position on “gender affirming” mutilation of minors. That’s because the evidence of long-term benefit is lacking. In short, this is all experimental and these children used as guinea pigs.

Applying that reasoning, no improvements in treatment care would ever be adopted.

You assume that a child with atypical gender behavior needs “treatment”; why? Perhaps if adults quit lying to them their “dysphoria” will go away.

Best to just beat it out of them or send them to Marcus Bachmann's "clinic" for "treatment". Got news for you. They don't "grow out of it".

Well, actually, if left untreated, something over 80% of children with dysphoria DO grow out of it during puberty.

 

[Emily Lake]

Not to mention that NONE of it is experimental. Brought to you by the same people who fail to teach the history of India's Hijra, or any of the third gender communities whose members included eunuchs, or any of the societies who has eunuchs operate in any special caste roles, who documented things about those eunuchs, including that history is littered with pogroms and eradication of eunuchs.

We have what is the most expansive and well documented medical condition on earth, one documented with human subjects as much as animal subjects going back to the dawn of recorded histories.

It may have been the first surgical procedure ever developed.

It is not experimental.

It is well researched.

It actually increases longevity, not that people seem so interested in it for that.

Blockers make the surgery unnecessary for those who want it's effects for now, until they can be really sure they want to not have testicles.

I am primarily interested in the rights of those who do not want testicles.

People who want testicles do not concern me. There are rights they specifically do not deserve, and those rights are the rights to enter places designated for the common disrobing and ablution of people who may become pregnant from sperms primarily, and for those who have no testicles and ejaculate no sperms.

If such people want to claim threat from those affected by the hormone family of "testosterones", as well, that's also fine by me, I can't argue against that. Studies have shown that trans prison populations are way below trans persons among the public.

Really, the discussion is about eunuchs, and what rights they have, and whether having testicles ought abridge someone's rights.

Oleg argues for the right to call everyone born with testicles "men" and everyone born without testicles and with ovaries "women" (never mind the ones born with both or neither), and to never allow divergence from that.

It means that in teenage years, I think the most appropriate path is blockers for at least six months before a social transition is advised, or to have already been socially self-selected prior to puberty, and blockers through the age of 18 should be seen as sufficient for space access after some initial period, and hormone access after the age of 10 or a period of postponed puberty for at least 3 years after onset (given an acceptable medical definition of onset of puberty), whichever occurs later in life.

The problem I see with this is the psychological zeitgeist that will drive panic against such. Many mothers and at least some fathers want every child to give them grandchildren. Many cultural elements have been laid down over the aeons to ensure it happens, often 'by any means necessary'.

The very existence of eunuchs seems threatening to that will. The right to become one instills the fear that one of their children will be struck by this "disease".

Never mind that all the eunuchs I know are white collar college graduates.

Most eunuchs seek to be "women" socially, and also seek to be effected by estrogen and progesterone. It is only recently that this has become available.

I see no reason to deny them this right, especially seeing as we need to reduce the global population anyway.

Honestly, your use of an INVOLUNTARY mutilation which was used to EXCLUDE some men from society as a "good thing" is very, very strange.

 

[TomC]

Do you have a relevant point or are you just taking a piss?

I see a very relevant point.

If you already know the answer you want, one that supports your agenda, an excellent way to get it is to carefully select your survey participants.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

Not to mention that NONE of it is experimental. Brought to you by the same people who fail to teach the history of India's Hijra, or any of the third gender communities whose members included eunuchs, or any of the societies who has eunuchs operate in any special caste roles, who documented things about those eunuchs, including that history is littered with pogroms and eradication of eunuchs.

We have what is the most expansive and well documented medical condition on earth, one documented with human subjects as much as animal subjects going back to the dawn of recorded histories.

It may have been the first surgical procedure ever developed.

It is not experimental.

It is well researched.

It actually increases longevity, not that people seem so interested in it for that.

Blockers make the surgery unnecessary for those who want it's effects for now, until they can be really sure they want to not have testicles.

I am primarily interested in the rights of those who do not want testicles.

People who want testicles do not concern me. There are rights they specifically do not deserve, and those rights are the rights to enter places designated for the common disrobing and ablution of people who may become pregnant from sperms primarily, and for those who have no testicles and ejaculate no sperms.

If such people want to claim threat from those affected by the hormone family of "testosterones", as well, that's also fine by me, I can't argue against that. Studies have shown that trans prison populations are way below trans persons among the public.

Really, the discussion is about eunuchs, and what rights they have, and whether having testicles ought abridge someone's rights.

Oleg argues for the right to call everyone born with testicles "men" and everyone born without testicles and with ovaries "women" (never mind the ones born with both or neither), and to never allow divergence from that.

It means that in teenage years, I think the most appropriate path is blockers for at least six months before a social transition is advised, or to have already been socially self-selected prior to puberty, and blockers through the age of 18 should be seen as sufficient for space access after some initial period, and hormone access after the age of 10 or a period of postponed puberty for at least 3 years after onset (given an acceptable medical definition of onset of puberty), whichever occurs later in life.

The problem I see with this is the psychological zeitgeist that will drive panic against such. Many mothers and at least some fathers want every child to give them grandchildren. Many cultural elements have been laid down over the aeons to ensure it happens, often 'by any means necessary'.

The very existence of eunuchs seems threatening to that will. The right to become one instills the fear that one of their children will be struck by this "disease".

Never mind that all the eunuchs I know are white collar college graduates.

Most eunuchs seek to be "women" socially, and also seek to be effected by estrogen and progesterone. It is only recently that this has become available.

I see no reason to deny them this right, especially seeing as we need to reduce the global population anyway.

Honestly, your use of an INVOLUNTARY mutilation which was used to EXCLUDE some men from society as a "good thing" is very, very strange.

Have you never even fucking read a Bible? There's a verse that specifically discussed the existence of people who made themselves eunuchs on purpose.

There is in India RIGHT NOW a community of folks, many of which who did that.

You are talking to someone who has always wanted that.

You are ignoring the vast number of people in China who actually removed the penis, in addition to their testicles, to become eunuchs on purpose, knowing what they were doing.

And here you are espousing a view which clearly constructs eunuchs as broken and excluded!

Eunuchs are only "excluded" when people like you make the decision to "exclude" them!

Some people had it done to them involuntarily. Many did! But the fact that you can't look beyond that to see all the folks who wanted it, that's the problem here.

It's much like sex... Give it to someone who doesn't want it and it's really bad. Give it to someone who very much wants it to happen at that time, in that way, and it's fucking magic.

And at any rate, you cannot call such "experimental". It's the oldest surgical procedure in existence

 

[ZiprHead]

I'm substituting my direct experience with a doctor who knew fuck-all about my niece and still prescribed her testosterone after having spent 30 minutes with her.

Were you in the room with the niece and the physician? Your niece may have been much more honest with the doctor than she was with you. She may have been fully aware of your anti-trans views so she hid her feelings from you.

I don't have an anti-trans view, ZiprHead.

Apparently she hid her "true and honest feelings" from her mother and from her transgender sibling for her entire fucking life, as well as from everyone else in our family... But this "specialist" was able to "confirm" that all of her problems are because she's trans within a whopping 30 minutes.

Seriously, you don't know me, you don't know my family, and you sure as fuck don't know my niece - where do you get off dropping such insulting rhetoric as if you're somehow the expert on this shit? What gives you any reason at all to make the insinuation that I don't know the niece I've been around my entire fucking life... but you, some nobody on the internet, you know better and I'm just a nasty transphobe?

Don't use the tragedy of my niece's situation as some sort of twisted pawn in a game you play on the internet.

You don't seem to be much of an expert on the situation too. You're the one that said psychologists hand out drugs. I wonder what else you got wrong about the situation and how is your niece's personal life is any of your business.

I believe I said that "gender specialists" hand out drugs. You've assumed those "gender specialists" are psychologists.

No, you said this:

The problem is that the doctors prescribing the medical interventions are psychologists and "gender specialists", they aren't medical doctors treating medical problems. They are prescribing pharmaceutical and surgical intervention as treatment for a mental health state. And they are doing so for minors.

 

[Emily Lake]

Those are called "organisms". Every population of self replicators "feels obligated" to reproduce, or there would be no population. Certain pressures can create overriding obligations that include individuals not reproducing, but there is no getting rid of the almost universal feeling of obligation to reproduce.

Indeed. Even if our higher brain function doesn't want kids, our core existence has evolved to want them. In humans, this manifests as a desire to have sex. Sexual arousal is the manifestation of our body's feeling of obligation to reproduce.

 

[Emily Lake]

Anybody else out there feel that the term breeder is somewhat offensive?

EXTREMELY

 

[Emily Lake]

Whatever you want to call the mindset, I guess my point is that some people are going to resent those who are free from such feelings of obligation, and who can't be held to it.

What group of people are you imagining here? I mean, seriously, this comes across as if you somehow feel that you're better or more evolved because you don't want offspring. It reeks of elitism and condescension.

And it's misplaced elitism at that. Because with an extreme few exceptions, even those who do not want children still want sex. That desire for sex, the feeling of arousal... that is the evolutionary manifestation of the biological urge to reproduce. Even those of us whose elaborate frontal cortex has decided that children is a burden we don't want to have *still* have the urge to go through the motions of reproduction.

Because we're mammals. We're animals. We're subject to the same evolutionary pressures that all other animals experience.

 

[Emily Lake]

I sometimes get really angry with my spouse--for good reasons, for bad reasons, and occasionally for no real reason. But insulting him? I don't understand people who do that. It's not about avoiding being offensive. It's about basic respect.

Not everyone does what they do for the reasons you would do it if you did.
Tom

True. I just never embraced the whole insult as endearment trope.

Nor I. For all the arguments we've had over the years of marriage... name calling in anger has always been off the table.

 

[TomC]

I sometimes get really angry with my spouse--for good reasons, for bad reasons, and occasionally for no real reason. But insulting him? I don't understand people who do that. It's not about avoiding being offensive. It's about basic respect.

Not everyone does what they do for the reasons you would do it if you did.
Tom

True. I just never embraced the whole insult as endearment trope.

Nor I. For all the arguments we've had over the years of marriage... name calling in anger has always been off the table.

I cannot imagine why anyone would think my use of the term "breeder" in that context was an endearment. It wasn't.
Tom

 

[Emily Lake]

The term itself is in many ways a mirror of the resentment of the obligation.

It really is a hard thing to understand until you've seen how certain people seem to turn on those who don't want kids.

It's like...

You know how a lot of guys just don't understand how aggressive and threatening catcalling is, having never done it, having never experienced it firsthand, perhaps only seeing it secondhand? You know how frustrated it makes you when someone says "it doesn't seem so bad"?

Imagine this is such a behavior but experienced by those who do not have nor want children. I'm talking all kinds of aggressive, pushy behavior blossoms from that discussion from all sorts of unexpected sources.

Instead of physical, the threat for us is social. The idea that people who are not going to have children are somehow lesser, deserving derision can even generate glass ceilings.

Why does someone who is never going to have a family need job that can support a family, after all?

You know what? I think you need a dose of reality to wrap into your unique take on things.

The term "breeder" has a history of being used in a derogatory fashion toward women. And only women. It's a term that relegates women to the sole role of baby factory, and robs us of our core humanity.

And I challenge your claim of the aggressive pushy behavior targeting people who don't want kids. I don't have kids, I never particularly wanted kids. And I have NEVER experienced the sort of "social threat" that you describe. Seriously, the very worst I ever got was from my mother in law who ONCE said "Oh, that's a shame, I was really hoping for more grandkids".

On the other hand... I have absolutely experienced slow-downs in my career growth because I am female... and you never know, I *might* decide I want kids and then any investment in my growth would be wasted because all I would want is to be a mommy.

So you can take your made up from your imagination horrible social threat against people who don't want kids and shove it.

 

[Toni]

I sometimes get really angry with my spouse--for good reasons, for bad reasons, and occasionally for no real reason. But insulting him? I don't understand people who do that. It's not about avoiding being offensive. It's about basic respect.

Not everyone does what they do for the reasons you would do it if you did.
Tom

True. I just never embraced the whole insult as endearment trope.

Nor I. For all the arguments we've had over the years of marriage... name calling in anger has always been off the table.

I cannot imagine why anyone would think my use of the term "breeder" in that context was an endearment. It wasn't.
Tom

Definitely did not think it was. Or ever is.

 

[Emily Lake]

As I said, it's a troubling word, no doubt about it. It IS a slur to use it, and to use it casually the way some gay folks do is dirty and wrong.

I try my utmost to avoid it except when the specific dynamic of thought is being discussed and avoid it's use in a general application.

Still, it's a word because terrible as it is people still commonly impute value and judgement to others on that basis, no matter how wrong it is to do so.

I'm just going to take a moment to point out that the term is a slur AGAINST people who have kids. It's the complete fucking opposite of the "social threat" you have envisioned as a result of not having kids.

It's a slur used by people who don't have kids, as a way to demean people who do. Your use of the term imputes a negative value and a negative judgment toward people who reproduce.

 

[TomC]

Definitely did not think it was. Or ever is.

My apologies.
I thought it was you who first used the word endearment, here in this thread.
Tom

 

[Emily Lake]

If you are going to put something in your butt: get everything really clean. Inside and out. Go ahead and go, hope in the shower, and then you're gonna be all over it anyway so, don't be afraid to scrub with your fingers. Soap can hurt, don't put soap directly on any hole that goes to the inside of you.

Put down a towel or two. Be practical, this can get messy, it's your ass after all.

Use lube. No, more lube than that. Now use a bit more. Yes, I know, its getting on the towel a bit that's why you have the towel. Worry about saving money on lube later, worry about injuring yourself, first.

Use an "appropriately shaped objects of appropriate materials": nothing with an acute or parallel base edge profile, absolutely nothing that will break, melt, splinter, or abrade.

Go slow. If things start to hurt or tense up, STOP, wait, and go slower. Rather than force past tension, relax. And by relax, 'relax as if you are about to take a shit'.

That's about it.

Given the fact that most people will put something in their ass at some point, even if they promptly discover they do not really have the organs to enjoy the feeling of it in those places, I think it's a valuable piece of education to have.

Oh, and don't use silicone lube with silicone penetrators.

The idea of a fully grown man using this sort of an approach to teach children how to pleasure themselves through their anuses is very, very cringey to me.

Fully grown adults should NOT be trying to TEACH KIDS how to get sexual pleasure. Fully grown adults should not be incorporating CHILDREN into adult sexual activity.

That is 100% an "ought" statement, and I will stick to it.

 

[laughing dog]

Do you have a relevant point or are you just taking a piss?

I see a very relevant point.

If you already know the answer you want, one that supports your agenda, an excellent way to get it is to carefully select your survey participants.
Tom

Do you have any evidence to support that conjecture about this poll or are you simply taking a piss?

 

[Jarhyn]

Whatever you want to call the mindset, I guess my point is that some people are going to resent those who are free from such feelings of obligation, and who can't be held to it.

What group of people are you imagining here? I mean, seriously, this comes across as if you somehow feel that you're better or more evolved because you don't want offspring. It reeks of elitism and condescension.

And it's misplaced elitism at that. Because with an extreme few exceptions, even those who do not want children still want sex. That desire for sex, the feeling of arousal... that is the evolutionary manifestation of the biological urge to reproduce. Even those of us whose elaborate frontal cortex has decided that children is a burden we don't want to have *still* have the urge to go through the motions of reproduction.

Because we're mammals. We're animals. We're subject to the same evolutionary pressures that all other animals experience.

No, more, I'm used to seeing elitism and condescension being leveled at the non-reproductive and neither side is more right than the other, but there is a clear bias among the reproductive to hold people to reproduction.

I don't know what else to tell you.

The funny part is that, I am not saying I don't want "sex" (to experience orgasms), nor that I fail to enjoy orgasms. Testosterone is not necessary for that.

But there Is in evidence a whole religious institution which has, for a very long time, maintained that to have orgasms and not reproduce is sinful, fundamentally inferior, and they are wrong.

It's clearly not the biological urge to reproduce, it is the biological urge to orgasm.

I know the difference because I absolutely wish to orgasm, and I am clearly fine without the biological ability to reproduce in that way. To create but not to reproduce. I'm more for new things.

 

[TomC]

Do you have a relevant point or are you just taking a piss?

I see a very relevant point.

If you already know the answer you want, one that supports your agenda, an excellent way to get it is to carefully select your survey participants.
Tom

Do you have any evidence to support that conjecture about this poll or are you simply taking a piss?

What conjecture?
I didn't make any conjecture about this report.

I made a broad assertion about such reports. It's easy to get results that match your agenda if that's what you want.
It might not even be a conscious choice. But it happens a lot.
Tom

 

[Emily Lake]

Knowing that people born without what is considered a "prostate gland"

1) There is no rational need for quotations around prostate gland. It's a real fucking thing. It's not euphemistic.
2) Those people born without prostate glands are almost universally called girls or women. There's not rational need to use 8 words that introduce additional complexity and confusion when ONE WORD works much better at actual effective communication.