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

[Jarhyn]

There is opposition to bills that stops the power of those minors to prevent a slew of irreversible change on their body until such a time as they are suitably able to make permanent decisions about how they are to irreversibly change.

Ah, the Left and its forever war with Nature.

Ah, the right and its forever war with intelligence.

If you belive that a person can change their sex, you are at war with Nature. You will not win.

What nonsense. There is a difference between gender and sex. And why are you babbling about a war with nature? The issue of transgender affects a very small portion of the world.

The position that transgender treatment for minors should be banned because there is the possibility of either malpractice with irreversible effects or regret on the part of the client is consistently applied to any medical treatment, there’d be no medicine at all - everyone loses due to that stupidity.

Nowhere did I say that there was anything other than hormones being changed, either way.

It is a proven fact, in fact trivially easy to provide proof for, that when people change their hormones, they feel, act, and function differently, and that is going to be what the vast majority of people pursue it for.

Oleg in this very chain of comments made the naturalistic fallacy, I support again of nature's God.

Except when it doesnt support their argument and then they stump in support of... A law that abhors nature and legalizes the mutilation of kids.

 

[Bomb#20]

...
Given the emotional response expressed when say, women must choose whether or not to undergo mastectomy and then whether or not to have 'reconstructive' surgery and the absolute venom with which such topics as circumcision are discussed and debated, it is not surprising that discussing gender reassignment surgery evokes so much emotion.

But does it really? This outrage on transgender is pretty new. And the word outrage is accurate. It makes me wonder where it was 10 years ago, or even 5 years ago. The alt-right weren't pro-transgender, but this rage, it feels so manufactured and fake.

What changed is self-ID. Back when getting recognized as the other sex meant bottom surgery, and bottom surgery meant psychiatry and medical diagnosis and follow-up and living as if you were the other sex for the previous year and so forth, the number of people jumping through all those hoops remained small. But once all you had to do to become the other sex was say you were, of course suddenly it got a lot more popular.

The trouble is, popularity is self-reinforcing. People who never would have decided on their own that they were the other sex picked up the idea from all the other people doing it and latched onto it; and teenagers are especially susceptible to monkey-see-monkey-do. Consequently, the number of girls deciding they're boys has gone way up. Some fraction of those are going to decide they want mastectomies; consequently, below-18 mastectomies are going up at 10% per year.

Well, that's newsworthy. The outrage is new because people hearing about it is new. If getting your sex reclassified were still as hard as it used to be, the numbers wouldn't now be a hundred times the child breast cancer rate. Nobody would be hearing about child mastectomies, so the outrage wouldn't be there.

 

[Bomb#20]

According to Google Trends, it was a minor issue in the US until the beginning of 2014, since when it's been an issue.

But don't call it a social contagen.

Aww, your revulsion tastes so sweet to you, doesn't it.

Project much?

 

[Bomb#20]

It's been a thing, but it is close to being a centralized discussion point of the alt-right / GOP. The alt-right and their media are obsessing over it. Naming names, putting targets on people.

People were against it, now they are raging over it. It wasn't a smooth transition.

But don't call it a social contagen.

It's not. It's organized hate to try to give people a reason to vote Republican.

Hey, can you guys remind me? What was that 4-letter word again that "trans-allies" use as a derogatory term for people who aren't on board with progressives' take on gender?

 

[Toni]

...
Given the emotional response expressed when say, women must choose whether or not to undergo mastectomy and then whether or not to have 'reconstructive' surgery and the absolute venom with which such topics as circumcision are discussed and debated, it is not surprising that discussing gender reassignment surgery evokes so much emotion.

But does it really? This outrage on transgender is pretty new. And the word outrage is accurate. It makes me wonder where it was 10 years ago, or even 5 years ago. The alt-right weren't pro-transgender, but this rage, it feels so manufactured and fake.

What changed is self-ID. Back when getting recognized as the other sex meant bottom surgery, and bottom surgery meant psychiatry and medical diagnosis and follow-up and living as if you were the other sex for the previous year and so forth, the number of people jumping through all those hoops remained small. But once all you had to do to become the other sex was say you were, of course suddenly it got a lot more popular.

The trouble is, popularity is self-reinforcing. People who never would have decided on their own that they were the other sex picked up the idea from all the other people doing it and latched onto it; and teenagers are especially susceptible to monkey-see-monkey-do. Consequently, the number of girls deciding they're boys has gone way up. Some fraction of those are going to decide they want mastectomies; consequently, below-18 mastectomies are going up at 10% per year.

Well, that's newsworthy. The outrage is new because people hearing about it is new. If getting your sex reclassified were still as hard as it used to be, the numbers wouldn't now be a hundred times the child breast cancer rate. Nobody would be hearing about child mastectomies, so the outrage wouldn't be there.

Trans-sexuals have always self-identified. I mean, I suppose some might, in therapy, reach the conclusion that this is what has been at the root of their problem(s) or one of them. Of course there area always those meanspirited persons who have ridiculed some for not being a 'real' man or a 'real' woman for exhibiting 'too many' of the traits of the other sex or for being 'insufficiently' masculine or feminine.

I also am guessing that having others make public disclosures or simply begin living their lives as their preferred gender does help others come forward: safety (hah!) in numbers. Or helps some put a name to what has been causing some feelings over time.

Yes, I and EmilyLake have expressed concern about how difficult it could be for women and girls to feel safe in women only spaces if a non/pre-surgical transwoman were encountered in spaces where they might all be undressed. EmilyLake has brought the concerns that there are those very sick and disturbed individuals who feign being transgender in order to have better access to their preferred victims. I have read enough links to know that this does actually happen but it seems to be rare. In cases of individuals being incarcerated and announcing that they are really a woman when it is time to be sentenced (or during trial) and who are suspected of lying about this seem to be incarcerated separately at least much of the time. In any case, someone who sexually abuses others should never be incarcerated in circumstances that give them access to their preferred victims.

Yes, we hear a lot more about trans people these days. Perhaps more people are being open about expressing this. Perhaps it is because the media has latched onto this and, as is so common these days, once one media outlet reports something, suddenly they all find other examples.

As for self-reinforcing: How is it that you think we developed hetero-sexual normatives in terms of behavior? Who decided that men could do math and women could not? Who decided that men were not as nurturing as women? Or that men should wear pants and women should wear skirts? And so on... For that matter, who decided that people should have their pubic hair yanked out by others--and pay money for that?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think it is more simplified than even that. When did one choose to be boy or a girl? When does one choose to like blondes or red heads? When does one prefer hairy guys over not hairy guys. Or tall verses short? When do heterosexuals choose to be heterosexual?

Our identity is generally our mental fingerprint. We have a ton of preferences in which we never selected from what we find pleasing for taste, looks, sounds, who we find attractive, what we find erotic or sensual.

I no more decided to be a male and heterosexual than any other straight male. The difficult for gays and transgender is their experience isn't as common. And some other people just can't handle or even accept that uncommon stuff is even possibly, forget being inevitable.

 

[ZiprHead]

According to Google Trends, it was a minor issue in the US until the beginning of 2014, since when it's been an issue.

But don't call it a social contagen.

Aww, your revulsion tastes so sweet to you, doesn't it.

Project much?

How? Examples?

 

[Jarhyn]

What changed is self-ID

No, it didn't, or more what we understood was that the game we were playing was arbitrary.

What changed was we realized that the thing being identified was more like being a "furry" than "being a 6' human".

One is more a declaration of affinity, which is what "man and woman" are, and the other is a statement of fact based on strict accounting of material.

If you want the world to move from the historical declarations of affinity, often foisted by people other than those who had (or didn't actually have) that affinity, then you have to dump man/woman from legal use. It's a useless distinction as there are no necessary or sufficient pillars for being either one.

The best you can say is that steroid use enables strong erections (if you are afraid of penises for their non-unique property of temporarily becoming stiff enough to insert into a bodily cavity), and it increases urges to assault people above the baseline.

But alcohol also does both those things for many. Do we need a separate bathroom for drunk people vs sober people in places that serve alcohol? I mean that's a WAY more likely scenario to be assaulted by a drunk person, sexually or otherwise.

EmilyLake has brought the concerns that there are those very sick and disturbed individuals who feign being transgender in order to have better access to their preferred victims

Loren has several times now indicated that this is like being afraid of, for instance shark attacks. It just does not happen, and someone manufacturing such concerns without evidence of it happening AT ALL, ANYWHERE, are actually FEARMONGERING, and if they can't provide trend analysis, that too is just FEARMONGERING.

When someone screams that a shark is there and people need to kill it, that person is silenced or shouted down or should be rather than leading a mob against a shark.

Those concerns are not just invalid from that perspective, her repetition of them in absence of any actual evidence actually indicates that she is propagating a lie, knowingly or not, for the sake of hyperbolic attacks against trans people.

It is no more justified than not trusting gay folks or blacks in positions importance for dear that they may be spies.

It is a story, and one developed to seem plausible until the evidence is observed and all the reasons the excuse was dumb come to light: a lie goes round the earth while the truth gets it's boots on.

Some after-the-fact Transition claims can be made to attempt prison transfers but I keep explaining that it's extremely simple to move that goalpost to a more appropriate place on the field: they will generally draw the line BEFORE removing their testicles.

 

[Toni]

What changed is self-ID

No, it didn't, or more what we understood was that the game we were playing was arbitrary.

What changed was we realized that the thing being identified was more like being a "furry" than "being a 6' human".

One is more a declaration of affinity, which is what "man and woman" are, and the other is a statement of fact based on strict accounting of material.

If you want the world to move from the historical declarations of affinity, often foisted by people other than those who had (or didn't actually have) that affinity, then you have to dump man/woman from legal use. It's a useless distinction as there are no necessary or sufficient pillars for being either one.

The best you can say is that steroid use enables strong erections (if you are afraid of penises for their non-unique property of temporarily becoming stiff enough to insert into a bodily cavity), and it increases urges to assault people above the baseline.

But alcohol also does both those things for many. Do we need a separate bathroom for drunk people vs sober people in places that serve alcohol? I mean that's a WAY more likely scenario to be assaulted by a drunk person, sexually or otherwise.

EmilyLake has brought the concerns that there are those very sick and disturbed individuals who feign being transgender in order to have better access to their preferred victims

Loren has several times now indicated that this is like being afraid of, for instance shark attacks. It just does not happen, and someone manufacturing such concerns without evidence of it happening AT ALL, ANYWHERE, are actually FEARMONGERING, and if they can't provide trend analysis, that too is just FEARMONGERING.

When someone screams that a shark is there and people need to kill it, that person is silenced or shouted down or should be rather than leading a mob against a shark.

Those concerns are not just invalid from that perspective, her repetition of them in absence of any actual evidence actually indicates that she is propagating a lie, knowingly or not, for the sake of hyperbolic attacks against trans people.

It is no more justified than not trusting gay folks or blacks in positions importance for dear that they may be spies.

It is a story, and one developed to seem plausible until the evidence is observed and all the reasons the excuse was dumb come to light: a lie goes round the earth while the truth gets it's boots on.

Some after-the-fact Transition claims can be made to attempt prison transfers but I keep explaining that it's extremely simple to move that goalpost to a more appropriate place on the field: they will generally draw the line BEFORE removing their testicles.

Well, it DOES happen because links to such stories have been provided. Is it rare? Exceedingly. But not unknown. Just as shark attacks are not unknown. One does take normal precautions against shark attacks. Beaches post warnings where needed and news reports where needed and there are life guards. And of course, in freshwater lakes in the midwest, there are no sharks. That doesn't mean that sharks should be attacked or that people should not swim in the ocean. It DOES mean that people should take precautions to avoid places where sharks are known to be and to stay out of water where there has been a known shark attack.

I DO think that it is reasonable to find ways to assure women and girls (ALL girls and women) that they are not going to be attacked by the person who may have a man's body but is totally safe and is of no threat to them. Because for women and girls, it is a NORMAL precaution to not dress/undress in front of a strange male and to be worried if they see a strange naked person with a male's body in a space where that is not supposed to happen. Fear is the NORMAL reaction, just as seeing a shark fin while swimming (anywhere) would be the NORMAL reaction. Even if a freshwater lake in the middle of the Midwest. I'm not for keeping trans women out of women's locker rooms. I'm FOR ensuring that everyone, including trans people are safe and not traumatized.

Note: I don't believe that trans people are any more likely to be a danger to anyone than any other person. I want EVERYBODY to feel and be safe and not to be further traumatized by perfectly normal behavior.

 

[Bomb#20]

But does it really? This outrage on transgender is pretty new. And the word outrage is accurate. It makes me wonder where it was 10 years ago, or even 5 years ago. The alt-right weren't pro-transgender, but this rage, it feels so manufactured and fake.

What changed is self-ID. ...

Trans-sexuals have always self-identified.

I guess I was unclear. What I meant changed is that it has recently become a widespread practice for other people to accept self-ID as sufficient to establish that someone is the other sex. The shorthand expression "self-ID" is in common use for that practice.

As for self-reinforcing: How is it that you think we developed hetero-sexual normatives in terms of behavior?

Yes, of course. I wasn't suggesting there was anything out of the ordinary about the way trans took off in popularity. Quite the reverse -- any number of social trends have followed a similar trajectory. That's precisely what makes this a more parsimonious explanation than conspiracy theories about nefarious opposition parties.

 

[Bomb#20]

But don't call it a social contagen.

Aww, your revulsion tastes so sweet to you, doesn't it.

Project much?

How? Examples?

Well, you certainly come off as taking pleasure in expressing your revulsion for Oleg.

 

[Oleg]

But don't call it a social contagen.

Aww, your revulsion tastes so sweet to you, doesn't it.

Project much?

How? Examples?

Well, you certainly come off as taking pleasure in expressing your revulsion for Oleg.

No, it's love and affection.

 

[Jarhyn]

But does it really? This outrage on transgender is pretty new. And the word outrage is accurate. It makes me wonder where it was 10 years ago, or even 5 years ago. The alt-right weren't pro-transgender, but this rage, it feels so manufactured and fake.

What changed is self-ID. ...

Trans-sexuals have always self-identified.

I guess I was unclear. What I meant changed is that it has recently become a widespread practice for other people to accept self-ID as sufficient to establish that someone is the other sex. The shorthand expression "self-ID" is in common use for that practice.

As for self-reinforcing: How is it that you think we developed hetero-sexual normatives in terms of behavior?

Yes, of course. I wasn't suggesting there was anything out of the ordinary about the way trans took off in popularity. Quite the reverse -- any number of social trends have followed a similar trajectory. That's precisely what makes this a more parsimonious explanation than conspiracy theories about nefarious opposition parties.

The problem here is you keep treating it like "sex" is EXACTLY what matters for the actual concerns of safety and good faith.

I've given strong arguments it is not, so self-ID is a red herring.

The two things people can actually self-modify are their hormones, and their ability to ejaculate sperms, and those are entirely self selected, not as in identity but as in, are a process of material modifications with actual verifiable reliability.

While I am sure that soon I could validate that I am "trans" by the definition I posted of "the class of all people who seek to modify their endocrine balance" (paraphrased) by dropping trow and showing off an orchiectomy scar, I would prefer having the right to a card that I am not obligated to show for any other reason than to shame KARENS that says as much, as befits the particular modification I am seeking.

Still, the funniest joke is that that card would never be seen because I prefer a urinal to the horror stories my husband who needs a sit-down toilet has told about sit-down toilets that they shared when they went to an all-girls Catholic school.

I know of very few significant groups of people who seek a body with no testicles, after having had them for some time: people who wish to be fucked by people with penises while injecting testosterone; people who wish to be fucked by people with penises while on estrogen; people who wish to be fucked by nobody at all, while being deprived of sexual climax by someone of either gender, though most often by "mother" figures in my observation; people who wish to be fucked by nobody at all but themselves*; people who wish to be fucked by nobody at all.

I suppose there may be some small, vanishing minority among them that wants to be castrated, have a penis, estrogen, and put it into a vagina, but I have never even actually heard of one. The recommended population for dating is probably self-declared bi-curious /straight/ women who are starting to hate most everyone with testicles, which is a way bigger pool then self-declared lesbians any day. It's pretty much the entire pool of women, both with penises and without.

The rule of thumb here is, If they harass you, have the bouncer chuck them for harassing. Period.

*This is me.

 

[ZiprHead]

But don't call it a social contagen.

Aww, your revulsion tastes so sweet to you, doesn't it.

Project much?

How? Examples?

Well, you certainly come off as taking pleasure in expressing your revulsion for Oleg.

Again, examples?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

According to Google Trends, it was a minor issue in the US until the beginning of 2014, since when it's been an issue.

But don't call it a social contagen.

It's not. It's organized hate to try to give people a reason to vote Republican.

If one political party supports mutliating children and the other opposes it; it's not hard how many would vote. Leave the children alone.

Neither party supports it.

What's supported is puberty blockers. Irreversible steps only once they're adults.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What changed is self-ID. Back when getting recognized as the other sex meant bottom surgery, and bottom surgery meant psychiatry and medical diagnosis and follow-up and living as if you were the other sex for the previous year and so forth, the number of people jumping through all those hoops remained small. But once all you had to do to become the other sex was say you were, of course suddenly it got a lot more popular.

Note that you are segmenting into two something which is not binary.

I think switching should only be done with a psychiatrist, but I don't believe surgery, let alone bottom surgery, should be required.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

At least we all seem to agree that mutilation procedures on minors is wrong. So why is there opposition here on bills meant to stop it?

The bills are about stopping all care, not merely surgery.

 

[Jarhyn]

According to Google Trends, it was a minor issue in the US until the beginning of 2014, since when it's been an issue.

But don't call it a social contagen.

It's not. It's organized hate to try to give people a reason to vote Republican.

If one political party supports mutliating children and the other opposes it; it's not hard how many would vote. Leave the children alone.

Neither party supports it.

What's supported is puberty blockers. Irreversible steps only once they're adults.

No, the ADF and the politicians of the GOP forwarding this agenda against trans people very much support it. They carved out a legal exemption in the law to permit genital mutilation of intersexed kids.

That's using a bill stated as being against something to explicitly legalize exactly that thing in the most disgusting way possible against defenseless victims.

That is what the first bill is.

The second bill is that, and also outlawing adults from desisting from hormones.

 

[ZiprHead]

A rash of proposed Florida laws use 'genocidal rhetoric' to attack trans people, legal experts say

New bills take aim at doctors providing trans health care and change custody law to classify providing gender-affirming care as abuse.

www.businessinsider.com

A series of new bills in Florida taking aim at health care providers offering gender-affirming care and parents who support their trans kids are part of a targeted attack against gender nonconforming people in the state, legal and mental health experts told Insider, with the aim to "erase them from public life entirely."

In addition to a proposed Florida House bill that would prohibit a person's sex from being changed on their birth certificate and make gender-affirming care for minors illegal, GOP legislators in the state of Florida also proposed bills this month that would:

• Allow the state to modify child custody agreements if a parent supports their trans child in transitioning and classify providing gender-affirming care as child abuse
• Makes it a misdemeanor for a trans person to enter a bathroom that does not align with their sex assigned at birth
• Expand the state's controversial "Don't Say Gay" bill to include charter schools and prohibit instruction on gender identity and sexuality through the 8th grade

"Florida Republicans are methodically pushing policies that encourage transgender people and their families to flee the state or erase them from public life," Carlos Guillermo Smith, a special project manager for Equality Florida and a former representative in the Florida House, told Insider. "It's government-imposed gender conformity, and if it isn't stopped, it will not end here."

Smith, the first openly LGBTQ Latino lawmaker in the state, said the anti-trans legislation in Florida has escalated quickly in recent years after a bill was introduced in 2021 that banned trans kids from participating in school sports, which lawmakers claimed was over concern about fairness.

"That has quickly escalated to now, where we have this frightening plan to criminalize and imprison parents who help their own children access gender-affirming care, which is to tell you that it was never about women's sports," Smith told Insider. "This is Republicans, empowered by Ron DeSantis, methodically pushing policies to push trans people out of the state of Florida or erase them from public life entirely."

Representatives for DeSantis told Insider the Governor would comment on the proposals "if and when" the bills pass through the state legislature and make it to his desk to be signed into law.

Whether the bills will pass remains unclear, however, both the Florida House and Senate are Republican-led and members have signaled these proposals are a legislative priority.

 

[Oleg]

At least we all seem to agree that mutilation procedures on minors is wrong. So why is there opposition here on bills meant to stop it?

The bills are about stopping all care, not merely surgery.

Giving chemical castration drugs to children premised on the lie that they can change their sex is surely mutilation.

Chemical Castration: Treatment, Procedure & Side Effects

Chemical castration refers to a medical treatment for some kinds of cancer. Chemical castration isn’t permanent.

my.clevelandclinic.org

Chemical castration, sometimes called medical castration, refers to the use of chemicals or drugs to stop sex hormone production. While many people know about this process as a way to stop sex offenders, medical castration is used as a treatment for tumors that feed on sex hormones.