Social Trans Vs Non-Trans: Lines Are Drawn In Washington

Edit: nevermind this is just going to piss off my more liberal fellow democrats and I’m in a good mood today
 
It's all a distraction. My god it's amazing how well it's working
 
Oh fuck, we're going to get serious in front of everyone? As you know, I'm very resistant to the conflation. I can empathize with the ridicule and stigma to a degree, I absolutely cannot in any way relate to the condition of 'transgenderism' itself. It's like: If you're gay, change nothing. If you're trans, change everything.

Gay? Allow people the freedom to act on their innate feelings and pursue affirming consensual sexual activity and relationships without repression or criminalization. Done. People with gender identity issues are significantly more complex as they also can (or tend) to include but aren't limited to psychiatry visits, crossdressing, new pronouns, puberty blockers, synthetic cross-gender sex hormones and life altering reassignment surgeries.

That said, it's mostly a matter of personal liberty and right to bodily integrity to me. If hormone therapy and gender reassignment surgery improve quality of life and psychosocial outcomes for them, then all the better. So basically pro-everything post-18 with the exception of unfettered access into exclusive female spaces. I think there should be a post-op compromise on that at minimum.

Minors are an entirely different minefield. I feel like they should be made to feel as comfortable as possible, but you have to draw a criminal line when it comes to pumping prepubescent children full of potent synthetic hormones (or worse), even if reaching a certain level of physical maturity comes at the cost of making transitioning more difficult later in life, which it definitely does.

To me it feels like this is pretty much dead on in all respects and lays out the most ethical, logically consistent stance.

You need to jump through some odd hoops on one side to argue that people shouldn't be not only permitted to live how they choose, but shown compassion and afforded dignity as human beings. And you need to jump through a whole lot of other odd hoops on the other side to argue that children can consent to having their genitalia surgically removed or that by self identifying a person who developed as a man can now compete fairly with women in women's sport.
 
To me it feels like this is pretty much dead on in all respects and lays out the most ethical, logically consistent stance.

@Gandhi
You need to jump through some odd hoops on one side to argue that people shouldn't be not only permitted to live how they choose, but shown compassion and afforded dignity as human beings. And you need to jump through a whole lot of other odd hoops on the other side to argue that children can consent to having their genitalia surgically removed or that by self identifying a person who developed as a man can now compete fairly with women in women's sport.

On another note: look at these gays, jeremy (lol). They're thriving.

I always (half) joke that monogamy and marriage is more of an affront to gay culture than it is to God, which translates into a desexualized, contained and controlled homosexual population that has been assimilated into hetero institutions (ICK). It's been pretty wildly successful though.

In 2016, the U.S. Treasury Department revealed that same-sex male couples have an average household income of $176,000 - roughly $63,000 more than opposite-sex couples - confirming that there is some truth to the age-old myth that gays, particularly white cisgender men, have disposable income. Same-sex married men with children have average earnings of $275,000, more than double that of heterosexual and same-sex female couples. The combined buying power (DPI) of the U.S. lesbian, gay, and bisexual adult population was estimated at $987 billion in a 2017 projection by Witeck Communications.

<{dayum}>
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,624
Messages
55,505,948
Members
174,800
Latest member
kechan123
Back
Top