- Joined
- Feb 11, 2024
- Messages
- 3,441
- Reaction score
- 1,527
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
So it was you that swung it
So it was you that swung itI voted for what I believe in by voting red Tory in preference to the Greens, who had little chance of beating the incumbent blue Tory. He's now gone and we've got a slightly less Tory Labour MP. Had I voted Green, the blue Tory might have held on, so I'm marginally better off.
Kids have become much more accepting and understanding of gays, trans, etc. It is likely that these athletes have the general support of their teammates and classmates. It's completely different than when I was in school.
It doesn’t make it worse.So since they already suffer mental illness you're fine with legislation that makes it worse because you care so much about them.
Yes, it is a fad, and yes you support the fad.That's your framing. Nobody wants to see men competing against women in sports, and it rarely happens anyway. You guys see trans-hulk athletes everywhere you look, or you think you do. We see a tiny number of kids who deserve the same rights and opportunities as all the other kids, and that includes participating in HS sports if they so choose.
As for kids getting treatment, Dems think that parents and doctors should be making those decisions, while you think that the government should make those decisions. Your "age of consent" argument is crap, though. Does that also apply to cochlear implants? Glasses? Vaccinations? Or does it just apply to those procedures that you, with your zero expertise, consider icky?
Like most conservative positions on wedge issues, ignorance is the basis of your beliefs. You are ignorant of the tiny number of trans athletes, you are ignorant of their tiny effects on HS sports (both negative and positive), and you are ignorant of what is in the minds and the pants of kids who may very well benefit from treatment, not all of which is surgical.
There is a significant number of kids who don't fall into the two rigid traditional gender categories. There always has been. And nobody is more aware of it than the kids themselves. It's their issue to deal with, not yours, and not the government's. Your position is far closer to that of some countries we consider backwards, where homosexuality is still illegal and women are routinely mutilated.
Finally, you have defined "far left" by wedge issues created by your Republican politicians, and not by "far left" policy issues, like universal healthcare and support for organized labor. Congratulations, you have been duped for your vote.
It doesn’t make it worse.
Yes, it is a fad, and yes you support the fad.
Are you old enough to have supported the fad 10 or 15 years ago?
Which I refuted. It’s not possible to predict the future.I produced a link to a study that says it does.
Yes, it is a fad, and yes you support the fad.
Are you old enough to have supported the fad 10 or 15 years ago?
The transexual fad that did not exist 10, much less 15 years ago.What "fad" are you talking about?
The transexual fad that did not exist 10, much less 15 years ago.
Obviously.
I didn't say it didn't exist as something exceedingly rare. I said it had not been made into a fad.You need to read more. Here you go...
The Forgotten History of the World's First Trans Clinic
The Institute for Sexual Research in Berlin would be a century old if it hadn’t fallen victim to Nazi ideologywww.scientificamerican.com
I didn't say it didn't exist as something exceedingly rare. I said it had not been made into a fad.
Once again -- were you even sentient 10 or 15 years ago, and if so, why are you not willing to acknowledge the vast difference between its occurrence and promotion then vs. now?
I do not believe that you had joined the bandwagon 15 years ago.15 years ago I had kids in school, and I found out how much progress had been made. Kids were far more accepting of others that were different. (Most people consider that a good thing.) Slow, steady progress, not a "fad." The only promotion of the subject was done by Republican politicians who were eager to create yet another wedge issue and pass some harmful laws that their idiot base ate right up. And they couldn't have done it without lies and gross exaggerations that you are so incredibly susceptible to believing.
I think my earlier statement - that your positions are driven by ignorance of the subjects at hand - has been pretty much proven by now.
I do not believe that you had joined the bandwagon 15 years ago.
"My" content? Are my posts here part of current political discourse? Well, there's the woman who claimed that Black people weren't going to pick cotton any more, and that this was why we need illegals, to be the new underclass to do shit jobs. But that wasn't a response to anything I said.I havent kept up with ur content lately.
I just mentioned one to Gimme: the idea that the country ought to allow illegals to be the new underclass to do the dirty jobs, because supposedly no citizens will do them. Which is stupid because the point of illegals is that companies can underpay them because they're not capable of bringing legal action.Describe some positions of these "far-left Dems."
I have yet to find a single leftist with the ability to admit that they were not proponents of this same radical trans ideology 10 years ago.
They only care about their ability to project their virtue to others who share their same brainwashed sociopathy.
Those who think men should be competing against women in sports and think that children much younger than the age of consent should have their genitals altered.
I think if Democrats want to win, they should embrace a moderate, third-way, Bill Clinton form of liberalism.
If they went to the right on immigration, transgenderism, and guns, they would gain a lot of support. I think someone like former Virginia Senator Jim Webb is the ideal Democrat; that being said, I don't think they need to completely abandon the entire Democratic platform like your post suggests—they can keep the liberal stance on most other issues like civil rights and abortion and still win.
like voting for an ineffectual candidate that allowed Don to become POTUS.
Thanks again.
What does that even mean? One single vote seldom swings an election. But votes, collectively, do make a statement.
Which I refuted. It’s not possible to predict the future.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?