On 2024-01-04 3:19 p.m., pothead wrote:
> On 2024-01-04, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2024-01-04, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
>>> RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>
>>>> On 2024-01-03, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Well d-uhhhh. The problem is I'm talking about parents, doctors, and kids
>>>>> trying to find a way to have them live without thoughts of suicide.
>>>>
>>>> "Sex change" mutilations aren't the answer. You can't change your sex no
>>>> matter how much your mutilate yourself. Your sex is coded in your DNA.
>>>
>>> Mutilation? With hormones? Under medical care?
>>
>> Yes, mutilation. When parts of a human body are hacked off in a delusional
>> attempt to change someone's sex – that's mutilation. Hormone blocking to
>> "delay" natural development for boys and girls. Anything that blocks natural
>> development is dangerous.
>>
>> "Under medical care," by a moron who will do just about anything for money.
>> Fortunately some of these quacks are starting to get sued. Those suing them
>> (who have regretted their irreversible mutilation surgery) say that the doctors
>> SHOULD have (at least) suggested counseling before the mutilation.
>>
>>> And in some cases the sex is ambiguous... as coded in their DNA.
>>
>> When you're talking about hermaphrodites, you'll find that doctors
>> traditionally tried to make the best decision they could when the child was
>> born. It turns out that wasn't always a good idea. Apparently they are now
>> advocating waiting until the child reaches puberty and allowing them to make
>> the choice.
>>
>> So we currently have this situation. For the hermaphrodite (small number who
>> really do have sexual "ambiguity") it is best to wait for puberty. For
>> children who are physically normal, the idiots are advocating puberty
>> blockers and hormone treatments BEFORE they even reach puberty.
>>
>> If this makes any sense at all to you, then you're not thinking very clearly.
>>
>
> <https://www.heritage.org/gender/commentary/does-gender-affirming-care-trans-kids-actually-prevent-
> suicide-heres-what-the>

The link doesn't work. You might have snipped the last part accidentally.

--
@RabidPedagog

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

>> Of course, no decent person could defend the current practices.
>
> There are a wide range of current practices.

There really isn't. Almost all claims are affirmed. Doctors and
counselors get fired if they don't affirm.

RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> Yes, mutilation. When parts of a human body are hacked off in a delusional
> attempt to change someone's sex – that's mutilation. Hormone blocking to
> "delay" natural development for boys and girls. Anything that blocks natural
> development is dangerous.
>
> "Under medical care," by a moron who will do just about anything for money.
> Fortunately some of these quacks are starting to get sued. Those suing them
> (who have regretted their irreversible mutilation surgery) say that the doctors
> SHOULD have (at least) suggested counseling before the mutilation.

Mutilation? You mean like plastic surgery, breast implants, Himplants
<laughing>, and <cough cough> circumcision?

>
>> And in some cases the sex is ambiguous... as coded in their DNA.

> If this makes any sense at all to you, then you're not thinking very clearly.

Oh, how I wish I had your "certitude".

--
Q: What does it say on the bottom of Coke cans in North Dakota?
A: Open other end.

chrisv wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>>Uh, you do realize that everything about a person is determined by physical
>>or biochemical factors?
>
> You mean like overies and testicles, which in turn produce hormones
> which shape our bodies? Yes, I know about them.
>
>>Ever heard of brain MRI's?
>
> Sure, and differences in the brain explain why, for example, some
> males are effiminate and may prefer sex with other males.
>
> That doesn't make them women. Words have meaning.
>
>>Stop trying to pin things on "mental illness".
>
> I'm not pinning everything on mental illness, but it's big part of it.
> If someone is convinced they that they are something that they are
> not, so much so that they mutilate themselves via drugs or knives,
> that's a mental illness.

WTF?

> Will you watch this documentary? It's well worth the time.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVEZ7gELcgY&list=PLlzZcJ_wPqcUTVOyMitdezb95YqCi2ZZZ

Nah. If there's no transcript, I'm not taking the time. Convince me its worth
time time.

--
For courage mounteth with occasion.
-- William Shakespeare, "King John"

On 2024-01-04 6:55 p.m., Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> Yes, mutilation. When parts of a human body are hacked off in a delusional
>> attempt to change someone's sex – that's mutilation. Hormone blocking to
>> "delay" natural development for boys and girls. Anything that blocks natural
>> development is dangerous.
>>
>> "Under medical care," by a moron who will do just about anything for money.
>> Fortunately some of these quacks are starting to get sued. Those suing them
>> (who have regretted their irreversible mutilation surgery) say that the doctors
>> SHOULD have (at least) suggested counseling before the mutilation.
>
> Mutilation? You mean like plastic surgery, breast implants, Himplants
> <laughing>, and <cough cough> circumcision?

No, he needs full-blown removal of the penis or breasts. Now you're just
acting stupid.

--
@RabidPedagog

RabidPedagog <rabid@pedag.og> wrote:

>full-blown removal of the penis or breasts

A vaginoplasty actually keeps the penile tissue and it can be sexually
stimulated internally, although I have to say that, if a man who is
into trans women would require her to have had this surgery, it would
seem untoward, to me. If they don't like girl cock, maybe stick to
cis women, since they apparently think so superficially about trans
ones' bodies.

As for a trans man's breasts being removed, I am fairly sure they
replace the skin and nipples.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2024-01-04, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
> RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> Yes, mutilation. When parts of a human body are hacked off in a delusional
>> attempt to change someone's sex – that's mutilation. Hormone blocking to
>> "delay" natural development for boys and girls. Anything that blocks natural
>> development is dangerous.
>>
>> "Under medical care," by a moron who will do just about anything for money.
>> Fortunately some of these quacks are starting to get sued. Those suing them
>> (who have regretted their irreversible mutilation surgery) say that the doctors
>> SHOULD have (at least) suggested counseling before the mutilation.
>
> Mutilation? You mean like plastic surgery, breast implants, Himplants
><laughing>, and <cough cough> circumcision?

You're right about these. I think these are also stupid ways to mutilate
your body. I can see corrective plastic surgery for those disfigured in an
accident or fire, but "elective" plastic surgery is pure stupidity. When it
goes wrong it is irreversible as well. (I have no idea what "himplants"
are, BTW.) Nor am I in favor of circumcision. It was an Old Testament
religious ritual that they tried to morph into "science" (so-called).

>>> And in some cases the sex is ambiguous... as coded in their DNA.
>
>> If this makes any sense at all to you, then you're not thinking very clearly.
>
> Oh, how I wish I had your "certitude".

It should be an integral part of your Catholic Faith.

--
"Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant, then it tries to silence good."
-- Archbishop Charles J. Chaput

On 2024-01-05, RabidPedagog <rabid@pedag.og> wrote:
> On 2024-01-04 6:55 p.m., Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> Yes, mutilation. When parts of a human body are hacked off in a delusional
>>> attempt to change someone's sex – that's mutilation. Hormone blocking to
>>> "delay" natural development for boys and girls. Anything that blocks natural
>>> development is dangerous.
>>>
>>> "Under medical care," by a moron who will do just about anything for money.
>>> Fortunately some of these quacks are starting to get sued. Those suing them
>>> (who have regretted their irreversible mutilation surgery) say that the doctors
>>> SHOULD have (at least) suggested counseling before the mutilation.
>>
>> Mutilation? You mean like plastic surgery, breast implants, Himplants
>> <laughing>, and <cough cough> circumcision?
>
> No, he needs full-blown removal of the penis or breasts. Now you're just
> acting stupid.

Yep. Here's a list of what these money-grubbing ghouls want to do to
children (and delusional adults) at a clinic in Cleveland...

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/procedures/gender-affirmation-surgery

Mutilation.

--
"Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant, then it tries to silence good."
-- Archbishop Charles J. Chaput

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

>> Will you watch this documentary? It's well worth the time.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVEZ7gELcgY&list=PLlzZcJ_wPqcUTVOyMitdezb95YqCi2ZZZ
>
>Nah. If there's no transcript, I'm not taking the time. Convince me its worth
>time time.

It's very disturbing. Either you truly care about the issue, and what
it does to children, or you don't.

RonB wrote:

>Here's a list of what these money-grubbing ghouls want to do to
>children (and delusional adults) at a clinic in Cleveland...
>
>https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/procedures/gender-affirmation-surgery

There's a ton of money to be made off of those poor confused kids.
They're patients for *life* one they make that turn.

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

>> I'm not pinning everything on mental illness, but it's big part of it.
>> If someone is convinced they that they are something that they are
>> not, so much so that they mutilate themselves via drugs or knives,
>> that's a mental illness.
>
> WTF?

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/procedures/gender-affirmation-surgery

On 2024-01-05 6:03 a.m., chrisv wrote:
> RonB wrote:
>
>> Here's a list of what these money-grubbing ghouls want to do to
>> children (and delusional adults) at a clinic in Cleveland...
>>
>> https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/procedures/gender-affirmation-surgery
>
> There's a ton of money to be made off of those poor confused kids.
> They're patients for *life* one they make that turn.

Western society is in favour of a greater number of transsexuals because
it strengthens the pharmaceutical companies, much like the fraudulent
"vaccine" for the fraudulent "virus" did. They don't care about people
and never did.

--
@RabidPedagog

On 2024-01-05, RabidPedagog <rabid@pedag.og> wrote:
> On 2024-01-05 6:03 a.m., chrisv wrote:
>> RonB wrote:
>>
>>> Here's a list of what these money-grubbing ghouls want to do to
>>> children (and delusional adults) at a clinic in Cleveland...
>>>
>>> https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/procedures/gender-affirmation-surgery
>>
>> There's a ton of money to be made off of those poor confused kids.
>> They're patients for *life* one they make that turn.
>
> Western society is in favour of a greater number of transsexuals because
> it strengthens the pharmaceutical companies, much like the fraudulent
> "vaccine" for the fraudulent "virus" did. They don't care about people
> and never did.

Worse than not caring, Bill Gates and his fellow slime in Big Pharma and the
WEF want to reduce the world's population from 8 billion to 1 to 2 billion
("peacefully, if possible"). Which is why the Gate's foundation's vaccines
sterilize. How many times did that slimeball, pervert Gates to Epstein's
Island? Is his name one of those released in the latest news? (Probably not,
Epstein was running blackmail/extortion operation. Gates was probably too
big to extort.)

--
The whole modern world is at war with reason; and the tower
already reels. — G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (1906)

On 2024-01-05 9:57 a.m., RonB wrote:
> On 2024-01-05, RabidPedagog <rabid@pedag.og> wrote:
>> On 2024-01-05 6:03 a.m., chrisv wrote:
>>> RonB wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here's a list of what these money-grubbing ghouls want to do to
>>>> children (and delusional adults) at a clinic in Cleveland...
>>>>
>>>> https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/procedures/gender-affirmation-surgery
>>>
>>> There's a ton of money to be made off of those poor confused kids.
>>> They're patients for *life* one they make that turn.
>>
>> Western society is in favour of a greater number of transsexuals because
>> it strengthens the pharmaceutical companies, much like the fraudulent
>> "vaccine" for the fraudulent "virus" did. They don't care about people
>> and never did.
>
> Worse than not caring, Bill Gates and his fellow slime in Big Pharma and the
> WEF want to reduce the world's population from 8 billion to 1 to 2 billion
> ("peacefully, if possible"). Which is why the Gate's foundation's vaccines
> sterilize. How many times did that slimeball, pervert Gates to Epstein's
> Island? Is his name one of those released in the latest news? (Probably not,
> Epstein was running blackmail/extortion operation. Gates was probably too
> big to extort.)

The only names they will release are those of untouchable people or
anyone on their death bed. The names of people like Bill Gates will be
redacted because law and order is selective in what is left of the
Western world.

--
@RabidPedagog

On Tue, 02 Jan 2024 14:11:02 -0600, chrisv wrote:

> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>
>>>>I would think that, as a Catholic, you would exhibit some of the spirit of Jesus
>>>>and his "Golden Rule" for these people.
>>>
>>> They are the ones attacking us. They are the ones who want to control
>>> us. They are the ones who want to indoctrinate our children into
>>> their sick cult. They are the ones who not only want to be accepted,
>>> but celebrated.
>>
>>Ah, the old "indoctrination" canard. Reminds me of the anti-drag hysteria
>
> What would you call telling little kids that what the doctor "guessed"
> they were, at birth, might not be correct? That girls can have
> penises and boys can have vaginas?

One really has two choices in the matter: to assume that a quirk of biology
defines what a person is, or to assume that a person's personality defines
what they are.

If you're one of the "penis equals man" types, you'll go for the former.
If you accept that gender is more complex than that, you'll go for the
latter.

So really it's all about whether you examine the issue at a trivial level
or a more nuanced level.

> How about when the radical leftist running the schools support "social
> transitions" at school but won't inform the parents?

How else would one support the student, particularly in the cases where the
parents would strenuously object to the student identifying as they prefer
to?

> What do the words boy and girl, mean, exactly? I know what they have
> always meant, and still do today.

Language lags. To many, if not most, "boy" means "young biological male".
As we're seeing, though, "boy" is more nuanced than that, such that just
because you have one particular set of genitalia, that doesn't mean it has
to match the personality, the inner idea of who and what you are, so that
"boy" should really mean "young person with typically masculine personality
traits" or some equivalent.

Again, it's really mostly an issue of do you see a penis and stop thinking,
or do you examine the issue in depth.

On 2024-01-05, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Jan 2024 14:11:02 -0600, chrisv wrote:
>
>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>I would think that, as a Catholic, you would exhibit some of the spirit of Jesus
>>>>>and his "Golden Rule" for these people.
>>>>
>>>> They are the ones attacking us. They are the ones who want to control
>>>> us. They are the ones who want to indoctrinate our children into
>>>> their sick cult. They are the ones who not only want to be accepted,
>>>> but celebrated.
>>>
>>>Ah, the old "indoctrination" canard. Reminds me of the anti-drag hysteria
>>
>> What would you call telling little kids that what the doctor "guessed"
>> they were, at birth, might not be correct? That girls can have
>> penises and boys can have vaginas?
>
> One really has two choices in the matter: to assume that a quirk of biology
> defines what a person is, or to assume that a person's personality defines
> what they are.
>
> If you're one of the "penis equals man" types, you'll go for the former.
> If you accept that gender is more complex than that, you'll go for the
> latter.
>
> So really it's all about whether you examine the issue at a trivial level
> or a more nuanced level.
>
>
>> How about when the radical leftist running the schools support "social
>> transitions" at school but won't inform the parents?
>
> How else would one support the student, particularly in the cases where the
> parents would strenuously object to the student identifying as they prefer
> to?
>
>
>> What do the words boy and girl, mean, exactly? I know what they have
>> always meant, and still do today.
>
> Language lags. To many, if not most, "boy" means "young biological male".
> As we're seeing, though, "boy" is more nuanced than that, such that just
> because you have one particular set of genitalia, that doesn't mean it has
> to match the personality, the inner idea of who and what you are, so that
> "boy" should really mean "young person with typically masculine personality
> traits" or some equivalent.
>
> Again, it's really mostly an issue of do you see a penis and stop thinking,
> or do you examine the issue in depth.

Have you ever considered the option of making the personality match the
reality instead of vice versa?

--
"Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant, then it tries to silence good."
-- Archbishop Charles J. Chaput

RonB wrote:

> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>>>
>>> How about when the radical leftist running the schools support "social
>>> transitions" at school but won't inform the parents?
>>
>> How else would one support the student, particularly in the cases where the
>> parents would strenuously object to the student identifying as they prefer
>> to?

Let's turn that around, and ask how would the parents support the
child if they are not aware that their child has been indcotrinated
into a cult? Only one side, the side that does *not* love the child,
gets to weigh-in on an issue of such profound importance?

>> Again, it's really mostly an issue of do you see a penis and stop thinking,
>> or do you examine the issue in depth.
>
>Have you ever considered the option of making the personality match the
>reality instead of vice versa?

Exactly. Going to war against the physical body is *not* going to be
the solution, in the vast majority of cased.

On Fri, 5 Jan 2024 20:51:39 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

> On 2024-01-05, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Jan 2024 14:11:02 -0600, chrisv wrote:
>>
>>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I would think that, as a Catholic, you would exhibit some of the spirit of Jesus
>>>>>>and his "Golden Rule" for these people.
>>>>>
>>>>> They are the ones attacking us. They are the ones who want to control
>>>>> us. They are the ones who want to indoctrinate our children into
>>>>> their sick cult. They are the ones who not only want to be accepted,
>>>>> but celebrated.
>>>>
>>>>Ah, the old "indoctrination" canard. Reminds me of the anti-drag hysteria
>>>
>>> What would you call telling little kids that what the doctor "guessed"
>>> they were, at birth, might not be correct? That girls can have
>>> penises and boys can have vaginas?
>>
>> One really has two choices in the matter: to assume that a quirk of biology
>> defines what a person is, or to assume that a person's personality defines
>> what they are.
>>
>> If you're one of the "penis equals man" types, you'll go for the former.
>> If you accept that gender is more complex than that, you'll go for the
>> latter.
>>
>> So really it's all about whether you examine the issue at a trivial level
>> or a more nuanced level.
>>
>>
>>> How about when the radical leftist running the schools support "social
>>> transitions" at school but won't inform the parents?
>>
>> How else would one support the student, particularly in the cases where the
>> parents would strenuously object to the student identifying as they prefer
>> to?
>>
>>
>>> What do the words boy and girl, mean, exactly? I know what they have
>>> always meant, and still do today.
>>
>> Language lags. To many, if not most, "boy" means "young biological male".
>> As we're seeing, though, "boy" is more nuanced than that, such that just
>> because you have one particular set of genitalia, that doesn't mean it has
>> to match the personality, the inner idea of who and what you are, so that
>> "boy" should really mean "young person with typically masculine personality
>> traits" or some equivalent.
>>
>> Again, it's really mostly an issue of do you see a penis and stop thinking,
>> or do you examine the issue in depth.
>
> Have you ever considered the option of making the personality match the
> reality instead of vice versa?

No, because the personality is who the person *is*. The other could be
regarded, in effect, as a birth defect - being born with the wrong
genitalia.

Why would one change who they are, fundamentally, to suit someone else's
notion that a dangling bit of flesh is what defines a person?

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

> (whack-job nonsense snipped)

Wow. 180 degrees from reality.

When you see an elephant, do you think that "deeper thoughts" are
required to know what it is?

No response to my post, I noticed. These leftists, these
collectivists, think that your children belong to the state. The
state will "support" their journey. The family is the enemy and must
be kept in the dark about what's going on.

On 2024-01-07 10:35 a.m., chrisv wrote:
> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>
>> (whack-job nonsense snipped)
>
> Wow. 180 degrees from reality.
>
> When you see an elephant, do you think that "deeper thoughts" are
> required to know what it is?
>
> No response to my post, I noticed. These leftists, these
> collectivists, think that your children belong to the state. The
> state will "support" their journey. The family is the enemy and must
> be kept in the dark about what's going on.

Speaking as someone who works for the state, I have yet to witness a
single child in my classrooms becoming better because responsibility for
their care was handed over to the state. These are the people who are
routinely handed a functioning economy and immediately turn over huge
deficits and debts like turning the $870 billion debt the United States
had in 1980 and turned it into $31 trillion. Additionally, we now know
that the state sees nothing wrong with handing foster children to
pedophiles <https://shorturl.at/lHIT7>. It seems to me that we'd be
better off in a monarchy considering how awful these people are at doing
anything at all.

--
@RabidPedagog

On 2024-01-05, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2024 20:51:39 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>
>> On 2024-01-05, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 02 Jan 2024 14:11:02 -0600, chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I would think that, as a Catholic, you would exhibit some of the spirit of Jesus
>>>>>>>and his "Golden Rule" for these people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They are the ones attacking us. They are the ones who want to control
>>>>>> us. They are the ones who want to indoctrinate our children into
>>>>>> their sick cult. They are the ones who not only want to be accepted,
>>>>>> but celebrated.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ah, the old "indoctrination" canard. Reminds me of the anti-drag hysteria
>>>>
>>>> What would you call telling little kids that what the doctor "guessed"
>>>> they were, at birth, might not be correct? That girls can have
>>>> penises and boys can have vaginas?
>>>
>>> One really has two choices in the matter: to assume that a quirk of biology
>>> defines what a person is, or to assume that a person's personality defines
>>> what they are.
>>>
>>> If you're one of the "penis equals man" types, you'll go for the former.
>>> If you accept that gender is more complex than that, you'll go for the
>>> latter.
>>>
>>> So really it's all about whether you examine the issue at a trivial level
>>> or a more nuanced level.
>>>
>>>
>>>> How about when the radical leftist running the schools support "social
>>>> transitions" at school but won't inform the parents?
>>>
>>> How else would one support the student, particularly in the cases where the
>>> parents would strenuously object to the student identifying as they prefer
>>> to?
>>>
>>>
>>>> What do the words boy and girl, mean, exactly? I know what they have
>>>> always meant, and still do today.
>>>
>>> Language lags. To many, if not most, "boy" means "young biological male".
>>> As we're seeing, though, "boy" is more nuanced than that, such that just
>>> because you have one particular set of genitalia, that doesn't mean it has
>>> to match the personality, the inner idea of who and what you are, so that
>>> "boy" should really mean "young person with typically masculine personality
>>> traits" or some equivalent.
>>>
>>> Again, it's really mostly an issue of do you see a penis and stop thinking,
>>> or do you examine the issue in depth.
>>
>> Have you ever considered the option of making the personality match the
>> reality instead of vice versa?
>
> No, because the personality is who the person *is*. The other could be
> regarded, in effect, as a birth defect - being born with the wrong
> genitalia.
>
> Why would one change who they are, fundamentally, to suit someone else's
> notion that a dangling bit of flesh is what defines a person?

Has it occurred to you that "personality" can be psychologically manipulated,
or peer pressured into existence? (As those who have regretted allowing
themselves to be irreversibly mutilated with a "sex change operation" can
attest to.) Doctors are being sued specifically for this reason. I expect
many more lawsuits in the near future.

And, no, "dangling bits of flesh" don't define a person, they define that
person's sex. Because the "dangling bits of flesh" are a result of specific
genetic patterns built into that person's DNA which can not be surgically
mutilated. This is what's called reality. So any mutilation to "simulate"
what you're not is a delusion.

If I started squawking and claiming to be a chicken, would you cut off my
arms and sew on something that *looked* a little like wings? (I probably
shouldn't joke about that, in today's insane world that's a possibility."

G. K. Chesterton had this to say about reason and the fact that it was
fading away even in 1906...

But a much stronger case than these two of truth and pity can be found in
the remarkable case of the dislocation of humility. ... It is impossible
without humility to enjoy anything — even pride.

What we suffer from to-day is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has
moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of
conviction; where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful
about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly
reversed. Nowadays the part of a man that a man does assert is exactly the
part he ought not to assert — himself. The part he doubts is exactly the
part he ought not to doubt — the Divine Reason. ...

At any street corner we may meet a man who utters the frantic and
blasphemous statement that he may be wrong. Every day one comes across
somebody who says that of course his view may not be the right one. Of
course his view must be the right one, or it is not his view. We are on
the road to producing a race of men too mentally modest to believe in the
multiplication table. ...

The last chapter has been concerned only with a fact of observation: that
what peril of morbidity there is for man comes rather from his reason than
his imagination. It was not meant to attack the authority of reason;
rather it is the ultimate purpose to defend it. For it needs defence. The
whole modern world is at war with reason; and the tower already reels.

--
The whole modern world is at war with reason; and the tower
already reels. — G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (1906)

chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>
>> (whack-job nonsense snipped)
>
>Wow. 180 degrees from reality.

Idiot.

>When you see an elephant, do you think that "deeper thoughts" are
>required to know what it is?

Irrelevant, idiot.

>No response to my post, I noticed. These leftists, these
>collectivists, think that your children belong to the state. The
>state will "support" their journey. The family is the enemy and must
>be kept in the dark about what's going on.

Phobe families *are* the enemy, you better believe it, and the public
schools have a *duty* to help trans kids, when their parents refuse.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 16:04:18 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

> On 2024-01-05, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 5 Jan 2024 20:51:39 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-01-05, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 02 Jan 2024 14:11:02 -0600, chrisv wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I would think that, as a Catholic, you would exhibit some of the spirit of Jesus
>>>>>>>>and his "Golden Rule" for these people.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They are the ones attacking us. They are the ones who want to control
>>>>>>> us. They are the ones who want to indoctrinate our children into
>>>>>>> their sick cult. They are the ones who not only want to be accepted,
>>>>>>> but celebrated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ah, the old "indoctrination" canard. Reminds me of the anti-drag hysteria
>>>>>
>>>>> What would you call telling little kids that what the doctor "guessed"
>>>>> they were, at birth, might not be correct? That girls can have
>>>>> penises and boys can have vaginas?
>>>>
>>>> One really has two choices in the matter: to assume that a quirk of biology
>>>> defines what a person is, or to assume that a person's personality defines
>>>> what they are.
>>>>
>>>> If you're one of the "penis equals man" types, you'll go for the former.
>>>> If you accept that gender is more complex than that, you'll go for the
>>>> latter.
>>>>
>>>> So really it's all about whether you examine the issue at a trivial level
>>>> or a more nuanced level.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> How about when the radical leftist running the schools support "social
>>>>> transitions" at school but won't inform the parents?
>>>>
>>>> How else would one support the student, particularly in the cases where the
>>>> parents would strenuously object to the student identifying as they prefer
>>>> to?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> What do the words boy and girl, mean, exactly? I know what they have
>>>>> always meant, and still do today.
>>>>
>>>> Language lags. To many, if not most, "boy" means "young biological male".
>>>> As we're seeing, though, "boy" is more nuanced than that, such that just
>>>> because you have one particular set of genitalia, that doesn't mean it has
>>>> to match the personality, the inner idea of who and what you are, so that
>>>> "boy" should really mean "young person with typically masculine personality
>>>> traits" or some equivalent.
>>>>
>>>> Again, it's really mostly an issue of do you see a penis and stop thinking,
>>>> or do you examine the issue in depth.
>>>
>>> Have you ever considered the option of making the personality match the
>>> reality instead of vice versa?
>>
>> No, because the personality is who the person *is*. The other could be
>> regarded, in effect, as a birth defect - being born with the wrong
>> genitalia.
>>
>> Why would one change who they are, fundamentally, to suit someone else's
>> notion that a dangling bit of flesh is what defines a person?
>
> Has it occurred to you that "personality" can be psychologically manipulated,
> or peer pressured into existence? (As those who have regretted allowing
> themselves to be irreversibly mutilated with a "sex change operation" can
> attest to.) Doctors are being sued specifically for this reason. I expect
> many more lawsuits in the near future.
>
> And, no, "dangling bits of flesh" don't define a person, they define that
> person's sex. Because the "dangling bits of flesh" are a result of specific
> genetic patterns built into that person's DNA

stolen:

"I just commented this on a transphobic post that was all like, "In a
sexual species, females have two X chromosomes and males have an X and a Y,
I'm not a bigot it's just science."

I'm a science teacher so I responded with this.

First of all, in a sexual species, you can have females be XX and males be
X (insects), you can have females be ZW and males be ZZ (birds), you can
have females be females because they developed in a warm environment and
males be males because they developed in a cool environment (reptiles), you
can have females be females because they lost a penis sword fighting
contest (some flatworms), you can have males be males because they were
born female, but changed sexes because the only male in their group died
(parrotfish and clownfish), you can have males look and act like females
because they are trying to get close enough to actual females to mate with
them (cuttlefish, bluegills, others), or you can be one of thousands of
sexes (slime mold, some mushrooms.)

Oh, did you mean humans? Oh ok then. You can be male because you were born
female, but you have 5-alphareductase deficiency and so you grew a penis at
age 12.

You can be female because you have an X and a Y chromosome but you are
insensitive to androgens, and so you have a female body.

You can be female because you have an X and a Y chromosome but your Y is
missing the SRY gene, and so you have a female body.

You can be male because you have two X chromosomes, but one of your X's HAS
an SRY gene, and so you have a male body.

You can be male because you have two X chromosomes- but also a Y.

You can be female because you have only one X chromosome at all.

And you can be male because you have two X chromosomes, but your heart and
brain are male. And vice - effing - versa.

Don't use science to justify your bigotry. The world is way too weird for
that shit."

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> <scientific facts snipped>

You have a lot more patience than I.

--
Q: How can you tell when a Burroughs salesman is lying?
A: When his lips move.

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>>
>> <scientific facts snipped>

Facts about about medical defects and aberrations.

For the Nth time, that is NOT what this issue is about.

> You have a lot more patience than I.

I don't doubt that, since you care so little about the truth of this
issue, and how it affects children, that you won't spend a few hours
watching a thoughtful, informative documentary that was aired on Dutch
television.

Even if some tiny fraction of people would benefit from
"transitioning", *far more* are being put on that path who should
*not*.