OSUViking 505 Posted July 12, 2018 I didn't bring that statistic up to generate that debate. I brought up to highlight the flawed logic in extrapolating conclusions from complex stats by looking at a single factor. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blotsfan 2,112 Posted July 12, 2018 Seems like most of society treats gay people very, very well. As they should. This could go in the other thread, but my god this was stupid. https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/house-republicans-advance-adoption-amendment-critics-say-anti-lgbtq-n891041 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OSUViking 505 Posted July 13, 2018 I need to familiarize myself with the child welfare system before taking a "hard" stance on this, but if they're government agencies through and through they should have absolutely no ground to refuse service based on religious convictions. 1st amendment guarantees freedom from religion just as much as it guarantees freedom of religious practice. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BwareDWare94 723 Posted July 13, 2018 I have a question for you man. Not trying to be funny, or be a dick, but why do you care so much? Now I'm not saying they're not issues within the transgender community that aren't worth discussing, we're having an open dialogue about. This just seems to be an issue, that strikes a chord with you. I'm not making any accusations, and I'm not trying to be funny, or have any implicit subtext here, I'm just trying to figure out why this kind of thing bugs you. For the record, I agree with you on this more than I don't, I just find it interesting how much this bothers you. Quite honestly, I think it's the whole idea of being told we have to come to the same conclusions or we're wrong and assholes. We're allowed to think for ourselves. We're allowed to observe and come to our own conclusions. And I also don't think we're adequately treating the condition. Since when do we find solutions by telling people they can alter reality? This could go in the other thread, but my god this was stupid. https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/house-republicans-advance-adoption-amendment-critics-say-anti-lgbtq-n891041 Freedom. Of. Religion. It's in the fucking Constitution. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OSUViking 505 Posted July 13, 2018 Literally a post above yours addressing that. Like I said I need to familiarize myself with the system in general but my quick search of the child welfare system indicates it's a govt institution and that argument falls apart as soon as you get into the realm of someone's religious views interfering with services provided to another person who doesn't adhere to those views. People can have their religion all they want, keep it and whatever warped values they have out of government. I'm not one to say religion is totally bad but speaking from anecdotal experience it really seems like the mainstream Christianity in the US is more idolatry than it is actual Christianity. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blotsfan 2,112 Posted July 13, 2018 (edited) Freedom. Of. Religion. It's in the fucking Constitution.Then they can accept that their religious beliefs mean that they're unable to operate a child welfare facility, since they put their religion over the childrens' well being. Nothing stopping them from practicing their religion while not running a child welfare facility. Regardless, when literally the largest religion in the country is working to undermine gay peoples' abilities to have a family, it's kinda hard to say that gay people are treated "very, very well" in the US. Edit: also seems kinda hypocritical for the same people who tout adoption as a great alternative to abortion to prevent children from being adopted to good homes. Edited July 13, 2018 by blotsfan 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oochymp 2,393 Posted July 13, 2018 (edited) I'd want to see numbers on the adoption issue because both sides say they're acting for the benefit of the children and I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt as both arguments have an internal logic, I'd just want to see the numbers to know which side is making the accurate argument. As for the logic behind the arguments, the argument for requiring organizations that do adoption to consider gay couples is more obvious, you have a wider pool of adoptive parents to draw from. The other argument takes a bit more to work through, but makes just as much sense. The issue Republicans say they're fighting is that when faced with the choice of allowing gay couples to adopt or leave the market some organizations will choose to leave the market (those organizations can go fuck themselves, but I'll get into that later). If other organizations aren't stepping up to fill the void they leave then the adoption process gets more difficult. Personally, I hate the idea of not allowing a couple to adopt a child simply because they don't have the right number of penises. Any organization that chooses to stop facilitating adoptions altogether rather than facilitate a gay couple adopting is putting their own beliefs ahead of the best interests of children, and to be clear I don't like the idea of the government supporting that. However, if allowing federal funds to go to organizations that don't want to facilitate gay couples adopting will increase the number of organizations facilitating adoptions then adoptions become easier, and I support that. That's why I say I want to see numbers, because without numbers to measure the impact this policy will have on actual adoption rates we're purely arguing our beliefs and we're barely giving any consideration to the actual interests of the children going through the adoption process. I think we can all agree that the overall goal should be increasing adoptions and getting children into good homes, I'll support whichever side of this can demonstrate that their position will actually achieve that goal. Edited July 13, 2018 by oochymp Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BwareDWare94 723 Posted July 13, 2018 Then they can accept that their religious beliefs mean that they're unable to operate a child welfare facility, since they put their religion over the childrens' well being. Nothing stopping them from practicing their religion while not running a child welfare facility. Regardless, when literally the largest religion in the country is working to undermine gay peoples' abilities to have a family, it's kinda hard to say that gay people are treated "very, very well" in the US. Edit: also seems kinda hypocritical for the same people who tout adoption as a great alternative to abortion to prevent children from being adopted to good homes. Religion is attempting to follow the moral code laid out for it in their doctrine. There's a difference between that and conscious malevolence. If a gay couple wants to adopt a child, go to a facility that isn't run by a religious institution. This isn't that complicated. And gay people are treated very well here. All people are treated very well here. We're not living in some evil place that tries to hurt people intentionally. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blotsfan 2,112 Posted July 13, 2018 Religion is attempting to follow the moral code laid out for it in their doctrine. There's a difference between that and conscious malevolence. If a gay couple wants to adopt a child, go to a facility that isn't run by a religious institution. We stupidly derail progress in so many ways by caring too much about "feelings." In so many areas. Feelings do not matter that much, if at all. An emotional reaction is not a balanced reaction. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BwareDWare94 723 Posted July 13, 2018 Yeah, that might have worked for you, but those statements don't contradict each other. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thanatos 2,847 Posted July 13, 2018 I think he's pointing out you talk about derailing progress with feelings, but derailing progress with extremist religion is equally as bad and yet you seem completely blind to it. You never answered my question about the hypothetical drug that's 90% harmful and 10% helpful. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OSUViking 505 Posted July 13, 2018 (edited) Religion is attempting to follow the moral code laid out for it in their doctrine. There's a difference between that and conscious malevolence. If a gay couple wants to adopt a child, go to a facility that isn't run by a religious institution. This is what I was addressing with the "idolatry" comment. I am addressing Christianity here not out of spite for the religion itself, but because I grew up in Christian schools, around Christians, and it's the one I'm most familiar with. I imagine a similar concept can be applied to Judaism and Islam, among others. Christians in the US aren't following the moral codes they claim to. It's horseshit, they say they are as a means of virtue signaling to other people so they will be accepted or so they seem better than they really are. How many Christians in the US actually give a damn about poor people? I'm not pretending I'm a virtuous person who cares for the plight of poor people more than others, but I'm not hiding behind the Christian label and pretending I'm a good person. It's a sham. Caring for the poor was one of the most important aspects of Jesus' teachings, yet it seems to be at the bottom of most people's priorities. I don't think the basics of Christian values are that bad, but that's mostly going off the Ten Commandments. But going back as far as we can really tell people have warped Christianity (and other religions) into something horrible that is a means of discriminating. I don't buy for a second that these people care about Christian values, they're projecting their own views and insecurities onto everyone else. Edited July 13, 2018 by OSUViking 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OSUViking 505 Posted July 13, 2018 (edited) I think he's pointing out you talk about derailing progress with feelings, but derailing progress with extremist religion is equally as bad and yet you seem completely blind to it. I think one could argue that the latter is a textbook case of the former. Extremism of any form is rooted in inappropriately strong emotional reactions. Edited July 13, 2018 by OSUViking Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Turry 755 Posted July 13, 2018 (edited) Thats the thing though conversion therapy doesnt work. Everything about the practice is malicious and has no positives to it absolutely none at all. It destroys families, it destroys the person. You dont randomly wake up one day and just decide oh ya Im done with girls I love dick now So how is it magically possible the other way? Edited July 13, 2018 by Turry 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BwareDWare94 723 Posted July 13, 2018 This is a dumb argument. So if it hurts 90% of the people that go through it and helps 10% of the people that go through it, we should keep it around? I'm sure electro shock therapy has a few people that says it helped them, should we bring that back too? We should tweak it, experiment with it, and find out how and why it's helpful to that 10%. The reasons it's harmful should be obvious, but why does it help some people? So by the logic you're applying, either 90% get hurt or 10% don't get the help they need at all. Who says it has to be one or the other? Let's figure out what actually helps and what doesn't. Drugs and therapy aren't concrete things that can't change. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BwareDWare94 723 Posted July 13, 2018 Thats the thing though conversion therapy doesnt work. Everything about the practice is malicious and has no positives to it absolutely none at all. It destroys families, it destroys the person. You dont randomly wake up one day and just decide oh ya Im done with girls I love dick now So how is it magically possible the other way? There are people who claimed it worked for them. I'm not saying it should remain as is per se, but why can't the medical field tweak it and make adjustments to it? Yes, the goal of correcting one to the proper sexuality or gender is somewhat abhorrent, but not everybody thinks the same way. It's more complicated than that. One thing we don't discuss often enough about gender expression is that many people experiencing gender dysphoria grow out of it. So perhaps the thing to do with kids is NOT attempt to fuck with anything while they're young and developing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
seanbrock 1,684 Posted July 14, 2018 I think one could argue that the latter is a textbook case of the former. Extremism of any form is rooted in inappropriately strong emotional reactions. what's extremism? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OSUViking 505 Posted July 14, 2018 (edited) what's extremism? Suppose that's a good question, seems like it can easily be arbitrarily defined based on a person's perspective. I had someone on Quora refer to me as an extremist anti-weed advocate because I noted that marijuana addiction is a possibility, whereas they touted an idea that marijuana is 100% harmless. I would define extremism as taking an opinion and attempting to force others to live by that opinion through various means. It could be violence, threats of violence, governance, stigma, etc. Mostly I think it involves forcing one's world views down another's throats. Edited July 14, 2018 by OSUViking Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Favre4Ever+ 4,476 Posted July 14, 2018 (edited) One thing we don't discuss often enough about gender expression is that many people experiencing gender dysphoria grow out of it. So perhaps the thing to do with kids is NOT attempt to fuck with anything while they're young and developing. I think that's really the only thing you can / should do. Why fuck with anything -- what is that going to accomplish? Absolutely nothing. One and only rule: Support and love your child. Maybe they grow out of it. Maybe they don't. It doesn't really matter if you can follow the one rule. Edited July 14, 2018 by DalaiLama4Ever 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BwareDWare94 723 Posted July 14, 2018 What's more damaging? Trusting the 20% chance they won't outgrow it and allow the transition because it seems right right now or to tell them it's their call at 18 but the statistics overwhelmingly suggest that it's a phase? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thanatos 2,847 Posted July 14, 2018 What's more damaging? Trusting the 20% chance they won't outgrow it and allow the transition because it seems right right now or to tell them it's their call at 18 but the statistics overwhelmingly suggest that it's a phase? Source? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BwareDWare94 723 Posted July 14, 2018 https://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-dysphoria-in-children Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Favre4Ever+ 4,476 Posted July 14, 2018 What's more damaging? Trusting the 20% chance they won't outgrow it and allow the transition because it seems right right now or to tell them it's their call at 18 but the statistics overwhelmingly suggest that it's a phase? Once theyre 18 and out of your house, its really not your call though. If were talking younger, its not damaging at all to support them. You let them live how they want to. Telling unruly teenagers that you dont approve of what theyre doing is only going to push them further from you and more towards whatever the other thing is (gender related or otherwise). Acting like its a big deal, making them feel ashamed, making them feel more different than they already do is gointo be the most damaging. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BwareDWare94 723 Posted July 14, 2018 Once theyre 18 and out of your house, its really not your call though. If were talking younger, its not damaging at all to support them. You let them live how they want to. Telling unruly teenagers that you dont approve of what theyre doing is only going to push them further from you and more towards whatever the other thing is (gender related or otherwise). Acting like its a big deal, making them feel ashamed, making them feel more different than they already do is gointo be the most damaging. I think you misread my wording. I said "at 18 it's their call." And I think kids can handle parents not treating them perfectly. They've been doing it throughout human history. Puberty blockers early is damaging if their mind comes out of the phase. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Favre4Ever+ 4,476 Posted July 14, 2018 I think you misread my wording. I said "at 18 it's their call." And I think kids can handle parents not treating them perfectly. They've been doing it throughout human history. Puberty blockers early is damaging if their mind comes out of the phase. Let me clarify that when I say support your child, Im not saying go get puberty blockers. I dont even like them in the scenario where you could somehow guarantee they would feel that way forever. Support doesnt mean baby them and let them live in a bubble . Thats not my definition anyway ha. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites