RAINBOW MONTH GAMES THREAD

@wallstreetcappers

 But with all of that being said:  I am not sure how you tried to isolate Conservatives and religion (as a whole) to support your stance.

I do not think it is fair to let the Democrats and the non-religious folks off the hook here.

I know a lot of very good and religious Democrats.

I know a lot of non-religious good folks that are apolitical.

There are many, many folks of all walks of life and political parties that do NOT support allowing this.

Religion actually is not even my biggest consideration about this subject.  But since you were so quick to bring religion up -- that is a whole group that is against it as well -- and they vote both parties.

SCIENCE is the self-evident backer and the common-sense determining factor on this if you simply ignore the affect on the children themselves.

There is nothing wrong with the attitude of 'let folks live their lives and if it does not bother affect me, no problem.'

But on this issue it DOES affect someone else.  A young and very impressionable child.

Take religion out of it.  No other society in the world has thought this was a good plan before.

What is confusing or muddled about this?  Very short concise sentences compared to what I usually write.  Feel free to ask for clarification on anything that confuses you.  Do it sentence by sentence or idea by idea if you like.

You keep confirming to me that it is of low value to try and discuss anything with you and we have to just agree that is the case and stop with this goofy exchange. Talking with you is like a cat chasing a laser dot, you are all over the place and cannot keep a train of thought and especially make it reasonable to exchange information with you. Look at this thread, I make a message and you go tangent crazy making multiple unconnected messages filled with your words, someone elses words, conclusions you make of me which are unfounded and wacky at best. 

I enjoy an intense debate, but you are too scattered and all over the place, you make multiple inquiries versus one or two, it seems like a ploy you use to try and confirm your agenda and conclusion that if you buck shoot enough that the person will not be able or interested in spending hours to maintain your scheme and thus you win. Its not the kind of interaction that can be mutually beneficial, I prefer a direct back and forth with discussion and question/answer not cut/paste and 20 reply or else comments with five separate messages every time you interact.

And the worst part is how you so smugly and slimily throw nasty crap at me as you have repeatedly done...that I should just admit I want children to be harmed as you suggested. I think you should seriously stop yourself from saying disgusting things like that and forming a horrible narrative off words I never said and conclusions you are liberally making.

Civil rights laws protect all students from unlawful discrimination and harassment based on gender identity, sexual orientation, color, national origin, disability, sex and age.  Most states support safe environment for LGBTQ students in schools to ensure equal access to education and to help reduce rates of bullying and suicides.

@wallstreetcappers

 Simply pick one topic and stay with it.  That will make it easier for you.

Instead of simply addressing the one topic that the guy was talking about you got 'scattered' all over the place with religion and conservatism, etc.

Just say why you support it or are okay with it -- NOT why others are against it.

That would be a good start.  

That way you can focus on just one topic at a time.

@wallstreetcappers

 I broke down your first rambling post.  I did it step by step and post by post and idea by idea.

You could try to do the same instead of throwing all sorts of stuff into the discussion.

Then when I break it down for you piece by piece you get confused or frustrated.

Then when you throw out a random idea and I say I do not think so and present data to back it up, you get frustrated and say you do not want to read other's words.

For example, the guy (many guys) have broken down the actual numbers on idealogies that have led to killings.

So, instead of saying I did not know that or let me look into that some more -- you simply double down on a talking point with no evidence to back it up.

Absolutely I prefer a discussion with you instead of the others on here.  Because I rarely agree with your political side.  I do not like to discuss with folks that agree as much -- no big point to it.

You actually have some well-thought out ideas.  I tend to think they are wrong a lot is all.

If you could stay focused on a topic I think it would be a much easier discussion instead of us including the extraneous stuff.

For example, I asked you point blank to support your stance on this -- you have yet to do it very well.

You simply brought up all sorts of other issues.

Schools have no right to change a child's identity, especially without parents consent.   

If your child , who is 7, thinks he is a dog... are you as parents going to say .. I understand and accept it and let's go to the pet store and get you doggie toys and treats then let's run to the vet and get whiskers, tail and ears sewn on... and puff... you are a dog... that's acceptable?.. that's poor parenting. Now if child is legal age .. go nuts.. knock yourself out.  

@Raiders22

 I am not seeking advice about how to deal with your approach, your counsel and advice are way misguided and unnecessary. 

@wallstreetcappers

 And the worst part is how you so smugly and slimily throw nasty crap at me as you have repeatedly done...that I should just admit I want children to be harmed as you suggested. I think you should seriously stop yourself from saying disgusting things like that and forming a horrible narrative off words I never said and conclusions you are liberally making.

I am not sure exactly what you are referring to here. 

I realize that with writing only you do not get tones, inflections, hand gestures, etc.  But I try to never write 'nasty crap' about folks -- unless they repeatedly resort to that themselves.  I try to always be civil and keep the discussion on an even keel.

I am NOT saying you WANT children to be harmed.  I am asking why you seem to be okay with it?

DO YOU honestly think this does NOT harm the children?  Do you think it is GOOD for the children?

If so, why?

But if I implied you are a disgusting or horrible person -- I apologize for that.  That is never my intention. 

@wallstreetcappers

It was your approach -- read it again, please.  You started the multi-topic part. 

@scooby-doos

I get your point.  But I think this leaves out a large part.

Imagine it is your child and they are of legal age.

You would certainly try to get the child into therapy of help.

Why is that?  Because humans inherently realize there is something mentally wrong with someone that has ideas like this.  Where it stems from is the issue usually. 

Raiders... after rereading .... I do see your point.  I appreciate your response.   Not my intention to offend.  

For example, if you have the attitude a person is 'okay' to do it just because they are of legal age, you still have major problems.

Then you start to question how low the age should be.  Even now there are pushes for voting age of 16, consent to marry varies, own a gun, drive, etc.

The if you have that attitude it is almost still approving it as a choice for children later in life.

What do you tell your 17-year old that wants to transition?  Wait until next year and you are good to go?

@scooby-doos

No offense.  Just pointing out that because we see things as not directly affecting us and people can make their own decisions -- that does NOT mean it is not bad for society as a whole.

People have to speak out or they will get overrun by things they see as not affecting them, personally -- but AFFECTS society.

Etc., etc.

Great questions and points.   If a person is bipolar, schizophrenic.. ie .. they are considered to have a mental illness.  That's factual.  A child thinks he is something other than what that person is , as a child, imo, should be looked into more psychologically.  I don't,  and I know most agree,  believe kids should get surgery at such young ages.  And definitely without parents consent.  Nothing I've said is insensitive.   If it is to some... not my intent.

Schools don't change a child's identity.  No real change without approval of doctors and parents.  Job of schools is to ensure a safe environment by respecting LGBTQ students who insist on being called by pronoun name.  Also schools are legally obligated to protect secret of student from abusive parents. 

third person is wrong

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/22/us/gender-identity-students-parents.html

Mrs. Bradshaw was confused: Didn’t the school need her permission, or at least need to tell her?

It did not, a counselor later explained, because the student did not want his parents to know. District and state policies instructed the school to respect his wishes.

“There was never any word from anyone to let us know that on paper, and in the classroom, our daughter was our son,” Mrs. Bradshaw said.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/teacher-admits-helping-students-change-their-gender-identity-without-their-parents-knowledge/ar-AA16KMN3

https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/How-Schools’-Transgender-Policies-Are-Eroding-Parents’-Rights.pdf?x91208

Stay on topic...this has nothing to do with this subject.

 This is all Very well-stated, Raiders..  

Any thoughts on sisters of perpetual indulgence?.. acceptance,  understanding, ? Not trying to offend anyone's feelings,  just a question.. ...

[Quote: Originally Posted by thirdperson]Quote Originally Posted by UNIMAN: The New York State Education Department (NYSED) released 42 pages of new guidance for public schools Monday that includes a section about keeping children's gender transitions a secret from parents in some cases. That is insane .  Civil rights laws protect all students from unlawful discrimination and harassment based on gender identity, sexual orientation, color, national origin, disability, sex and age.  Most states support safe environment for LGBTQ students in schools to ensure equal access to education and to help reduce rates of bullying and suicides.[/Quote

This stuff is going here in CA, too..and what a surprise,  the two most liberal states in the union.   I will post more later in the week on state sponsored Bills here in the state that people are pushing back on.... this is "enlightening "..... people are starting to recognize the difference between  trans "rights" and "promotion"...  and frankly I am happy to see it.   

Fantasically articulated.....

I would open this question to "any" liberal on this site.... I want to understand your thoughts..  I'm sure many conservatives want to understand how any liberal could justify such actions... 

You mean the Perverts of perpetual Perversion  ?   I live here in the LA area and can tell you the push back is greater than in years past.  Small progress.....  I think people are starting to realize this isn't a trans-right thing, but an agenda to indoctrinate young minds : there was a big demonstration from  parents against a big school this week too to fight efforts on the teaching.   And Thank God for the hockey players that started this push back of not  wearing this pride "filth" on their jerseys ..

And Scooby.. final thought.   Keep your posts coming .   I enjoy reading your perspective on things.. 

 American civil liberty union argues that it is unconstitutional for schools to reveal a student gender identity to parents without permission.  Judges have dismissed many lawsuits advocating for parental rights.  Affirming a student gender identity isn't necessarily a medical intervention nor a social transition.  But simply accord the student basic respect expected in a civilized society.  Concerns for parental rights are often disguised intolerance or prejudice against LGBTQ community.  Studies found that schools that support the safety of LGBTQ students have lower rates of harassment, homelessness and suicides.  All students benefit from a more inclusive society.

And this is really the crux of the matter.  On a big picture level, the government has inserted itself as "the primary" authority as it relates to children.  And when one parent objects to a child's gender change, and the other approves, the one who approves gets the nod.  Parents by and large are finding that their interests run "secondary" the interests of "the state."..... and I use term "state" loosely. 

What I find most astonishing is how many parents/"people at large" don't really understand or comprehend how big a step this is by our government.  Who does this ?  Communist "states" do this when they exert (thought) control of their people...