I find it hard to not see trans as mental illness...

[tubby_mcgee 686]

7 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

I dunno, sure it’s weird but who does it harm? And why do you care so much?

 

Who does it harm if mothers marry sons?  Grandmas marry sons?  Dad marries his son?  Or if a humans fvcks and marry goats, chimps and wallabies?   What if a 3-some get married?  How about if 10 people all get married to each other in a group celebration?  Can someone marry a corpse?  I 100% guarantee if it were allowed, someone would do it, and it wouldn't be a Republican. 

So bottom line, you're completely okay with it, because it doesn't hurt anyone? 

 

I care because wild and whacked out sh!t that is allowed in society, when it becomes the "norm", a new whacked out ritual or whatever becomes the new fringe.... it keeps getting worse.  And the worse it gets, the more fockers are with signs wandering around cities waving them in my face.  Those groups want to be "equal" and when they don't get it, they protest. They burn, terrorize, vandalize and just turn society upside down.   So ...yeah.... I care.  

A tranny is no different than a pedophile. 
Sh!t in their brain and wiring went focking haywire. In 2019...there is a push for trannies to be accepted, because, well we're all equal, and they can't help who they are.

Same thing with pedophiles. Just give it time. The Democrats will be pushing for equal rights for them.

 

[Brad GLuckman 518]

18 minutes ago, tubby_mcgee said:

 

Who does it harm if mothers marry sons?  Grandmas marry sons?  Dad marries his son?  Or if a humans fvcks and marry goats, chimps and wallabies?   What if a 3-some get married?  How about if 10 people all get married to each other in a group celebration?  Can someone marry a corpse?  I 100% guarantee if it were allowed, someone would do it, and it wouldn't be a Republican. 

So bottom line, you're completely okay with it, because it doesn't hurt anyone? 

 

I care because wild and whacked out sh!t that is allowed in society, when it becomes the "norm", a new whacked out ritual or whatever becomes the new fringe.... it keeps getting worse.  And the worse it gets, the more fockers are with signs wandering around cities waving them in my face.  Those groups want to be "equal" and when they don't get it, they protest. They burn, terrorize, vandalize and just turn society upside down.   So ...yeah.... I care.  

A tranny is no different than a pedophile. 
Sh!t in their brain and wiring went focking haywire. In 2019...there is a push for trannies to be accepted, because, well we're all equal, and they can't help who they are.

Same thing with pedophiles. Just give it time. The Democrats will be pushing for equal rights for them.

 

Im with you on the argument of fringe elements expanding where there is "no harm", but you counter your own argument with pedophilia. Pedophilia harms children.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,566]

1 hour ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

cliff notes?  I refuse to go to cnn.

some wacked out black tranny rips a mic out of the hand of a trans mom and knocks the trans kid aside during town hall, to complain trannies are dying, as if anyone cares

 

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

5 hours ago, Reality said:

Spot on.

Plus, the military has a long history of denying folks with mental illnesses, this is no different. Common sense ruling. Most folks, who aren't TDS sufferers, agree.

Yeah, last time I checked, if you are on antidepressants for depression, the military won't take you. A recruiter told me that personally. I assume the same applies to other mental illnesses.

But trannies are supposed to be ok? Bullsh!t.

 

[sderk 1,040]

9 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

I dunno, sure it’s weird but who does it harm? And why do you care so much?

Nothing like tranny's and gays and wild animal identifiers and birth certificate 'x' identifiers and those being put on hormone drugs at the age of 5 by their liberal trendy moms and then later being able to adopt kids and raise them into a whirlwind of fvcking identity crisis. Nothing about that that messes up society? And you are probably the one type who fights against anyone ever going into other cultures and fvcking with their way of life.

You are the same type of dikk that probably respects and values every other culture on the earth other than the American one. 

Or, maybe you are good guy but just really dumb. You may be the adopted kid that had 2 'x' type gender parents. If that is the case, you are forgiven.    

[listen2me 23 1,537]

People can sit and say why people care about these issues.  

But its weird and probably a mental illness.  And gets a ton more press than even 10 years ago.  100x.   

These people dont get special treatment.  If so give everything it.  All conditions.  

Gfy if you want to do this and expect special treatment.  Ill try to treat you like i do anyone else.  You fail then you fail.  Ur dealt a wrong hand? Thats ok.  Other people dont get recognition nor the sympathy.

Its a talking point for both sides.  A dinner roll at Thanksgiving.  

[sderk 1,040]

7 minutes ago, listen2me 23 said:

People can sit and say why people care about these issues.  

But its weird and probably a mental illness.  And gets a ton more press than even 10 years ago.  100x.   

These people dont get special treatment.  If so give everything it.  All conditions.  

Gfy if you want to do this and expect special treatment.  Ill try to treat you like i do anyone else.  You fail then you fail.  Ur dealt a wrong hand? Thats ok.  Other people dont get recognition nor the sympathy.

Its a talking point for both sides.  A dinner roll at Thanksgiving.  

Freaking depression or manic depressive types take a back seat to this crap because depression is old news and this tranny crap is trendy and pop pop popular.

[tubby_mcgee 686]

1 hour ago, Brad GLuckman said:

Im with you on the argument of fringe elements expanding where there is "no harm", but you counter your own argument with pedophilia. Pedophilia harms children.

 

 

That's why I added it after my "mother-son", "animals" reference --- because they were two totally separate thoughts.   I asked the question "So you're okay with it because it doesn't hurt anyone before I went into my pedo rant. 

 

And I didn't ask "what does it harm" when referring to pedophilia.     I just said trannies and pedos are similar in that they both have programming errors. 

[Brad GLuckman 518]

4 minutes ago, tubby_mcgee said:

 

 

That's why I added it after my "mother-son", "animals" reference --- because they were two totally separate thoughts.   I asked the question "So you're okay with it because it doesn't hurt anyone before I went into my pedo rant. 

 

And I didn't ask "what does it harm" when referring to pedophilia.     I just said trannies and pedos are similar in that they both have programming errors. 

But you do say Dems will be pushing for pedo rights, even though it harms children. This is a scare tactic.

[sderk 1,040]

2 minutes ago, Brad GLuckman said:

But you do say Dems will be pushing for pedo rights, even though it harms children. This is a scare tactic.

Murderers have rights no? If they don't believe in morals or God or any other norms that are in our society, why should they be outcast simply because they have different beliefs?

[drobeski 3,061]

8 hours ago, Brad GLuckman said:

But you do say Dems will be pushing for pedo rights, even though it harms children. This is a scare tactic.

They already are harming children with the trans freak crap. They encourage it.

[Voltaire 4,554]

22 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Elizabeth Warren says we the taxpayers should pay for prisoners sex change operations. She's the front runner for the democratic nomination 

Maybe you’ve seen my posts. I’ve told the Geek Club 3-4 times over the years of my plan to be a trannie for a good six months before I rob a bank. The thinking being, if I get caught, well, the punishment of being locked away with chicks isn’t so bad.

Yeah, well anyway, if Elizabeth Warren becomes president, I’m going to have to seriously reconsider.

[Voltaire 4,554]

20 hours ago, MDC said:

(Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court handed President Donald Trump a victory in his effort to ban most transgender people from the military, ordering a judge to reconsider her ruling against the policy, which the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed to take effect.

Why even do this? Don can’t get a healthcare or infrastructure bill passed but we need to ban trannies from serving in the military.  

When you’re president, there are 500 plates all spinning at the same time.

Issues #s 501, 502, and 503 mostly require delegating 98% of the work to aides 501, 502, and 503.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

16 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

When you’re president, there are 500 plates all spinning at the same time.

Issues #s 501, 502, and 503 mostly require delegating 98% of the work to aides 501, 502, and 503.

Yeah. It's better to focus on playing golf, watching fox news, and rage tweeting like a little girl. The 500 plates can be delegated. 

[sderk 1,040]

13 minutes ago, titans&bucs&bearsohmy! said:

Yeah. It's better to focus on playing golf, watching fox news, and rage tweeting like a little girl. The 500 plates can be delegated. 

Obamas hairy knuckled wife is no longer president though. 

[edjr 5,547]

Dressing up as the other sex, every once in a while, is not a mental illness. you know for fun and stuff and maybe sexual reasons. A friend told me

wanting to BE the other sex and go into a public bathrooms as that sex is a mental illness. 

Bruce Jenner and his ilk should be locked in a padded room. 

 

[tubby_mcgee 686]

11 hours ago, Brad GLuckman said:

But you do say Dems will be pushing for pedo rights, even though it harms children. This is a scare tactic.

 

Its another point in the line graph. 30 years ago trannies weren't a point on the line graph. They certainly are now.   There are already articles out there where people feel sorry for/justify/etc  pedos, because pedos "can't help it", etc.  

https://www.metroweekly.com/2018/07/tedx-speaker-argues-that-pedophilia-should-be-accepted-as-an-unchangeable-sexual-orientation/

 

What are the chances that the person that gave that argument at the TEDx talk, was a person on the political right? ZERO. 

 

Republican's should start (falsely) pushing for 3-somes, moms/sons,  people/goats etc to be able to married, to see what the libs do.   Sort of a one-way role reversal to get a reaction. 

Would the libs fight back? Say "OMG you guys are sick!"
Then what if the Republican's said "Don't you guys have a heart? What's it hurting? " 

How do the libs respond?

[IGotWorms 3,302]

So it’s pretty clear we’ve got a few different categories of opposition here. First is the “it’s basically pedophilia!” idiots who can be pretty much ignored.

Then you’ve got the folks who are concerned about what they perceive to be the continued degradation of society as more and more taboos and so forth are stripped back. I understand this. I really do. And I think you guys might be right. I guess my hesitation on that is, isn’t this the same stuff people said about racial segregation, mixed race marriages, women’s rights, the gheys, etc.? Have we finally actually hit the line? And how do we know when that claim has been made every time before? Those are the kinds of things I wrestle with.

Then we’ve got the folks who are concerned that people will foist this on kids to be trendy or gain some sort of perceived advantage or for whatever reason. I suspect this is a very small percentage of occurrences and some would probably say it’s a non-existing issue at all. I don’t know though, I get this concern as well and agree with it. I remember getting into a bit of a fight with the mrs. a few years ago because there was a news special where these parents were talking about how six year old little Johnny was really little Jane and they just weren’t going to fight it anymore, they were going to encourage their child to be who they really were. And it sounds nice in a way. So my wife was like aww that’s so wonderful! But I get made out to be a g0ddamn reactionary because I’m like well hold on a second, how does a six year old really know any of this stuff? Isn’t it too young to be making decisions like that? And while most of the parents on this newscast seemed to sincerely and genuinely want only what was best for their kids, how do we know this isn’t some form of activism being suggested to or forced on these six year old kids??

So yeah, I get it. I really do. Don’t know what the answer is and my questions here are only meant to probe. Some of you go apesh1t in response which sorta makes me question your own mental headspace, but certainly there are legitimate issues and concerns.

[drobeski 3,061]

1 minute ago, IGotWorms said:

So it’s pretty clear we’ve got a few different categories of opposition here. First is the “it’s basically pedophilia!” idiots who can be pretty much ignored.

Then you’ve got the folks who are concerned about what they perceive to be the continued degradation of society as more and more taboos and so forth are stripped back. I understand this. I really do. And I think you guys might be right. I guess my hesitation on that is, isn’t this the same stuff people said about racial segregation, mixed race marriages, women’s rights, the gheys, etc.? Have we finally actually hit the line? And how do we know when that claim has been made every time before? Those are the kinds of things I wrestle with.

Then we’ve got the folks who are concerned that people will foist this on kids to be trendy or gain some sort of perceived advantage or for whatever reason. I suspect this is a very small percentage of occurrences and some would probably say it’s a non-existing issue at all. I don’t know though, I get this concern as well and agree with it. I remember getting into a bit of a fight with the mrs. a few years ago because there was a news special where these parents were talking about how six year old little Johnny was really little Jane and they just weren’t going to fight it anymore, they were going to encourage their child to be who they really were. And it sounds nice in a way. So my wife was like aww that’s so wonderful! But I get made out to be a g0ddamn reactionary because I’m like well hold on a second, how does a six year old really know any of this stuff? Isn’t it too young to be making decisions like that? And while most of the parents on this newscast seemed to sincerely and genuinely want only what was best for their kids, how do we know this isn’t some form of activism being suggested to or forced on these six year old kids??

So yeah, I get it. I really do. Don’t know what the answer is and my questions here are only meant to probe. Some of you go apesh1t in response which sorta makes me question your own mental headspace, but certainly there are legitimate issues and concerns.

TLDR and triggered 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,593]

 Can't the freaks just stay in freaktown? Why do they have to invade normal society?  Nobody wants them around, people just make believe or are just being  polite. 

[IGotWorms 3,302]

1 minute ago, drobeski said:

TLDR and triggered 

It’s okay drobs, I know it’s very hard for you to engage in complex thought and read anything more than the length of a tweet. I don’t hold it against you.

[Fireballer 2,369]

33 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

So it’s pretty clear we’ve got a few different categories of opposition here. First is the “it’s basically pedophilia!” idiots who can be pretty much ignored.

Then you’ve got the folks who are concerned about what they perceive to be the continued degradation of society as more and more taboos and so forth are stripped back. I understand this. I really do. And I think you guys might be right. I guess my hesitation on that is, isn’t this the same stuff people said about racial segregation, mixed race marriages, women’s rights, the gheys, etc.? Have we finally actually hit the line? And how do we know when that claim has been made every time before? Those are the kinds of things I wrestle with.

Then we’ve got the folks who are concerned that people will foist this on kids to be trendy or gain some sort of perceived advantage or for whatever reason. I suspect this is a very small percentage of occurrences and some would probably say it’s a non-existing issue at all. I don’t know though, I get this concern as well and agree with it. I remember getting into a bit of a fight with the mrs. a few years ago because there was a news special where these parents were talking about how six year old little Johnny was really little Jane and they just weren’t going to fight it anymore, they were going to encourage their child to be who they really were. And it sounds nice in a way. So my wife was like aww that’s so wonderful! But I get made out to be a g0ddamn reactionary because I’m like well hold on a second, how does a six year old really know any of this stuff? Isn’t it too young to be making decisions like that? And while most of the parents on this newscast seemed to sincerely and genuinely want only what was best for their kids, how do we know this isn’t some form of activism being suggested to or forced on these six year old kids??

So yeah, I get it. I really do. Don’t know what the answer is and my questions here are only meant to probe. Some of you go apesh1t in response which sorta makes me question your own mental headspace, but certainly there are legitimate issues and concerns.

Youre right on a few if these.  Obviously trans doesn't mean pedophile.  Im sure there more hetero pedos than openly trans folks.  But there are certainly links to pedophilia and child exploitation.  Case in point the article I posted yesterday. 

My issue lies with the normalization of a mental illness. Its literally celebrated nowadays with a "you go girl" and "all this is normal, nothing to see here" mindset. Its all over TV, people are fired for not using pronouns, kids are being given hormone therapy, drag queens are dancing and disrobing at public libraries, dudes with d!cks are using womens restrooms, Jenner getting Espys, and the list goes on. 

I dont know what the answer is either.  Its a slippery slope with psychotropic drugs that may be more harmful than helpful.  But damn, dont act like its normal. 

 

[KSB2424 3,082]

For me,  the thing that irks me is the constant push to try and make society believe it is totally “normal”.   

They are people and should be treated with respect.  Just like a person with depression or bi-polar or etc.  however we don’t celebrate their condition or try and say that there is not something abnormal.

 

[naomi 343]

2 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

Then you’ve got the folks who are concerned about what they perceive to be the continued degradation of society as more and more taboos and so forth are stripped back. I understand this. I really do. And I think you guys might be right. I guess my hesitation on that is, isn’t this the same stuff people said about racial segregation, mixed race marriages, women’s rights, the gheys, etc.? Have we finally actually hit the line? And how do we know when that claim has been made every time before? Those are the kinds of things I wrestle with.

This is a great question.

I don't think those who resisted or were unhappy with these different developments neatly trend together. I'm sure there's lots of overlap, but if you were to look down through time and take in all the viewpoints and nuance, it probably becomes irrelevant to ask "how do we know when..?" since the "we" is so fluid. 

I think the politics of intersectionality (most visible with the introduce your pronouns crowd) comes across as nonsense and indicative of society losing some marbles to many people who are seeing it happen in passing. Out of these sociopolitical developments you're mentioning, maybe women voting comes the closest. I'd have to look into that and try to figure out the mentality on different sides there, and how unprecedented of a notion it was (there had been major rulers who were female, so everyday people had a reference point of women engaged in politics). I think it comes the closest but is still different. It probably seemed subversive to the biggest critics, and out of the natural order to some, but not necessarily entirely unredeemable as a development in society. And that's maybe because of the idea that the family structure is the foundation of civil society. Almost all signature progressive policies encourage subverting that. Arbitrarily invalidating sex and gender, with, as Paglia put it, the bueracratic machinery, (as well as just progressives) puts this trend in front of faces. In time, the families that do persist are not as strong as nature would intend, because the individuals comprising them are unmoored from the dynamics that make for strong families. The machinery, the idealogical statists, not the families, wind up having the most impactive hand in raising the new generations. And statists kind of love that idea. The ideal of strong families and true freedom, on the other hand, pair well together.

[IGotWorms 3,302]

2 hours ago, naomi said:

This is a great question.

I don't think those who resisted or were unhappy with these different developments neatly trend together. I'm sure there's lots of overlap, but if you were to look down through time and take in all the viewpoints and nuance, it probably becomes irrelevant to ask "how do we know when..?" since the "we" is so fluid. 

I think the politics of intersectionality (most visible with the introduce your pronouns crowd) comes across as nonsense and indicative of society losing some marbles to many people who are seeing it happen in passing. Out of these sociopolitical developments you're mentioning, maybe women voting comes the closest. I'd have to look into that and try to figure out the mentality on different sides there, and how unprecedented of a notion it was (there had been major rulers who were female, so everyday people had a reference point of women engaged in politics). I think it comes the closest but is still different. It probably seemed subversive to the biggest critics, and out of the natural order to some, but not necessarily entirely unredeemable as a development in society. And that's maybe because of the idea that the family structure is the foundation of civil society. Almost all signature progressive policies encourage subverting that. Arbitrarily invalidating sex and gender, with, as Paglia put it, the bueracratic machinery, (as well as just progressives) puts this trend in front of faces. In time, the families that do persist are not as strong as nature would intend, because the individuals comprising them are unmoored from the dynamics that make for strong families. The machinery, the idealogical statists, not the families, wind up having the most impactive hand in raising the new generations. And statists kind of love that idea. The ideal of strong families and true freedom, on the other hand, pair well together.

Yes but those other examples were also supposed to have a negative impact on families. Women’s rights being a huge one. Women were supposed to stay in the home and be subservient to the male head of the family. Then they’re out working and having their own lives, and making their own decisions and voting and so forth. Who is caring for the children? How are consistent decisions being made and family conflict avoided with now two heads of household? 
Now who would really argue, today, that this is such a bad thing? Only the most fundamentalist of people I would suspect. So was the hysteria wrong back then and wrong today? Or was it wrong back then but now we’ve really gone too far and finally hit a real line in the societal sand, so to speak? Or was it right back then and all of today’s societal ills can be traced from that? (Like I said, you’re profoundly behind the times if you believe the last point but it’s also probably the most intellectually honest.)

[jerryskids 5,172]

7 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

So it’s pretty clear we’ve got a few different categories of opposition here. First is the “it’s basically pedophilia!” idiots who can be pretty much ignored.

Then you’ve got the folks who are concerned about what they perceive to be the continued degradation of society as more and more taboos and so forth are stripped back. I understand this. I really do. And I think you guys might be right. I guess my hesitation on that is, isn’t this the same stuff people said about racial segregation, mixed race marriages, women’s rights, the gheys, etc.? Have we finally actually hit the line? And how do we know when that claim has been made every time before? Those are the kinds of things I wrestle with.

Then we’ve got the folks who are concerned that people will foist this on kids to be trendy or gain some sort of perceived advantage or for whatever reason. I suspect this is a very small percentage of occurrences and some would probably say it’s a non-existing issue at all. I don’t know though, I get this concern as well and agree with it. I remember getting into a bit of a fight with the mrs. a few years ago because there was a news special where these parents were talking about how six year old little Johnny was really little Jane and they just weren’t going to fight it anymore, they were going to encourage their child to be who they really were. And it sounds nice in a way. So my wife was like aww that’s so wonderful! But I get made out to be a g0ddamn reactionary because I’m like well hold on a second, how does a six year old really know any of this stuff? Isn’t it too young to be making decisions like that? And while most of the parents on this newscast seemed to sincerely and genuinely want only what was best for their kids, how do we know this isn’t some form of activism being suggested to or forced on these six year old kids??

So yeah, I get it. I really do. Don’t know what the answer is and my questions here are only meant to probe. Some of you go apesh1t in response which sorta makes me question your own mental headspace, but certainly there are legitimate issues and concerns.

Good post.  I'll add to your earlier question of "who it harms"?  Actual girls who compete in sports against 6'4, 250 lb "people who associate as a girl."  That whole thing is so asinine I want to punch someone in the face.

5 hours ago, KSB2424 said:

For me,  the thing that irks me is the constant push to try and make society believe it is totally “normal”.   

They are people and should be treated with respect.  Just like a person with depression or bi-polar or etc.  however we don’t celebrate their condition or try and say that there is not something abnormal.

 

Yep.  I wouldn't mind research into curing transgenderism.  But gawd forbid we do anything to imply it is abnormal.  Best to keep up the platitudes while they plan their suicides. 

[Alias Detective 1,179]

Man were the hunters from the very beginning. 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,566]

and a tranny recently made relevant in Dave Chapelles most recent show has "died"....as in killed itself

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/transgender-activist-mentioned-dave-chappelle-160958957.html

[edjr 5,547]

25 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Good post.  I'll add to your earlier question of "who it harms"?  Actual girls who compete in sports against 6'4, 250 lb "people who associate as a girl."  That whole thing is so asinine I want to punch someone in the face.

Yep.  I wouldn't mind research into curing transgenderism.  But gawd forbid we do anything to imply it is abnormal.  Best to keep up the platitudes while they plan their suicides. 

In the 80s and 90s parents sent their gay kids to shrinks to try and cure the gay out of them. Terrible thing to do to kids, made them even more focked up.

I think transgender freaks a whole different ballgame. Think maybe an trans-exorcism or something might help?

[MDC 5,877]

Said it before: “Transgender” is an umbrella term that includes a lot of different groups of people. There are folks out there with gender dysmorphia who either take medical steps to change their gender or live as the opposite one. I have sympathy for these folks and think they deserve to live the life they want with dignity.

There are people out there who want to change their gender due to mental illness. I hope there’s a strict process for gender reassignment to root these people out.

Then there are precious millennials who want to be non binary or gender fluid for attention. I hope they die in a fire. 

HTH

[edjr 5,547]

2 minutes ago, MDC said:

 

Then there are precious millennials who want to be non binary or gender for attention. I hope they die in a fire. 

HTH

[peenie 1,690]

I haven't read most of the posts but just wanted to show you guys this video:

 

[peenie 1,690]

Perhaps our science is not advanced enough to detect all that makes us feel male or female. 

When I see Caitlyn Jenner, I think, that's a man who simply likes to dress as a woman. I do not believe that he was born in the wrong body, he just likes women's clothing and being woman like. 

I am a woman, I don't have big breasts. Heck, I wish I had them too. Make-up, heels, dresses....those things are cultural and have nothing to do with genetics.

[vuduchile 1,940]

I don’t see any harm coming from adults dressing however they want, having sex with whomever they want and calling themselves whatever they want as long as they aren’t exploiting or hurting anyone in the process. 

I do think it’s crazy for a man to wanna chop his d!ck off though.   At that point, he’s hurting himself by way of genital mutilation and I can’t condone doctors who assist them in doing so.    

From a sexual standpoint, you can keep your package and still take it like a woman in 2 other orifices.  If it ruins the lines of your new silk dress, tuck it away, strap it down or something.   But chopping it off is insanity.  

[KSB2424 3,082]

2 hours ago, MDC said:

Said it before: “Transgender” is an umbrella term that includes a lot of different groups of people. There are folks out there with gender dysmorphia who either take medical steps to change their gender or live as the opposite one. I have sympathy for these folks and think they deserve to live the life they want with dignity.

There are people out there who want to change their gender due to mental illness. I hope there’s a strict process for gender reassignment to root these people out.

Then there are precious millennials who want to be non binary or gender fluid for attention. I hope they die in a fire. 

HTH

Hard to argue here.  Good post.

I think the push back is the liberal teachers and administrators who don’t think this way.  My 7 year old the other day asked me what a transgender was....really?  It completely caught me off guard.  How, who, where did this even come up if it’s .001 percent of the population?  He has no idea about bi-polar, depression, sex, any other “adult” topic but he’s heard the term transgender before (I’m assuming school).  This is not main stream nor should it be but people desperately want it to be.......normal.  

[avoiding injuries 1,220]

If I’m ever on a ship that is sinking I’m absolutely identifying as a transwoman. This should get me in front of those pesky kids. 

[porkbutt 860]

Hey is this the kind of retard that drools and rubs in his hair and all that, 'cause I'm gonna have a hard time eatin' 'round that kind of thing now. Just like I am with antique furniture and midgets. You know that, I can't so much as drink a damn glass of water around a midget or a piece of antique furniture.

[naomi 343]

On 10/13/2019 at 11:45 AM, IGotWorms said:

Yes but those other examples were also supposed to have a negative impact on families. Women’s rights being a huge one. Women were supposed to stay in the home and be subservient to the male head of the family. Then they’re out working and having their own lives, and making their own decisions and voting and so forth. Who is caring for the children? How are consistent decisions being made and family conflict avoided with now two heads of household? 
Now who would really argue, today, that this is such a bad thing? Only the most fundamentalist of people I would suspect. So was the hysteria wrong back then and wrong today? Or was it wrong back then but now we’ve really gone too far and finally hit a real line in the societal sand, so to speak? Or was it right back then and all of today’s societal ills can be traced from that? (Like I said, you’re profoundly behind the times if you believe the last point but it’s also probably the most intellectually honest.)

This is why I said in my post: I think it comes the closest but is still different. It probably seemed subversive to the biggest critics, and out of the natural order to some, but not necessarily entirely unredeemable as a development in society. 

It's that last part..it wasn't a subversive notion (to the people who found it subversive) to the same degree. I read a bit on anti-suffrage efforts and their rationale after posting and still have the same impression - it comes the closest out of the examples you mentioned, but when you break out the elements of tension, it was not as radical of an "ask" or assertion, and it didn't have the same seeming mental illness (and ignoring it out of compassion/political correctness) aura around it, and wasn't packaged within a larger and sweeping ideology, like everything that goes with intersectionality.

To opponents of suffrage, it was going to impact and upset natural family dynamics, but not nuke them. This movement needs everyone to cease from holding to ideas like "natural" family dynamics in the first place, to be satisfied. Because that is an uncomfortable thought, and the world around needs to not at all reflect this uncomfortable thought. For people who think strong families are a huge key to the success we've had as a civil society, when there's deference or promotion (progressive and institutional) to the idea that it's immoral to think in terms of male strengths and female strengths and how they can combine for good, a gut based concern rises. If you think about it, it is a pretty Orwellian movement.  What was once traditional bedrock should be thoughtcrime.

[sderk 1,040]

Trans is mental illness unless they just do it for entertainment. Nothing more.

[Fireballer 2,369]

On 10/14/2019 at 9:29 AM, porkbutt said:

Hey is this the kind of retard that drools and rubs in his hair and all that, 'cause I'm gonna have a hard time eatin' 'round that kind of thing now. Just like I am with antique furniture and midgets. You know that, I can't so much as drink a damn glass of water around a midget or a piece of antique furniture.

One of the greatest characters in cinematic history.