The Problems with Trans-ideology

#8,726
#8,726
allstar34 said:
When do I make fun of Gay people? I even said in the thread about the trans person that was in the beauty pageant from (Maryland?) that I didn't realize she wasn't a biological female and I mentioned something similar to the line of "what they do to their body is up to them"?

I don't make fun of Islam, I said all radical Islamist need to be deported. This is a statement that was made to protect Americans. ALL AMERICANS. I want you, your neighbor, my neighbor and every single American to live a safe, happy, and healthy life here. I'm not against you, I'm not against your beliefs. I believe that ANYONE that makes a political threat of violence should be investigated Right, Left, and Other.. I don't own guns, I don't want guns, and I am extremely anti-violence. I don't want any violent person of any race/religion/group free and allowed to harm people.

You and I actually agree on some things posted on here; but that is irrelevant due the fact that I believe that American Citizen's safety should be put above and beyond every single other matter.
I am America First, anything relating to Israel, Muslims, Left/Right, or an Identity comes after American Safety/Interests for me.
Click to expand...
I don't care to argue about every stance you have. The post I responded to, before you went off on your useless tangent, was talking about how Islam isn't tolerant because they didn't want to participate in Pride Month festivities. It was just a couple summers ago that the right was calling trans people "pedos" and losing their minds about a Pride Month display at Target, so it is extremely hypocritical to pretend otherwise just to criticize Islam
 
#8,733
#8,733
NashVol11 said:
Are you opposed to all sex education, or only when it's about trans people?
Click to expand...
Outside of reproduction and venereal diseases, sex-ed doesn't need to be taught by the state.

Intersex abnormalities and irregularities are better covered in a biology class.

Sex-ed is the parents responsibility.

There's a certain orifice every human has regardless of gender. It operates as a one way check valve. Forcing and stretching it in the wrong direction can result in permanent damage. It isn't the states job to condone or condemn it.

TL/DR - Teach em how babies are made and show the grotesque video of untreated STD's that scares the hell out of them.
 
#8,734
#8,734
MemphisVol77 said:
Outside of reproduction and venereal diseases, sex-ed doesn't need to be taught by the state.

Intersex abnormalities and irregularities are better covered in a biology class.

Sex-ed is the parents responsibility.

There's a certain orifice every human has regardless of gender. It operates as a one way check valve. Forcing and stretching it in the wrong direction can result in permanent damage. It isn't the states job to condone or condemn it.

TL/DR - Teach em how babies are made and show the grotesque video of untreated STD's that scares the hell out of them.
Click to expand...

And take every teenager to family court for a day. If that don't scare them into taking precautions nothing will.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77
#8,735
#8,735
MemphisVol77 said:
Outside of reproduction and venereal diseases, sex-ed doesn't need to be taught by the state.

Intersex abnormalities and irregularities are better covered in a biology class.

Sex-ed is the parents responsibility.

There's a certain orifice every human has regardless of gender. It operates as a one way check valve. Forcing and stretching it in the wrong direction can result in permanent damage. It isn't the states job to condone or condemn it.

TL/DR - Teach em how babies are made and show the grotesque video of untreated STD's that scares the hell out of them.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't be the state's job to "condone or condemn" heterosexuality either, which is why it's an education class and not a morality judgment
 
#8,736
#8,736
lawgator1 said:
Did we decide whether trans-sexual identity is:

1) An ideology?
2) Genetic or otherwise biologically compelled?
3) A personality trait, involuntary?
4) A personality trait, at least somewhat voluntary?
5) A permanent mental illness?
6) A temporary mental illness?
7) A social election?


Or pie?
Click to expand...

1. There’s 100% an ideology. That’s the same ideology that tries teaching your kids that “gender is on a spectrum” or that “biological sex doesn’t exist”.

2. Maybe

5. In some cases

6. In many cases

7. Did you mean social contagion? If so, often.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77
#8,737
#8,737
MemphisVol77 said:
Outside of reproduction and venereal diseases, sex-ed doesn't need to be taught by the state.

Intersex abnormalities and irregularities are better covered in a biology class.

Sex-ed is the parents responsibility.

There's a certain orifice every human has regardless of gender. It operates as a one way check valve. Forcing and stretching it in the wrong direction can result in permanent damage. It isn't the states job to condone or condemn it.

TL/DR - Teach em how babies are made and show the grotesque video of untreated STD's that scares the hell out of them.
Click to expand...
In similar fashion, we got the extremely grotesque Drivers Ed vidoes of DUI wrecks, and unfortunately that has never done much good.
 
#8,738
#8,738
NashVol11 said:
It wouldn't be the state's job to "condone or condemn" heterosexuality either, which is why it's an education class and not a morality judgment
Click to expand...
Ok, but our statements aren't in conflict.

Teaching reproduction and venereal diseases neither condones nor condemns heterosexuality.
 
#8,739
#8,739
MemphisVol77 said:
Ok, but our statements aren't in conflict.

Teaching reproduction and venereal diseases neither condones nor condemns heterosexuality.
Click to expand...
If describing how heterosexual people have sex doesn't condone heterosexuality, then describing how gay people have sex doesn't condone homosexuality either. It seems like a weird omission to just never mention that people other than heterosexuals exist
 
#8,742
#8,742
NashVol11 said:
If describing how heterosexual people have sex doesn't condone heterosexuality, then describing how gay people have sex doesn't condone homosexuality either. It seems like a weird omission to just never mention that people other than heterosexuals exist
Click to expand...
Blame biology.

It isn't the state's responsibility to teach sexual proclivities.
 
#8,744
#8,744
NashVol11 said:
If describing how heterosexual people have sex doesn't condone heterosexuality, then describing how gay people have sex doesn't condone homosexuality either. It seems like a weird omission to just never mention that people other than heterosexuals exist
Click to expand...
Difference is, only a REAL female can reproduce, and the only way to get her pregnant is either the natural way (heterosexual interaction) or insemenation, which still comes from the REAL male counterpart. The only way to teach reproduction correctly would be to include the heterosexual component or its artificial methods of using the heterosexual counterparts sperm. You can acknowledge that some people choose to have same sex partners and this would not apply to them. But, if at some point same sex partners choose to have kids either by adoption or insemenation, that process is only available through a heterosexual creation because the boys ain't getting each other pregnant, and the girls ain't getting each other pregnant. And the boys better save up for formula cause neither one of them is breast feeding and if they borrow mayor pete's contraption they still gonna have to fill it with formula first.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77
#8,745
#8,745
NashVol11 said:
"Biology" is a pretty weak and pretextual excuse to teach one sexual proclivity and exclude all others. That is condoning one sexual preference, more than any other situation you described would be
Click to expand...
There's a reason sex-ed has always been elective classes and not required. If you don't want to hear the basic function of it all based on your preferences, don't take the class. But, your point is a valid observation to consider.
 
#8,746
#8,746
GVF said:
Difference is, only a REAL female can reproduce, and the only way to get her pregnant is either the natural way (heterosexual interaction) or insemenation, which still comes from the REAL male counterpart. The only way to teach reproduction correctly would be to include the heterosexual component or its artificial methods of using the heterosexual counterparts sperm. You can acknowledge that some people choose to have same sex partners and this would not apply to them. But, if at some point same sex partners choose to have kids either by adoption or insemenation, that process is only available through a heterosexual creation because the boys ain't getting each other pregnant, and the girls ain't getting each other pregnant. And the boys better save up for formula cause neither one of them is breast feeding and if they borrow mayor pete's contraption they still gonna have to fill it with formula first.
Click to expand...
Sex ed isn't only about reproduction. The vast majority of sex has nothing to do with reproduction
 
#8,747
#8,747
GVF said:
Difference is, only a REAL female can reproduce, and the only way to get her pregnant is either the natural way (heterosexual interaction) or insemenation, which still comes from the REAL male counterpart. The only way to teach reproduction correctly would be to include the heterosexual component or its artificial methods of using the heterosexual counterparts sperm. You can acknowledge that some people choose to have same sex partners and this would not apply to them. But, if at some point same sex partners choose to have kids either by adoption or insemenation, that process is only available through a heterosexual creation because the boys ain't getting each other pregnant, and the girls ain't getting each other pregnant. And the boys better save up for formula cause neither one of them is breast feeding and if they borrow mayor pete's contraption they still gonna have to fill it with formula first.
Click to expand...
This ^

Biology isn't about what gets you (whoever you are) off as a matter of preference. (chosen partners etc) It's basically impossible for reproductive biology in humans to include anything other than heterosexual references. Humanities sure, not biology.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top