Sometimes words fail me to express my appreciation for the clarity of your thoughts and logic of your reasoning. Although I have a deep disdain for transgenderism and related cults, I agree with your assessment that we cannot amd must not ban them. I call myself a "cultural Catholic" because I can't deny how Catholic ritual, the music, the chants, the smells, the processions, the cathedrals, the church-shaped two thousand year history of my home town, the feasts, the chants, and the costumes, have shaped me as a person - not because I'm a Christian or a believer in anything, but because, growing up, it was all around me. Thank goodness, my parents didn't force me to do anything, but left me to make up my own, rather rational, mind. I wouldn't dream of banning any religion. I just don't want to be forced by law to take part. Thank you for making this so clear.
While I would love to accept your argument EX, the trans cult is unable to have a discussion with someone who will not validate their belief system without using slurs and trying, sometimes violently, to stop you speaking, writing, organising against their beliefs. I dont think they are open to any form of discussion at all under any circumstances. I understand that the differences between women and the trans should be able to be discussed calmly (I was going to say rationally) but i do not believe that this can happen when the trans are actively, worldwide, subverting the law, education, government, health etc., to the extent that they are doing. Banning achieves nothing it just makes it a little more enticing to the idiots who think they are subverting society. Trans exist, of course they do, but they cannot be allowed to erase a whole class of people because they wish to be that which they can never be. The harm this ideology is doing is unconscionable particularly to children and is the result of far too much porn and spread because mental health and other comorbidities is not taken seriously nor is the system adequately fu ded to deal with the sometimes psychotic trans activists. Conversation should have a place but I don't think we are at that place in time yet
Bravo Ex, I often wished that I could speak clearly and succinctly. Today you gave me hope real hope, that a middle ground can be reached. Funny side note on acceptance, I was ready to get a reaction of surprise from my husband when I told him about a catholic priest in Ireland that is sharing part of the church for an Imam to lead prayer. Wow how crazy right.? My husband just looked at me and said, so what, are they not all praying to same God? After a slight pause of confusion I said, Good point!
I agree with what you're saying 100%. I've expressed the same position to my husband many times, when this topic has come up in conversation. However, his response is never what I hope it will be. That's true because this is my default position. And his response reminds me that I am, at heart, an idealist.
So here's what he reminds me: about half of the men who are engaging in the practice of transgenderism are engaging in an activity that falls somewhere within the category of rape. They are forcing everyone around them to engage in their fetish by participating in social society. We have to look at people, we have to talk to people, and unfortunately for us, in the case of an Autogynophile, that is enough to give them sexual satisfaction. My husband calls it rape behavior. He says this because it reminds him of his many years in the NYC art scene where gay men assumed they had the right to come on to him because he is slender, tall and attractive in the way ballet dancers are attractive. He was harassed. He didn't like it. He developed a strong sense of when someone was preying on him sexually. And unfortunately, he was not wrong. (it still happens at gallery openings and charity receptions with both men and women.)
Of course there is nothing anyone can do about what someone else finds arousing. What I'm addressing here is the fact that our chances of getting people to have this conversation are limited by the fact that the autogynophiles have the reins of power. As long as that is the case, they will be continually lobbying to expand on the religious rights for trans to practice publicly. And for some, those tights include the right to commit acts that we would otherwise see as criminal.
A sincerely held belief is no more provable than the existence of fairies. So we are facing a choice, in my opinion, either adopt the philosophy France has adopted, which embraces symbols worn like jewelry and rejects overt displays of faith such as the hijab. France, and Quebec, rejects any display of religious faith in any public place. Jewelry notwithstanding,. France bans the display of devotion in public. Period. So does Quebec. Most countries don't have to go that far because most countries are either religious dictatorships or are not so attractive to religious zealots that they need laws governing overt displays of religious fervor.
So we can do that or find another way. I don't know what that other way is right now. I hope I can help to figure that out. I do know showing overt respect for religion has resulted in events like the National Prayer Breakfast and Christmas and participation by evangelicals in national politics and neither one of those aspects of American life are safe or okay in a secular society.
Just one more thing: Knowles, like Jon Stewart, is not responding to the substance of the debate, rather he is responding to the public perception of the substance of the debate.
If you look at the Arkansas "Ban on Drag" it's not actually that. It's a law banning sexually explicit performances in places where children are likely to be in the audience.
Same is true of DeSantis "Don't Say Gay" law. The law has nothing to do with talking about being gay, it states that children won't be exposed to instruction on sexuality or gender identity in public schools.
(I loathe DeSantis btw, but that law is a good law.) Both of these laws have been widely attacked by the left using the flimsiest logic. On MSNBC last night, Jonathan Capeheart interviewed a drag queen that I know I wouldn't want my 8 year old to watch, (if I had one at home) and in the same interview he quoted Stewart about the leading cause of death for children, gun violence. As though a failure to address gun violence means that we should overlook the social trends harming children until gun violence is resolved.
It's worth mentioning that De Santis, like most Republicans, is thinking about this from a purely financial perspective. Trans kids cost taxpayers a ton of money. Children who die by gun violence? Not so much.
I'm not saying that's a healthy perspective, or even accurate. Trauma is expensive in the long haul, but it's a mistake to assume policy is ever made on the basis of compassion. That is not how governments are run. The fulcrum is cost. Ask any lobbyist.
Exulansic ! you came with a rich understanding on this issue! thank you ! Are planning to write something about it? I would love to have it and translate it into Spanish.
Thanks as always for your analysis. If we can't even define transgenderism how can we ban it? That is not a solution. Don't give men unfettered access to women's spaces and don't force your religion on children. And I'm not interested in playing their tiresome parlour games about "what is a woman?"
Transubstantiation....the true believer swallows the pill, has the surgery, and becomes a woman, or becomes a man...it is a divine transition, a holy thing.
I don't care what they believe; they are welcome to believe whatever they like -- but when they are medically altering children's bodies in the name of their religion, when they make laws enforcing their beliefs, then we have a problem. Historically, religions have often promoted violence towards non-believers, another problem we need to avoid. I'm against making transitioning illegal, but we do need to be aware. We no longer allow the Catholic church to burn heretics, so I bet there are ways to stop the Church of Trans from it's worst tendencies without making it completely illegal.
Sometimes I think the best way to stop all this woke nonsense is to stop paying attention to them!
Your reply is excellent, states what needs to be stated up-front. Knowles' entire approach is wrong-headed and illegal under our legal framework. But I gotta say I wonder: how the hell do you even "ban transgenderism"? Any more than you "ban" any human behavior? Realistically? You can use punishment, criminalize certain practices and forbid others in public, and drive some behavior "underground", but that's not "eradicating" anything. It's not just wrong it's really dumb!
Practices or rites can be banned. My understanding is that those here viewing and commenting are in agreement about drugs, surgeries, and harmful prosthetics for minors being banned. For adults, since these practices are cosmetic and do not increase health but damage it, perhaps banning insurance from paying for it, because it isn’t any kind of “healthcare.” The beliefs cannot be banned and so therefore no attempt at banning should be made.
Thanks for such a concise response to that man’s panicky call for banning beliefs!
Sometimes words fail me to express my appreciation for the clarity of your thoughts and logic of your reasoning. Although I have a deep disdain for transgenderism and related cults, I agree with your assessment that we cannot amd must not ban them. I call myself a "cultural Catholic" because I can't deny how Catholic ritual, the music, the chants, the smells, the processions, the cathedrals, the church-shaped two thousand year history of my home town, the feasts, the chants, and the costumes, have shaped me as a person - not because I'm a Christian or a believer in anything, but because, growing up, it was all around me. Thank goodness, my parents didn't force me to do anything, but left me to make up my own, rather rational, mind. I wouldn't dream of banning any religion. I just don't want to be forced by law to take part. Thank you for making this so clear.
While I would love to accept your argument EX, the trans cult is unable to have a discussion with someone who will not validate their belief system without using slurs and trying, sometimes violently, to stop you speaking, writing, organising against their beliefs. I dont think they are open to any form of discussion at all under any circumstances. I understand that the differences between women and the trans should be able to be discussed calmly (I was going to say rationally) but i do not believe that this can happen when the trans are actively, worldwide, subverting the law, education, government, health etc., to the extent that they are doing. Banning achieves nothing it just makes it a little more enticing to the idiots who think they are subverting society. Trans exist, of course they do, but they cannot be allowed to erase a whole class of people because they wish to be that which they can never be. The harm this ideology is doing is unconscionable particularly to children and is the result of far too much porn and spread because mental health and other comorbidities is not taken seriously nor is the system adequately fu ded to deal with the sometimes psychotic trans activists. Conversation should have a place but I don't think we are at that place in time yet
Bravo Ex, I often wished that I could speak clearly and succinctly. Today you gave me hope real hope, that a middle ground can be reached. Funny side note on acceptance, I was ready to get a reaction of surprise from my husband when I told him about a catholic priest in Ireland that is sharing part of the church for an Imam to lead prayer. Wow how crazy right.? My husband just looked at me and said, so what, are they not all praying to same God? After a slight pause of confusion I said, Good point!
This is great! I describe the important distinction you’re drawing as the belief in gender identity versus the institutionalization of the belief.
Well said, and nothing "true trans" about it.
I understand completely Ex, yet, at the sane time find myself wondering is there a point of crossing into being 'too nice land'.
I agree with what you're saying 100%. I've expressed the same position to my husband many times, when this topic has come up in conversation. However, his response is never what I hope it will be. That's true because this is my default position. And his response reminds me that I am, at heart, an idealist.
So here's what he reminds me: about half of the men who are engaging in the practice of transgenderism are engaging in an activity that falls somewhere within the category of rape. They are forcing everyone around them to engage in their fetish by participating in social society. We have to look at people, we have to talk to people, and unfortunately for us, in the case of an Autogynophile, that is enough to give them sexual satisfaction. My husband calls it rape behavior. He says this because it reminds him of his many years in the NYC art scene where gay men assumed they had the right to come on to him because he is slender, tall and attractive in the way ballet dancers are attractive. He was harassed. He didn't like it. He developed a strong sense of when someone was preying on him sexually. And unfortunately, he was not wrong. (it still happens at gallery openings and charity receptions with both men and women.)
Of course there is nothing anyone can do about what someone else finds arousing. What I'm addressing here is the fact that our chances of getting people to have this conversation are limited by the fact that the autogynophiles have the reins of power. As long as that is the case, they will be continually lobbying to expand on the religious rights for trans to practice publicly. And for some, those tights include the right to commit acts that we would otherwise see as criminal.
A sincerely held belief is no more provable than the existence of fairies. So we are facing a choice, in my opinion, either adopt the philosophy France has adopted, which embraces symbols worn like jewelry and rejects overt displays of faith such as the hijab. France, and Quebec, rejects any display of religious faith in any public place. Jewelry notwithstanding,. France bans the display of devotion in public. Period. So does Quebec. Most countries don't have to go that far because most countries are either religious dictatorships or are not so attractive to religious zealots that they need laws governing overt displays of religious fervor.
So we can do that or find another way. I don't know what that other way is right now. I hope I can help to figure that out. I do know showing overt respect for religion has resulted in events like the National Prayer Breakfast and Christmas and participation by evangelicals in national politics and neither one of those aspects of American life are safe or okay in a secular society.
Just one more thing: Knowles, like Jon Stewart, is not responding to the substance of the debate, rather he is responding to the public perception of the substance of the debate.
If you look at the Arkansas "Ban on Drag" it's not actually that. It's a law banning sexually explicit performances in places where children are likely to be in the audience.
Same is true of DeSantis "Don't Say Gay" law. The law has nothing to do with talking about being gay, it states that children won't be exposed to instruction on sexuality or gender identity in public schools.
(I loathe DeSantis btw, but that law is a good law.) Both of these laws have been widely attacked by the left using the flimsiest logic. On MSNBC last night, Jonathan Capeheart interviewed a drag queen that I know I wouldn't want my 8 year old to watch, (if I had one at home) and in the same interview he quoted Stewart about the leading cause of death for children, gun violence. As though a failure to address gun violence means that we should overlook the social trends harming children until gun violence is resolved.
It's worth mentioning that De Santis, like most Republicans, is thinking about this from a purely financial perspective. Trans kids cost taxpayers a ton of money. Children who die by gun violence? Not so much.
I'm not saying that's a healthy perspective, or even accurate. Trauma is expensive in the long haul, but it's a mistake to assume policy is ever made on the basis of compassion. That is not how governments are run. The fulcrum is cost. Ask any lobbyist.
I totally agree with you and think Michael Knowles is being FAR too radical and OTT..
It does come down to 'freedom of religion' BUT Trans don't see themselves as a 'religion'.
Trans are protected in Law not under religion, but as sexual/gender identity?
Ergo, they aren't under the same protection as Religion.
Your reasonableness is poetic.
Exulansic ! you came with a rich understanding on this issue! thank you ! Are planning to write something about it? I would love to have it and translate it into Spanish.
Thanks as always for your analysis. If we can't even define transgenderism how can we ban it? That is not a solution. Don't give men unfettered access to women's spaces and don't force your religion on children. And I'm not interested in playing their tiresome parlour games about "what is a woman?"
"You practice ritual cannibalism and it shows" - my last words to the Spanish Inquisition
Transubstantiation....the true believer swallows the pill, has the surgery, and becomes a woman, or becomes a man...it is a divine transition, a holy thing.
I don't care what they believe; they are welcome to believe whatever they like -- but when they are medically altering children's bodies in the name of their religion, when they make laws enforcing their beliefs, then we have a problem. Historically, religions have often promoted violence towards non-believers, another problem we need to avoid. I'm against making transitioning illegal, but we do need to be aware. We no longer allow the Catholic church to burn heretics, so I bet there are ways to stop the Church of Trans from it's worst tendencies without making it completely illegal.
Sometimes I think the best way to stop all this woke nonsense is to stop paying attention to them!
Your reply is excellent, states what needs to be stated up-front. Knowles' entire approach is wrong-headed and illegal under our legal framework. But I gotta say I wonder: how the hell do you even "ban transgenderism"? Any more than you "ban" any human behavior? Realistically? You can use punishment, criminalize certain practices and forbid others in public, and drive some behavior "underground", but that's not "eradicating" anything. It's not just wrong it's really dumb!
Practices or rites can be banned. My understanding is that those here viewing and commenting are in agreement about drugs, surgeries, and harmful prosthetics for minors being banned. For adults, since these practices are cosmetic and do not increase health but damage it, perhaps banning insurance from paying for it, because it isn’t any kind of “healthcare.” The beliefs cannot be banned and so therefore no attempt at banning should be made.
Thanks for such a concise response to that man’s panicky call for banning beliefs!