Shiloh Pitt & very young children with gender identity issues

[Ravin]

No.

 

I called one who does not present himself honestly delusional. My example was that I can respect, "I am a boy, but feel like a girl" but not the delusional view. At least attempt to quote me honestly.

So I'm either delusional or a liar?

[*Lulu*]

Oh, you mean like the kindness, compassion, and equality(for their disparate viewpoint) shown the Alcorn family, who just lost a child?

 

 

I'm not talking about some random people out there in cyber space that I do not know or interact with.

 

I am talking about the people right here, participating in this thread on this board.

 

People who we "know", who we share laughter with over our children's antics, who we share sorrow with during illness and loss, who we see struggle with job loss, divorce, life, who we rejoice and weep with.

 

Don't waste your time pointing to the other people "out there".

 

See to your plank first.

[LucyStoner]

Hermaphrodite is NOT an accurate or appropriate term for intersex people nor were the results of Caster Semenya's gender testing released to the public. We do not, as far as I am aware/recall, know if she is intersex or her chromosomal testing results. We do know that she was allowed to compete as a woman and that she is partnered with a woman.

 

And I am sure we'd ALL take this dude for a woman, right?

http://www.theluxuryspot.com/hot-ftm-transgender-men/5/

 

And this lady for a dude?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/fashion/will-the-fashion-world-accept-andreja-pejic-as-a-woman-fashion-week.html?_r=0

 

Now I'm gonna go take my man sized hands and feet and shoot some hoops.

 

ETA- some more links:

 

http://post-transition.tumblr.com

 

https://www.tumblr.com/search/mtf+before+and+after

[Mrs Mungo]

Sigh.

 

This thread is depressing. And so are the poll results. (though I don't know ... I'm guessing it's better than it would have been even 5 yrs ago...)

I didn't vote in the poll because of its wording. Probably a lot of people who would agree with you did not vote in the poll.

[Matryoshka]

Thought this article might add something to the conversation, and maybe illustrate why hormone blockers around puberty can really help (and are reversible).  Nicole will not ever end up looking like a man in drag, as she will be able to develop as a female, natural breasts, curves and all.  She will not get broad shoulders - you can see already her brother's face has changed in ways hers hasn't (and will not).

 

It also is an interesting question into what happens that causes this.  They are identical twins, with the same upbringing.  But even identical twins do not necessarily develop identically in the womb.

 

 

[Jenny in Florida]

Okay, now I am curious.

 

What exactly about them sits wrong with you?

 

Not just vague impressions, but what facts give shape to the impressions.

 

No snark, totally curious.

 

My guess, and it is just a guess (which I feel okay about posting only because Scarlett has been given many opportunities to speak up and hasn't) is that she dislikes them because the rumors suggest they fell in love while Brad Pitt was still married.

[Jenny in Florida]

I didn't vote in the poll because of its wording. Probably a lot of people who would agree with you did not vote in the poll.

 

Ditto.

 

I couldn't vote, mostly because of the use of the word "humor." But I consider myself an LGBTQ ally and would absolutely do my best to support a child of mine who was struggling with this kind of challenge. The specifics of how I  handled it would vary depending on tons of factors, including the child's age and my parental instinct about how much the child felt and understood. But I would do my level best.

[Daria]

Thought this article might add something to the conversation, and maybe illustrate why hormone blockers around puberty can really help (and are reversible).  Nicole will not ever end up looking like a man in drag, as she will be able to develop as a female, natural breasts, curves and all.  She will not get broad shoulders - you can see already her brother's face has changed in ways hers hasn't (and will not).

 

It also is an interesting question into what happens that causes this.  They are identical twins, with the same upbringing.  But even identical twins do not necessarily develop identically in the womb.

 

I thought that was a great article.  I think it also provides some really important responses to people who talk about transitioning as a "permanent choice" and suggest that people need to wait until they are legal adults.  Someone on this thread stated that they'd tell their child "You can make that decision when you're an adult", is in fact taking away their child's right to choose.

 

As I understand it, many children with significant gender dysphoria, who identify as the sex they were not assigned at birth, do change their minds.  A child who was assigned "male" at birth might identify as a girl, but later decide that they fit better with as a straight man, or a  gay man, or a genderqueer identity, or whatever.  One statistic I saw estimates that there's a 50/50 likelihood that that 4 year old who is persistently presenting as a girl will grow up to be a woman.  

 

So, let's say that's an accurate statistic.  Your beautiful child, who you thought was a boy, is telling they're a girl.  They've been saying it for the past 5 years, and they're darn persistent about it, but still you worry.  What if they grow up and they're a man, how can you make a permanent choice for them?  Why not just delay? 

 

To me, the goal here should be to do 2 things.

 

1) Give the child a chance, while they're young and you have some ability to protect them, to really figure out what it's like to live in the gender they're exploring.  It seems to me that letting your child wear dresses, or try out for the football team, or change their name from Nicholas to Nicole (or vice versa) let's them find out if it feels right.  If the answer is "actually not", then they've got time to transition back without awkward situations such as tax records or college degrees with an "old" name on them. 

 

2) Delay choices that permanently modify their bodies.

 

Having your child undergo puberty is a permanent choice.  Once a person has developed adult male characteristics, such as height or facial hair or a changed voice, or adult female characteristics like wide hips, going back is pretty much impossible.  There are things he or she can do to undo some of these characteristics (e.g. electrolysis), but some of them (e.g. height) are unchangeable, and for other the change is going to be imperfect, or will require highly invasive techniques such as surgery.  As I understand it, this is true if your child undergoes puberty naturally in the gender they were assigned at birth (e.g. if you force your MTF child to undergo puberty as a male by denying them puberty blockers), or if you give cross gender hormones to a teenager and force the opposite puberty (e.g. giving your MTF child estrogen).  

 

On the other hand, using puberty blockers, isn't making a permanent choice.  It's buying more time.  Even after 10+ years of identifying as female, Nicole's parents are allowing her more time by making this choice, and are making sure that she'll have plenty of information about what it's like to be a girl before she makes a permanent choice  To me, that's an abundance of caution.  It's taking into account the fickle nature of young teens, and allowing her a timeline that allows for reflection.  It sounds to me as though she's pretty sure, and that she's going to grow up into a strong confident woman.  But she still has the option of stopping the blockers and allowing herself to develop as an adult male.  

[Daria]

TM, you are the worst advertisement for Christianity I've ever seen - and that's saying a lot.

 

I don't know where you get off, suggesting to Ravin that he is deluded. Or lying.

 

But I'd suggest taking a leaf out of the EO ladies book, and try cultivating some grace.

 

Which is ironic since she isn't a Christian.

 

I mean, after all she's clearly stated that she believes that whatever you're born you stay for your whole life.  Identity doesn't change, and who's ever heard of a newborn who believed in Christ?

[poppy]

Just wanted to say, I didn't vote in the poll either. None of the choices seemed kind to me.

[texasmama]

I didn't vote in the poll because of its wording. Probably a lot of people who would agree with you did not vote in the poll.

Non voter here, as well.

[TranquilMind]

It is none of those.  It is a biological trait.

 

You don't choose to be gay, bi or straight.  And you don't choose your gender (it's pretty clear you don't understand the difference between sex and gender).

 

 

According to present-day, politically correct orthodoxy, it is a biological trait.  It wasn't a biological trait 50 years ago, it was a disorder listed in the DSM. 

 

Fifty years from now, it might be mandatory.  Who knows, the way things are going? 

 

I don't agree that sex and gender differ; that's the problem here you cannot see, as you merely think that "more education" will make a difference (Got multiple degrees and know how to research, thanks.  Unfortunately, I'm not really subject to political peer pressure...)

[TranquilMind]

TM, you are the worst advertisement for Christianity I've ever seen - and that's saying a lot.

 

I don't know where you get off, suggesting to Ravin that he is deluded. Or lying.

 

But I'd suggest taking a leaf out of the EO ladies book, and try cultivating some grace.

Why, thank you so much.  Exceedingly kind of you to say so.  Fortunately, you are not the one Whose opinion is the decisive factor.   

 

I do wish I were as gracious as many of you have been to me.  So much for diversity of opinion, eh?  Feeling the love flowing my direction, as my fellow boardmembers gently and kindly attempt to show me the error of my ways...

 

Diversity of opinion here means "politically-correct acceptable opinion." 

[poppy]

Why, thank you so much.  Exceedingly kind of you to say so.  Fortunately, you are not the one Whose opinion is the decisive factor.   

 

I do wish I were as gracious as many of you have been to me.  So much for diversity of opinion, eh?  Feeling the love flowing my direction, as my fellow boardmembers gently and kindly attempt to show me the error of my ways...

 

Diversity of opinion here means "politically-correct acceptable opinion." 

 

What is it you think politically correct means?

Do you think the posters who disagree with you are just attempting to not offend someone else?

[elegantlion]

According to present-day, politically correct orthodoxy, it is a biological trait.  It wasn't a biological trait 50 years ago, it was a disorder listed in the DSM. 

 

Fifty years from now, it might be mandatory.  Who knows, the way things are going? 

 

I don't agree that sex and gender differ; that's the problem here you cannot see, as you merely think that "more education" will make a difference (Got multiple degrees and know how to research, thanks.  Unfortunately, I'm not really subject to political peer pressure...)

 

Please be careful and don't break your arm as you pat yourself on the back over how awesome you are. 

[TranquilMind]

Please be careful and don't break your arm as you pat yourself on the back over how awesome you are. 

I don't believe I used or suggested that I was "awesome" anywhere, so you can stop putting words into my mouth.

 

But I'm not an uneducated buffoon in need of enlightenment from my cave either, as some of these posters imply, simply because I hold a "diverse" opinion from the mainstream in this thread.   

 

[Rosie_0801]

TM, why do you partake in these discussions?

[Lang Syne Boardie]

I have no degrees.

 

Is that why I'm able to childishly and ignorantly figure that if I don't understand something about another person the default action should be to accept and agree when possible and to keep my big my mouth shut otherwise, when whatever they're doing or saying has nothing whatever to do with me? I didn't learn this in college but there was some guy named Hippocrates who said, "First, do no harm," and I've always thought that was a decent approach even for people who are not doctors. Someone else famous suggested MYOB which is also good.

 

How educated do you have to be until you convince yourself you're qualified to pronounce on everything and everybody, and tell them to their face that you don't care about them at all but that's OK because you're pretty sure you're probably right?

 

This thread. The initial topic is tearjerking, some of the ensuing conversation has been thought-provoking and important, but the only thing left at the end of this thread is a bad taste in the mouth. Somebody's milk of human kindness done gone sour. Which circles right back around to the initial topic, doesn't it. See what I did there?

[elegantlion]

TM, why do you partake in these discussions?

 

That's what I curious about as well. What I see is that you deny the existence of transgender issues all together and yet I'm sure you realize you're not going to change anyone's mind here, as we realize we're not going to change yours. 

 

50 years ago the Internet didn't exist either, yet here we are. 

[TranquilMind]

I thought that was a great article.  I think it also provides some really important responses to people who talk about transitioning as a "permanent choice" and suggest that people need to wait until they are legal adults.  Someone on this thread stated that they'd tell their child "You can make that decision when you're an adult", is in fact taking away their child's right to choose.

 

As I understand it, many children with significant gender dysphoria, who identify as the sex they were not assigned at birth, do change their minds.  A child who was assigned "male" at birth might identify as a girl, but later decide that they fit better with as a straight man, or a  gay man, or a genderqueer identity, or whatever.  One statistic I saw estimates that there's a 50/50 likelihood that that 4 year old who is persistently presenting as a girl will grow up to be a woman.  

 

So, let's say that's an accurate statistic.  Your beautiful child, who you thought was a boy, is telling they're a girl.  They've been saying it for the past 5 years, and they're darn persistent about it, but still you worry.  What if they grow up and they're a man, how can you make a permanent choice for them?  Why not just delay? 

 

To me, the goal here should be to do 2 things.

 

1) Give the child a chance, while they're young and you have some ability to protect them, to really figure out what it's like to live in the gender they're exploring.  It seems to me that letting your child wear dresses, or try out for the football team, or change their name from Nicholas to Nicole (or vice versa) let's them find out if it feels right.  If the answer is "actually not", then they've got time to transition back without awkward situations such as tax records or college degrees with an "old" name on them. 

 

2) Delay choices that permanently modify their bodies.

 

Having your child undergo puberty is a permanent choice.  Once a person has developed adult male characteristics, such as height or facial hair or a changed voice, or adult female characteristics like wide hips, going back is pretty much impossible.  There are things he or she can do to undo some of these characteristics (e.g. electrolysis), but some of them (e.g. height) are unchangeable, and for other the change is going to be imperfect, or will require highly invasive techniques such as surgery.  As I understand it, this is true if your child undergoes puberty naturally in the gender they were assigned at birth (e.g. if you force your MTF child to undergo puberty as a male by denying them puberty blockers), or if you give cross gender hormones to a teenager and force the opposite puberty (e.g. giving your MTF child estrogen).  

 

On the other hand, using puberty blockers, isn't making a permanent choice.  It's buying more time.  Even after 10+ years of identifying as female, Nicole's parents are allowing her more time by making this choice, and are making sure that she'll have plenty of information about what it's like to be a girl before she makes a permanent choice  To me, that's an abundance of caution.  It's taking into account the fickle nature of young teens, and allowing her a timeline that allows for reflection.  It sounds to me as though she's pretty sure, and that she's going to grow up into a strong confident woman.  But she still has the option of stopping the blockers and allowing herself to develop as an adult male.  

The blockers are hormonal and have side effects.  Reproductive cancers are well-known side effects from hormonal overload from other reasons (birth control pills, etc).  

 

The cross-gender hormones, if given right after the blockers cause sterility.  They are also off-label. 

 

You had better be VERY sure before letting some 10 year old make that decision. 

[elegantlion]

I don't believe I used or suggested that I was "awesome" anywhere, so you can stop putting words into my mouth.

 

But I'm not an uneducated buffoon in need of enlightenment from my cave either, as some of these posters imply, simply because I hold a "diverse" opinion from the mainstream in this thread.   

 

What does level of education have anything to do with the understanding of gender issues? 

[DragonFaerie]

According to present-day, politically correct orthodoxy, it is a biological trait.  It wasn't a biological trait 50 years ago, it was a disorder listed in the DSM. 

 

That's called education and progress.

[Matryoshka]

The blockers are hormonal and have side effects.  Reproductive cancers are well-known side effects from hormonal overload from other reasons (birth control pills, etc). 

Um, the blockers block hormones, they don't increase or overload them.  They just delay puberty.

[TranquilMind]

TM, why do you partake in these discussions?

Because diverse opinions should be valued, but are not, unless they are True, Right Opinions, as verified by the liberal orthodoxy.  Diversity should cut both ways, but it never does. 

 

Because I find tiresome the smug back-patting of the oh-so-enlightened who have thrown off those binding shackles of faith and/or religion, and traditional values, and are now so much better than those backwoods "Deliverance" types (they imagine, in their minds).   

 

Because it's fun. 

[albeto.]

TM, you are the worst advertisement for Christianity I've ever seen - and that's saying a lot.

 

I think there are a couple things to keep in mind here. One is that according to one theological argument, it's not the individual's "job" to advertise the faith. God calls whom he will, and to those he doesn't call, the message of love just happens to sound like a message of hate. That's because without a spiritual regeneration (being born again), you can't really know God's will, you can only interpret God's word against the backdrop of your own [sinful] will. A will steeped in sin will no doubt give false readings, as it's confounded and blinded to the capital "T" Truth. Like with other conspiracy theories, dismissing the Truth is understood to be proof of the depth and efficacy of the conspiracy itself.

 

The other is if TM's angle is anything like mine use to be (and it sounds familiar, not only from this conversation but from others I've had with her in the past), the sympathy and compassion exists, and is genuine. The difference is the direction of this compassion, and the sources from which she derives her information. I can't (and won't, and don't need to) speak for TM, but if it helps, I'll share with you what I used to think, and why, and why TM's argument is familiar to me.

 

When I was a Christian, I used my faith as a practical guide as offered by my church, friends, and my own understanding. By this, I mean that I trusted the bible to be a source of practical knowledge, and so when it talked about "sin," I trusted that to be an insightful and truthful explanation of human behavior. After all, we all violate and offend each other to some extent, and we all violate and offend our own self-declared intentions. "Sin" explained why - there's a natural instinct to sin. Paul talks about this in his letter to the Romans. In the Catholic church, it's called concupiscence, and it refers to doing wrong even when you know the reasonable thing to do.

 

As I understood it, Satan inspires people to defer to their own interests, to gratify their own desires in lieu of deferring to God's. These desires, when in opposition to God's will, would ultimately be detrimental to the individual, even if its effects aren't felt immediately (or even in "this life"). To support the very things that will bring more people more pain and suffering is to neglect their well-being. I believed that in restricting opportunities for LGBTQ people, we were supporting the younger generation. By limiting its exposure, we were limiting its appeal to those who might embrace it for all the wrong reasons. Of course, believing sexuality was binary as the bible promotes, there were no "right" reasons. These were choices made in rebellion, adventure, or even desperation, the root causes of these problems, as I understood it, was where my sympathy lied. Further, there's a popular enough pseudo-research passed around for years that suggests such things as science proves gay men die young, are more dozens of times more promiscuous, chose the lifestyle, and produce emotionally traumatized children. In that light, it would be immoral and unethical to not try and prevent a lifetime of pain and disease for children who are being "groomed" for the lifestyle. I can only assume TM's sympathy and compassion is every bit as genuine as mine was. She's just applying it from a different direction than you and I are.

 

I don't know where you get off, suggesting to Ravin that he is deluded. Or lying.

 

It makes sense to me, not that I agree with it, but I understand it. If humanity is best explained through a conventional, traditional theology, then sexuality is binary and follows either God's plan or man's sinful desire. Assuming this to be true, to be born with the reproductive organs of one gender, but believe you are another, is to believe a false claim that is not only not supported by evidence, but is contrary to evidence. It is, by definition, delusional.

 

The problem with TM's argument is that her information is faulty. She's deferring to ancient texts explaining the natural world, including humanity, many of which were written back when the most educated people believed the sun was a magical person. In addition, she's ignoring evidence that reliably explains certain human behavior, including sexual identity, as being a naturally occurring phenomenon, albeit not common, but certainly not delusional. It's so much more complex than a kind of moral compass that leads to magnetic north/God, so "delusional" is inaccurate. It's inaccurate because it dismisses pertinent information, and applies beliefs as valid information, but it makes sense when you follow the argument in that direction.

 

But I'd suggest taking a leaf out of the EO ladies book, and try cultivating some grace.

 

If by "grace" you mean kind words and a lack of aggression, surely it's not an EO quality.

[Rosie_0801]

Because diverse opinions should be valued, but are not, unless they are True, Right Opinions, as verified by the liberal orthodoxy.  Diversity should cut both ways, but it never does. 

 

Because I find tiresome the smug back-patting of the oh-so-enlightened who have thrown off those binding shackles of faith and/or religion, and traditional values, and are now so much better than those backwoods "Deliverance" types (they imagine, in their minds).   

 

Because it's fun. 

 

Ah.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Because diverse opinions should be valued, but are not, unless they are True, Right Opinions, as verified by the liberal orthodoxy.  Diversity should cut both ways, but it never does. 

 

Because I find tiresome the smug back-patting of the oh-so-enlightened who have thrown off those binding shackles of faith and/or religion, and traditional values, and are now so much better than those backwoods "Deliverance" types (they imagine, in their minds).   

 

Because it's fun. 

 

What?

 

Some of us (in this thread and on the planet) have lots of faith, religion, and "traditional values" (...undefined - I know what I mean but it might not be what you mean....) yet manage never to call people delusional or to assume we know all about life situations we have never experienced. Namecalling and unkind presumption are not conservative, traditional, or Christian postures.

 

As far as treating people in this very conversation as less than persons, if that's your idea of fun, Jesus is not the first person who comes to mind as the author of THAT.

 

Sort yourself out for the sake of Jesus Christ. It's not what you think you know but how you treat people that matters.

[elegantlion]

Because diverse opinions should be valued, but are not, unless they are True, Right Opinions, as verified by the liberal orthodoxy.  Diversity should cut both ways, but it never does. 

 

Because I find tiresome the smug back-patting of the oh-so-enlightened who have thrown off those binding shackles of faith and/or religion, and traditional values, and are now so much better than those backwoods "Deliverance" types (they imagine, in their minds).   

 

Because it's fun. 

 

So you think that people who are "enlightened" somehow view all religious people as backwoods hicks who play banjos? Sadly for you, no I don't believe that. 

 

I find some christians (I might still be one, but probably not by your standards) to be true and upright in their faith. They amaze me, some of them are on this board. 

 

You called one of my friends delusional, even if you claim you didn't. I don't take kindly to that. 

 

I also broke one of my "rules" by engaging you at all in this conversation at all. This conversation has been valuable to those who are attempting to understand transgender issues and I don't want to be the one that gets it shut down. Therefore, I am going to put you in ignore, and perhaps you'd like to do the same to me, because you are obviously not interested in dialogue. Your position has been well stated and it doesn't appear you are willing to hear much of what else is being said, even if you would choose to disagree. 

[Lang Syne Boardie]

I missed the part about the banjos. People at my house do play banjos and sometimes even out on the front porch.

[elegantlion]

I missed the part about the banjos. People at my house do play banjos and sometimes even out on the front porch.

 

I love some good banjo music. 

 

 

I had the Deliverance song going through my head. I've never even seen the movie though. 

[Lang Syne Boardie]

I love some good banjo music. 

 

 

I had the Deliverance song going through my head. I've never even seen the movie though. 

 

Oh, if you've heard the song you got the best part. Don't bother. :D

[TranquilMind]

Um, the blockers block hormones, they don't increase or overload them.  They just delay puberty.

The blockers can cause sterility.  It is the subsequent cross-gender hormones that overload, as I thought I said. 

 

They are off label.  .No one knows the outcome, long-term of messing around with the body like that.  No one seems to care. 

 

But it's ok, because changing a major- perhaps THE major - function of a growing body is perfectly fine because someone wants to do it.   

 

(sigh).

[TranquilMind]

TM displays zero compassion and sympathy and we all see it. i don't really care about her belief in God's desire, I care more about how she just treated Ravin on this thread.

 

Of the religious posters on this forum, the EO ladies do the best job of being straight up about what they believe, in a way that is graceful and does not involve calling others 'deluded' or 'liars', IMO, but it's hard to find a thread where an EO poster has been deliberately offensive.

 

I'm not interested in understanding TM's perspective, or that of any person who would contribute, by their thoughts, expressions and actions, to a community unfriendly towards - and in some cases, deadly to - LGBTIQ children, teens or adults.

 

You are giving her ideas some kind of false equivalency with those of people who actually care about what happens to LGBTIQ people in THIS life.

I didn't "treat Ravin" any particular wayl I don't even know who "Ravin" is.  I vaguely remember once replying to Ravin about the cake thread, only because I asked if it would be ok with Ravin, if someone posted all over Facebook that they got this fantastic cake for (X event Ravin wanted nothing to do with) from "Ravin's Cakes".  And that is the sole extent of my knowledge of Ravin.  Unlike some of you - this post, in point - I am discussing ideas, and not castigating individuals. 

 

 I have responded to dozens of posts, and Ravin's posts are not distinguishable from all of the other posts.   A great big sea of, "You are wrong, and we are right."

 

You most certainly have proven my point about the lack of diversity welcome here, however. 

[Rosie_0801]

I don't care how many degrees you have; on LGBTIQ topics, you need to start from scratch.

 

I think she understands our pov as much as we understand hers, which is quite well. She's just trolling, like she said.

[*Lulu*]

Just a touch over 50 years ago mental health care included regular use of lobotomies.

 

We, as a society, gain understanding of the world around us and make changes in keeping with gains in our collective knowledge.

 

Because diverse opinions should be valued, but are not, unless they are True, Right Opinions, as verified by the liberal orthodoxy. Diversity should cut both ways, but it never does.

 

Because I find tiresome the smug back-patting of the oh-so-enlightened who have thrown off those binding shackles of faith and/or religion, and traditional values, and are now so much better than those backwoods "Deliverance" types (they imagine, in their minds).

I find tiresome the fact that you jump into this thread with nothing to say but, political correctness is bad, back in post 52, which means barely on page 2. Nobody was talking political correctness, so you drug it in. And, since no one seems to want to discuss it, you keep thumping on it and trying to paint posters' reluctance to engage in off topic discussion as liberal censorship.

 

I find it tiresome that you frequently appoint yourself the gatekeeper of who is or is not a Christian, a conservative, a lover of freedom, or diversity.

 

If you want to equate traditional values with how things were 50 years ago, it will be a hard sell since 50 years ago our society was systematically protecting discrimination, bigotry, and abuse.

 

 

Because it's fun.

And this says it all.

 

You make sport of other posters' pain.

 

You could be the most educated poster this board has ever seen.

 

Education and cruel indifference are not mutually exclusive.

[Rosie_0801]

 I have responded to dozens of posts, and Ravin's posts are not distinguishable from all of the other posts.  

 

Lol, they ought to be, considering Ravin is our resident trans expert.

[Rosie_0801]

Oh my gosh....

 

Now what is the "I" in LGBTIQ???

 

Y'all just need to stop with this alphabet soup. (LOL)

 

 

 

 

And for the record, I'm one of those evil conservative Christians. Just sayin'. :-P

 

Intersex, I believe.

[albeto.]

TM displays zero compassion and sympathy and we all see it. i don't really care about her belief in God's desire, I care more about how she just treated Ravin on this thread.

 

She's claiming Ravin has a delusional belief, right? Is she calling Ravin names, accusing him of hurting people, claiming he's a dangerous person to society? I'm asking because I've not read the middle of this thread, so I will have missed that kind of thing. If she's suggesting transgender is a delusional behavior, then that's no more "mean" than me suggesting believing the earth is 6000 years old is "mean." The difference is, TM doesn't have the evidence to support her claim. It's a false claim, but is she saying the argument is bad, or the person is bad?

 

I'm not interested in understanding TM's perspective, or that of any person who would contribute, by their thoughts, expressions and actions, to a community unfriendly towards - and in some cases, deadly to - LGBTIQ children, teens or adults.

 

You are giving her ideas some kind of false equivalency with those of people who actually care about what happens to LGBTIQ people in THIS life.

 

I think instead I'm finding the common ground - a desire to protect children. She just happens to think children need to be protected from tolerance of LGBTQ rights. You and I agree they need to be protected from people who target LGBTQ people. There are a lot of them reading this thread. It's good, I think, to acknowledge their views aren't likely steeped in hatred, just fear, and wrongly at that. They're targeting innocent people.

[TranquilMind]

I think she understands our pov as much as we understand hers, which is quite well. She's just trolling, like she said.

Who said I am "trolling"? I am not trolling.  I am who I say I am; and I have been here for years, even from the days when conservative viewpoints were acceptable as well.   My understanding of a troll is to pop into or create a thread about some false thing that never happened, just to stir people up. I have never trolled in my life.

 

I do have difficulty  remaining silent when the self-congratulatory level begins to spill over in a forum population, when people begin tooting their horns flattering themselves over their vast superiority to others (like this mother who just lost her child).  Then I do feel compelled to offer a "diverse" opinion, but I am not just making the opinion up. It is either an actual opinion of my own, or just an idea in the marketplace of ideas that should not be silenced.

 

So, I think perhaps you don't understand what a troll is. 

[Melinda in VT]

Who said I am "trolling"? I am not trolling.  I am who I say I am; and I have been here for years, even from the days when conservative viewpoints were acceptable as well.   My understanding of a troll is to pop into or create a thread about some false thing that never happened, just to stir people up. I have never trolled in my life.

 

I do have difficulty  remaining silent when the self-congratulatory level begins to spill over in a forum population, when people begin tooting their horns flattering themselves over their vast superiority to others (like this mother who just lost her child).  Then I do feel compelled to offer a "diverse" opinion, but I am not just making the opinion up. It is either an actual opinion of my own, or just an idea in the marketplace of ideas that should not be silenced.

 

So, I think perhaps you don't understand what a troll is. 

 

I think Rosie is probably using this definition of a troll:

 

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,^[1] by posting inflammatory,^[2]extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response^[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

 

(From wikipedia.)

 

[*Lulu*]

Who said I am "trolling"? I am not trolling. I am who I say I am; and I have been here for years, even from the days when conservative viewpoints were acceptable as well. My understanding of a troll is to pop into or create a thread about some false thing that never happened, just to stir people up. I have never trolled in my life.

 

I do have difficulty remaining silent when the self-congratulatory level begins to spill over in a forum population, when people begin tooting their horns flattering themselves over their vast superiority to others (like this mother who just lost her child). Then I do feel compelled to offer a "diverse" opinion, but I am not just making the opinion up. It is either an actual opinion of my own, or just an idea in the marketplace of ideas that should not be silenced.

 

So, I think perhaps you don't understand what a troll is.

So....

 

What happened in the first 50 posts of this thread, long before the suicide of a transgendered teen came up, that made you certain your "diverse" opinion was called for?

[Rosie_0801]

Who said I am "trolling"? I am not trolling.  I am who I say I am; and I have been here for years, even from the days when conservative viewpoints were acceptable as well.   My understanding of a troll is to pop into or create a thread about some false thing that never happened, just to stir people up. I have never trolled in my life.

 

I do have difficulty  remaining silent when the self-congratulatory level begins to spill over in a forum population, when people begin tooting their horns flattering themselves over their vast superiority to others (like this mother who just lost her child).  Then I do feel compelled to offer a "diverse" opinion, but I am not just making the opinion up. It is either an actual opinion of my own, or just an idea in the marketplace of ideas that should not be silenced.

 

So, I think perhaps you don't understand what a troll is. 

 

You said you were here for fun. You are here saying things you know will stir people up because it is fun. If you weren't looking for opportunities to interject, you wouldn't even be reading threads like this because you already know you won't agree with the prevailing view. You are trolling.

 

So I think perhaps you don't have a full appreciation for the concept of self awareness. 

 

In light of this, you will look silly next time you pull the victim card. 

[TranquilMind]

Lol, they ought to be, considering Ravin is our resident trans expert.

Well, ok then.  I was unaware that Ravin was a known expert in any area.  I basically have no idea what any of you do, except for Joanne, whom I now know, based on recent discussions, is a licensed counselor. 

 

That's it.  I discuss ideas and concepts, but try not to discuss the merits of people themselves, because I am not the judge of any person's merits. 

 

If I say that I simply detest red shoes, and list all the reasons why red shoes are vastly inferior to other shoes, then I prefer other shoes.  If you like red shoes, I am not putting YOU down as a person.  I'm simply sticking to my truth that red shoes are undesirable.  If my faith states, "Thou shall not wear red shoes (which it does not, but let's just say it does, for argument's sake)" then, by golly, I am going to not wear red shoes, and hope and pray my family does not wear red shoes, and advocate causes of those who prefer other shoes. 

That doesn't mean I "hate" you, or put you down, or find you inferior because you wear red shoes.  You wear them.  You are not red shoes. 

[Joanne]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/freedhearts/2014/12/31/deadly-sins-parents-commit-against-their-transgender-kids-in-memory-of-leelah-alcorn/

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Well, ok then.  I was unaware that Ravin was a known expert in any area.  I basically have no idea what any of you do, except for Joanne, whom I now know, based on recent discussions, is a licensed counselor. 

 

That's it.  I discuss ideas and concepts, but try not to discuss the merits of people themselves, because I am not the judge of any person's merits. 

 

If I say that I simply detest red shoes, and list all the reasons why red shoes are vastly inferior to other shoes, then I prefer other shoes.  If you like red shoes, I am not putting YOU down as a person.  I'm simply sticking to my truth that red shoes are undesirable.  If my faith states, "Thou shall not wear red shoes (which it does not, but let's just say it does, for argument's sake)" then, by golly, I am going to not wear red shoes, and hope and pray my family does not wear red shoes, and advocate causes of those who prefer other shoes. 

That doesn't mean I "hate" you, or put you down, or find you inferior because you wear red shoes.  You wear them.  You are not red shoes. 

 

No, no, no. The evidence plainly stands - you replied directly (and rudely) to Ravin who spoke directly to you. As far as merits of people themselves, you do judge AND discuss them, with words such as "delusional" and "confused."

 

We were all here so we all know this.

[TranquilMind]

You said you were here for fun. You are here saying things you know will stir people up because it is fun. If you weren't looking for opportunities to interject, you wouldn't even be reading threads like this because you already know you won't agree with the prevailing view. You are trolling.

 

So I think perhaps you don't have a full appreciation for the concept of self awareness. 

 

In light of this, you will look silly next time you pull the victim card. 

Why are you here?  You must enjoy discussing current events/political concepts as well.  Why does that make me a troll, but you an involved forum participant?

 

Oh, I guess it is because you agree with the prevailing view, and I do not. 

 

. 

[Rosie_0801]

Your red shoe analogy doesn't work. To say you are not your identity is too weird for words. Identities are not things that can be kicked under the bed or put through the wash.

[TranquilMind]

So....

 

What happened in the first 50 posts of this thread, long before the suicide of a transgendered teen came up, that made you certain your "diverse" opinion was called for?

There are what, 700 posts now?  I'm just not doing the work to go back to my first response.  Not willing tonight.

But I'm sure that someone said something that was peculiar or contrary to the evidence, or skewed, and I didn't let it stand unchallenged.  That is what normally happens. 

[Rosie_0801]

Why are you here?  You must enjoy discussing current events/political concepts as well.  Why does that make me a troll, but you an involved forum participant?

 

Oh, I guess it is because you agree with the prevailing view, and I do not. 

 

. 

 

I'm here because I learn more about how people work and I help others do the same. I'm even polite about it most of the time.

 

That's why I'm a valued* forum participant not a troll. I'm even valued by people who hardly ever agree with me and who I hardly ever agree with.

 

 

*Not by everyone, I'm well aware.

[Melinda in VT]

Why are you here?  You must enjoy discussing current events/political concepts as well.  Why does that make me a troll, but you an involved forum participant?

 

Oh, I guess it is because you agree with the prevailing view, and I do not. 

 

. 

 

Nope. I don't value Rosie's participation in the forum because she agrees with the prevailing view or with my view. I value her participation because she is thoughtful and kind in her responses and willing to at least consider that other people who have a different perspective on an issue might have a reason for thinking that way, and maybe it's better to try to understand their position than tell them they are wrong.

 

She in no way fits the definition of a troll.