Drag Story time

[1234]

I will say I take issue with the dialogue that minors shouldn’t socially transition or use any hormones because they are more likely to “stay trans”. It feels very much like conversion therapy. And, no, being trans didn’t make my kid straight. He was gay prior to coming out as trans and is still just as gay.

These decisions should not be decided by politicians or whomever shouts the loudest. It should be between parents, their dc, and medical professionals. Absolutely none of it should be legislated. All kinds of therapy should be accessible - and all kinds of affirming care should be accessible. 

[EKS]

4 hours ago, KSera said:

I may have a recent (June 2023) link on that I can drop for now

Transition Regret and Detransition: Meanings and Uncertainties

Thank you for this!

[EKS]

20 minutes ago, Joker2 said:

I will say I take issue with the dialogue that minors shouldn’t socially transition or use any hormones because they are more likely to “stay trans”.

So you think that social/medical transition and all the issues that go along with it is preferable to becoming comfortable with one's own body and the "identity" that goes with it?

[Sneezyone]

1 hour ago, Joker2 said:

Also, it’s very easy to go tit for tat with articles and research regarding these issues right now, and that never leads anywhere good on this board. I’m focusing more on making a difference on this topic with IRL people who are voting where I live and who I actually think I can reach. 

Indeed. One cop, first responder, case worker, and administrator at a time. Not because all the answers are there but because they’re NOT and we need to get comfy with complexity and nuance and stop trying to bludgeon people with law.

[bolt.]

25 minutes ago, Joker2 said:

These decisions should not be decided by politicians or whomever shouts the loudest. It should be between parents, their dc, and medical professionals. Absolutely none of it should be legislated. All kinds of therapy should be accessible - and all kinds of affirming care should be accessible. 

I would *almost* agree to this, except I would say that "all kinds of therapy that are professionally responsible" should be acceptable. Not just anything that can be followed by the word "therapy" -- there are some things that could be called a type of therapy, that are (quite properly) viewed as malpractice -- not just in the gender-care field, but in all fields.

There's got to be some standards or definitions for what is really a therapy, and what is not appropriate/ethical for people to be able to subject their kids to, even if it's what they would prefer to access. I agree that this is a not a legislation/politics issue. It's more of a professionals standards and licensing issue.

[prairiewindmomma]

3 minutes ago, EKS said:

So you think that social/medical transition and all the issues that go along with it is preferable to becoming comfortable with one's own body and the "identity" that goes with it?

It’s interesting that you frame that as if transitioning isn’t what helps some people finally settle into their bodies and their identities.

 

[1234]

Just now, EKS said:

So you think that social/medical transition and all the issues that go along with it is preferable to becoming comfortable with one's own body and the "identity" that goes with it?

For some, yes. Which is why it should not be illegal. My trans ds is way better off right now as a trans young adult than he was for the years he tried not to be trans. He’s graduated college, has a job, and is getting married in a few months. He’s a  productive and healthy human being now. 

[EKS]

5 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

It’s interesting that you frame that as if transitioning isn’t what helps some people finally settle into their bodies and their identities.

You must be being deliberately obtuse.

[Sneezyone]

2 minutes ago, EKS said:

You must be being deliberately obtuse.

I read it the same way she did. The predicate is/was that social/medical transition isn’t/or is never/can’t ever be preferable which is a patently absurd proposition that got a similarly snarky reeponse. There’s too much nuance/complexity for that.

Edited June 21, 2023 by Sneezyone

[Harriet Vane]

51 minutes ago, MercyA said:

I almost always check out research links, and I do find them very helpful. I want to know what the peer-reviewed science says. Not that Americans seem to care as a whole, as evidenced by the pandemic. 😞 

@KSera Same here. I really do appreciate the links. I also care quite a lot about credible sourcing, another point that you are good at. Thank you.

[Rosie_0801]

14 minutes ago, EKS said:

So you think that social/medical transition and all the issues that go along with it is preferable to becoming comfortable with one's own body and the "identity" that goes with it?

Are you asking Joker whether she thinks social/medical transition and all the issues that go along with it should be an immediate response on the part of caregivers instead of a last resort when nothing else worked?

[KSera]

12 minutes ago, Joker2 said:

My trans ds is way better off right now as a trans young adult than he was for the years he tried not to be trans. He’s graduated college, has a job, and is getting married in a few months. He’s a  productive and healthy human being now. 

I actually think of your ds with some frequency, you might be surprised to hear. His outcome is what I’d love to see some version of for my ds. 

[EKS]

Just now, Rosie_0801 said:

Are you asking Joker whether she thinks social/medical transition and all the issues that go along with it should be an immediate response on the part of caregivers instead of a last resort when nothing else worked?

Sort of.  I'm asking whether, all things being equal, it is preferable for a person to undergo social/medical transition, or instead to become comfortable with the body they were born with and the "identity" that goes with it.  In other words, if waiting means that most people "desist," wouldn't that outcome be preferable to transitioning?

I am not saying that people who would be better off transitioning shouldn't transition.  

[EKS]

9 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I read it the same way she did.

Of course you did.

[Melissa Louise]

18 minutes ago, EKS said:

So you think that social/medical transition and all the issues that go along with it is preferable to becoming comfortable with one's own body and the "identity" that goes with it?

Ppl forget they are talking to someone with a GD history.

Obviously, to resolve an identity crisis without medical or surgical intervention is preferable.

I don't know why ppl wouldn't acknowledge that. All procedures/long term treatments carry risks, so of course it's preferable to resolve dysphoria (fully or partially) AND avoid the risk profile of transition.

 

[1234]

11 minutes ago, EKS said:

Sort of.  I'm asking whether, all things being equal, it is preferable for a person to undergo social/medical transition, or instead to become comfortable with the body they were born with and the "identity" that goes with it.  In other words, if waiting means that most people "desist," wouldn't that outcome be preferable to transitioning?

I am not saying that people who would be better off transitioning shouldn't transition.  

I honestly can’t make myself even think of that at this point because it wasn’t our reality. We tried it for years though. We didn’t jump to transitioning in any way at first. Part of me is sad we didn’t though because of who he is after transitioning. So, I feel for parents today trying to make those same decisions and don’t think politics should be involved in it at all.

Edited June 21, 2023 by Joker2

[1234]

10 minutes ago, KSera said:

I actually think of your ds with some frequency, you might be surprised to hear. His outcome is what I’d love to see some version of for my ds. 

I hope your dc come out of all of this ok too. I don’t wish for anyone’s dc to struggle as much as mine did or as much as many are today - yours included. It’s why I want all the options on the table and the mental health care aspect to be way better for all. 

[KSera]

nt

Edited June 21, 2023 by KSera
Deleted personal

[Sneezyone]

38 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Ppl forget they are talking to someone with a GD history.

Obviously, to resolve an identity crisis without medical or surgical intervention is preferable.

I don't know why ppl wouldn't acknowledge that. All procedures/long term treatments carry risks, so of course it's preferable to resolve dysphoria (fully or partially) AND avoid the risk profile of transition.

 

Not forget. It’s irrelevant to the question and the way it was phrased. 

[PronghornD]

It seems to me that one thing we really need is better mental health care for our youth and young adults. That's something we can all support. My depressed young adult has been trying out online counselors (online, since they don't drive). I don't know why, but the counselors aren't very good and some are actually terrible It's no wonder people grab onto the hope of a medical transition!

In some ways this seems parallel to abortion to me. Should we use laws to control people's personal decisions? Or should we provide the supports to enable them to have good outcomes without legal restrictions? I vote for the latter.

[Melissa Louise]

It's really not akin to abortion - abortion is a one and done process, and safer than pregnancy. 

[PronghornD]

1 minute ago, Melissa Louise said:

It's really not akin to abortion - abortion is a one and done process, and safer than pregnancy. 

Not akin but parallel in the approach. We can use laws to force people to behave in a certain way or we can provide support and let them make good choices.

[SanDiegoMom]

1 hour ago, prairiewindmomma said:

It’s interesting that you frame that as if transitioning isn’t what helps some people finally settle into their bodies and their identities.

 

I think this is where everyone is coming at this with different interpretations of the science as being "settled" or "not settled".  Most of what I have read (studies like KSera linked above -- I've read from many of the researchers linked in that study) shows that there is a very low evidence basis for minors transitioning, and even less research done on the current cohort of post pubertal onset GD.  There is evidence showing some success with adults, but there are still not a lot of studies and some still show long term regret, heightened suicide risks post transition, and long term medical consequences. And those were transitioned in a time when there were more safeguards and a longer process. 

 

[Sneezyone]

Just now, SanDiegoMom said:

I think this is where everyone is coming at this with different interpretations of the science as being "settled" or "not settled".  Most of what I have read (studies like KSera linked above -- I've read from many of the researchers linked in that study) shows that there is a very low evidence basis for minors transitioning, and even less research done on the current cohort of post pubertal onset GD.  There is evidence showing some success with adults, but there are still not a lot of studies and some still show long term regret, heightened suicide risks post transition, and long term medical consequences. And those were transitioned in a time when there were more safeguards and a longer process. 

 

None of this suggests legislative interference is appropriate or desirable.

[SanDiegoMom]

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

None of this suggests legislative interference is appropriate or desirable.

It is not desirable.  But the AAP and the AMA are acting like this is settled science, and it is far from settled.  For minors, there is low evidence of efficacy, which is why other countries are ending it except in the context of research trials. 

But in the US puberty blockers and cross sex hormones and surgeries for minors are still happening on the basis of "informed consent", as if a 12, 13 or 15 year old understands the gravity of their decisions.  

[Sneezyone]

5 minutes ago, SanDiegoMom said:

It is not desirable.  But the AAP and the AMA are acting like this is settled science, and it is far from settled.  For minors, there is low evidence of efficacy, which is why other countries are ending it except in the context of research trials. 

But in the US puberty blockers and cross sex hormones and surgeries for minors are still happening on the basis of "informed consent", as if a 12, 13 or 15 year old understands the gravity of their decisions.  

This is no different from any other course of treatment that a family might object to, except it’s being legislated as right/wrong (state dependent), with a co-sign from people who think it helps their cause. It helps no one. Saying I like what’s happening ‘over there’ b/c it supports my stance undermines the position that nuance is possible, through conversation or otherwise, as so many here are won’t to do.

Edited June 21, 2023 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

12 minutes ago, SanDiegoMom said:

It is not desirable.  But the AAP and the AMA are acting like this is settled science, and it is far from settled.  For minors, there is low evidence of efficacy, which is why other countries are ending it except in the context of research trials. 

But in the US puberty blockers and cross sex hormones and surgeries for minors are still happening on the basis of "informed consent", as if a 12, 13 or 15 year old understands the gravity of their decisions.  

They don’t understand the consequences of rhinoplasty, ear tubes, or breast augmentation either but FAMILIES get to make those choices.

If the science is so compelling, like cigarette risks, sell the science (nicotine is addictive and kills) not the bigotry (smokers are filthy, no-account people who shouldn’t be allowed to exist in public).

Edited June 21, 2023 by Sneezyone

[Starr]

Laws are so complicated. As youth become adults some will  be happy with their medical intervention but others will not. Then who gets blamed? 

[prairiewindmomma]

I am responding to this because you quoted me directly….I feel as though my posts have shown nuance and have not pushed for medical transition for minors or other extreme positions and yet I am called out, often through name calling, when I gently point out wording in posts that could be considered transphobic. I haven’t called those posts specifically transphobic because I don’t know if that is what is intended….

I have not forgotten that Kai struggled(s)with dysphoria, but her experience with resolution without transition does not “trump” those who have found resolution through social or medical transition. Acknowledging that there are possible multiple “good” outcomes, including transition as a “good” outcome, is not failing to acknowledge that resolution of dysphoria without transition is also “good”. Resolution = good.

As I mentioned in my two spirits post, setting up desistance as the only good outcome sets up the argument that transitioning is bad. Transgender persons are not broken or bad or therapy failures. 

[Sneezyone]

Just now, Starr said:

Laws are so complicated. As youth become adults some will  be happy with their medical intervention but others will not. Then who gets blamed? 

I think there needs to be an element of personal and family responsibility involved, just like homeschooling, just like pregnancy. Nanny state isn’t good in any of those realms. Accepting it in one and eschewing it in another is just blatant hypocrisy. I’m not trying to ban hypocrisy tho, just pointing it out.

[prairiewindmomma]

Let me try this from a different angle:

If we as society banned social and medical transitioning for people, how is that different than banning transgender persons? 
 

And why is that ok for one person to decide for another?

(I am not referring to minors here.)

 

[Melissa Louise]

47 minutes ago, PronghornD said:

Not akin but parallel in the approach. We can use laws to force people to behave in a certain way or we can provide support and let them make good choices.

Until there's a much stronger evidence base for minors, I think restricting access to trials is justifiable in a way that restricting abortion for minors isn't. 

As for adults, let them do what they want in terms of body modifications. I've never objected to that, although I have thoughts in a socialized medicine system like mine about what should and should not be covered under our Medicare. 

We had a long and hard journey through two GD diagnoses. I KNOW the evidence base is not there. 

For all laws pertaining to adults (drag, cross dressing, transition) I'm anti those laws. 

I'd probably be more vocal about it if the gaslighting from 'allies' was less. 

 

 

 

[Sneezyone]

5 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Until there's a much stronger evidence base for minors, I think restricting access to trials is justifiable in a way that restricting abortion for minors isn't. 

As for adults, let them do what they want in terms of body modifications. I've never objected to that, although I have thoughts in a socialized medicine system like mine about what should and should not be covered under our Medicare. 

We had a long and hard journey through two GD diagnoses. I KNOW the evidence base is not there. 

For all laws pertaining to adults (drag, cross dressing, transition) I'm anti those laws. 

I'd probably be more vocal about it if the gaslighting from 'allies' was less. 

 

 

 

Ditto to the bolded. I’ve previously expressed concern about sport b/c we are a family that values women’s athletics but, in the US anyway, there’s no room to be concerned, cautious (and wittingly or not) accepting of bigotry. The voices trying to silence divergent gender expression are loud, armed, violent, and close by.

Edited June 21, 2023 by Sneezyone

[Melissa Louise]

22 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

Let me try this from a different angle:

If we as society banned social and medical transitioning for people, how is that different than banning transgender persons? 
 

And why is that ok for one person to decide for another?

(I am not referring to minors here.)

 

Who here is supporting a ban on adult transitioning? 

If adults want to transition, fine with me.

Just don't take my support for their freedom to do so as a sign I agree with any loss of female rights or freedom, don't gaslight me there is no loss and understand and accept  that not everyone agrees  gender should be a relevant organising principle in society and they might have reasons for that that are not motivated by hate.

 

Edited June 21, 2023 by Melissa Louise

[Sneezyone]

14 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

Who here is supporting a ban on adult transitioning? 

If adults want to transition, fine with me.

Just don't take my support for their freedom to do so as a sign I agree with any loss of female rights or freedom, don't gaslight me there is no loss and understand and accept  that not everyone agrees  gender should be a relevant organising principle in society. 

 

Do you truly not see the overlap? The common cause with conservative bigots who absolutely have public erasure as a goal? I am not going to name names but they exist on this forum as well. They don’t want to see non-traditional gender expression in ANY form, on ANY body. My kid is lucky to have a family that is loud/bold/tough enough to declare her right to exist as is. Her village rallied for her and she is bold, confident, and strong as a result. Matches my energy, 😂, God help you all.

Maybe that staved off a transition desire? Maybe radical IDGAF, come home on time, maintain your grades, and be a good person helped? What I do know is that forcing people to conform by law is never a good thing.

I am sympathetic to concerns that drag elevates stereotypes about women while LIVING the reality that anti-drag, anti-trans sentiment is making my kid less safe. THAT is my priority.

Edited June 21, 2023 by Sneezyone

[prairiewindmomma]

5 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Who here is supporting a ban on adult transitioning? 

 

I’ll pm you. ❤️

[Melissa Louise]

Honestly, I would appreciate these discussions so.much more if people were honest. 

Yes, we know the evidence is shaky but we don't think the risk of regret really matters. 

Yes, we know including males will lead to self exclusion of some women, but that's a price we're willing to pay. 

Yes, we know people don't actually change sex, but nevertheless, we want you to agree TWAW. 

Yes, bad actors will take advantage of loopholes, but we don't think that's  worth worrying about. 

It's the whole being gaslit about these things that feels (note I don't say is) abusive. 

 

 

[Melissa Louise]

1 hour ago, Starr said:

Laws are so complicated. As youth become adults some will  be happy with their medical intervention but others will not. Then who gets blamed? 

The medical providers who should be more cautious. 

[Sneezyone]

13 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Honestly, I would appreciate these discussions so.much more if people were honest. 

Yes, we know the evidence is shaky but we don't think the risk of regret really matters. 

Yes, we know including males will lead to self exclusion of some women, but that's a price we're willing to pay. 

Yes, we know people don't actually change sex, but nevertheless, we want you to agree TWAW. 

Yes, bad actors will take advantage of loopholes, but we don't think that's  worth worrying about. 

It's the whole being gaslit about these things that feels (note I don't say is) abusive. 

 

 

Being gaslit presumes someone is trying to convince you they think something they don’t in order to convince you that you’re crazy.

What you just outlined isn’t what most actually think nor what they’re trying to convince you of.

1. The risk of regret in ALL matters is real and yet it’s not something you can legislate away or prevent.

2. Including trans women may discourage some bio women and yet if we allowed that rationale to prevent inclusion, women would never serve on US war ships. They only earned the chance in 1996. We don’t all see ourselves as fine china in need of protection.

3. Bad actors will attempt to take advantage of more inclusive policies so we need to develop tools/mechanisms to restrict their participation and punish abuses, duh.

Edited June 21, 2023 by Sneezyone

[KSera]

58 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I think there needs to be an element of personal and family responsibility involved, just like homeschooling, just like pregnancy. Nanny state isn’t good in any of those realms. Accepting it in one and eschewing it in another is just blatant hypocrisy. I’m not trying to ban hypocrisy tho, just pointing it out.

I agree with you on this. I think the two elements that make this really difficult for families are that 1) they are being told by their dysphoric kids and others that if they don't let them do x,y,z, the kid will commit suicide and 2) For reasons I can only decipher as political, medical organizations continue to have position statements that read like the science is settled, even while agreeing when they get down to it that there isn't any quality research to back it up. It would be much easier for families to make their own decisions if those two things weren't true.

I put this mostly on the medical establishment, and it continues to be where I think the most responsibility and ability to shift things toward safer decision making for kids lies. But the politicization and awful laws seem to have them backed into a corner where they can't move in a direction that would make it look like they might agree with anything the people making those laws have said. I don't know how that gets fixed (except I do think they need to follow the science regardless and say what's what). It needs to be shown that one can totally support trans identified kids without supporting medicalization (there is in fact another study I recently read on that topic that indicated it was Not social transition status, but peer relations and family functioning predict psychological functioning in a German clinical sample of children with Gender Dysphoria).

[Sneezyone]

15 minutes ago, KSera said:

I agree with you on this. I think the two elements that make this really difficult for families are that 1) they are being told by their dysphoric kids and others that if they don't let them do x,y,z, the kid will commit suicide and 2) For reasons I can only decipher as political, medical organizations continue to have position statements that read like the science is settled, even while agreeing when they get down to it that there isn't any quality research to back it up. It would be much easier for families to make their own decisions if those two things weren't true.

I put this mostly on the medical establishment, and it continues to be where I think the most responsibility and ability to shift things toward safer decision making for kids lies. But the politicization and awful laws seem to have them backed into a corner where they can't move in a direction that would make it look like they might agree with anything the people making those laws have said. I don't know how that gets fixed (except I do think they need to follow the science regardless and say what's what). It needs to be shown that one can totally support trans identified kids without supporting medicalization (there is in fact another study I recently read on that topic that indicated it was Not social transition status, but peer relations and family functioning predict psychological functioning in a German clinical sample of children with Gender Dysphoria).

I am not seeing this locally, perhaps because any LGBTQ identification is given a serious side eye and/or politely ignored. No one has ever elevated medical professionals to God-like status. It remains a tough row to hoe to be different. There’s no benefit in it, no celebration, no warm family embrace. There’s little/no clinical support which implicates the intersectionality that is largely ignored. Maybe I’m just a unicorn or something but most of everything I read on this topic is like…duh…or that’s some WPS.

Edited June 21, 2023 by Sneezyone

[KSera]

5 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I am not seeing this locally, perhaps because any LGBTQ identification is given a serious side eye and/or politely ignored. It remains a tough row to hoe. There’s no benefit in it, no celebration, no warm family embrace. There’s little/no clinical support which implicates the intersectionality that is largely ignored. Maybe I’m just a unicorn or something but most of everything I read on this topic is like…duh…or that’s some WPS.

Yeah, that’s definitely really different from here. 

[Sneezyone]

2 minutes ago, KSera said:

Yeah, that’s definitely really different from here. 

Move south. 

[KSera]

3 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Move south. 

Lol. Not a chance.

Edited June 21, 2023 by KSera

[Melissa Louise]

49 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Being gaslit presumes someone is trying to convince you they think something they don’t in order to convince you that you’re crazy.

What you just outlined isn’t what most actually think nor what they’re trying to convince you of.

1. The risk of regret in ALL matters is real and yet it’s not something you can legislate away or prevent.

2. Including trans women may discourage some bio women and yet if we allowed that rationale to prevent inclusion, women would never serve on US war ships. They only earned the chance in 1996. We don’t all see ourselves as fine china in need of protection.

3. Bad actors will attempt to take advantage of more inclusive policies so we need to develop tools/mechanisms to restrict their participation and punish abuses, duh.

I don't know why you are quoting me repeatedly when I politely told you I was putting you on ignore for my own mental wellbeing. It's rude. 

The fine china comment is disgusting.

 

 

 

Edited June 21, 2023 by Melissa Louise

[prairiewindmomma]

This 2021 study came out re: hormone therapy and mental health in teens. The study is interesting, and I am posting it mostly because the end notes to the study all have hyperlinks. It’s a decent way to read more studies if one wants to know what the published science that is coming out looks like. (I am not saying the science is good or bad, just what it is.)

[KidsHappen]

7 hours ago, MEmama said:

I remember using those in Italy in the '80s. As an upper middle class California kid I was not impressed lol. I'm assuming modern Italian kids wouldn't be either 🤣

I had to use those in Japan when I was 9 months pregnant. Not an easy task I'll tell you especially since they didn't have any kind of railing to hold on to or pull yourself up with. Which lead to them not being very sanitary because you frequently had to touch the floor which was invariably covered with pee from men trying to pee in the hole and often missing. Then after standing you hand to readjust your clothing before going out to wash your hands. I took to carrying wet wipes in my purse which I still do to this day. 

[TravelingChris]

On 6/19/2023 at 3:40 PM, bolt. said:

Surely pharmacists aren't responsible for dispensing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones apart from a doctor's prescription in the US? Is there something I'm not understanding about the role of pharmacists in the US medical system?

In what possible cases would it be the *pharmacist* held responsible for filling a prescription 'wrongly' (if the prescription exists, and came from a doctor, and they filled it as-written)?

Surely the *doctor* is held accountable for the prescriptions they write and what conditions they write them for???

(A pharmacist in my province, in Canada, is a little like a very accurate human vending machine, that also keeps an eye on drug safety and interactions and provides good explanations of the drugs for the patient. There are some few exceptions where medicines can be pharmacist-prescribed, but it's not the norm, especially not for complex things like gender care. The aren't making decisions like who gets what medicine, for what reason, etc.)

In the US, pharmacy techs keep correcting doctor's wrongly written prescriptions in order to not harm the patient.  So does the pharmacist.  But on a completely different note, pharmacies here can refuse to fill a prescription.  

[TravelingChris]

On 6/19/2023 at 8:27 PM, ktgrok said:

To be VERY clear - when I used the term Nazi is being used to describe actual self proclaimed nazis. With swastikas and everything. 

 

Yes, and I find them scary.  

[SKL]

15 hours ago, prairiewindmomma said:

Alabama mayor: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48521788.amp

I’m aware of Scott Esk calling for the death of gay people in Oklahoma in 2013. https://www.newsweek.com/gop-candidate-saying-totally-just-kill-gay-people-resurfaces-oklahoma-1735846?amp=1
 

Mike Hill of FL made a similar comment: https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2019/08/12/mike-hill-joked-about-killing-gay-people-then-he-clashed-with-republican-leaders-1139282

Georgia Congressman: https://rollcall.com/2016/06/15/congressman-who-read-anti-gay-bible-verse-prays-for-orlando-victims-loved-ones/

I am willing to believe that she has seen that because a large number of things popped up when I googled….mostly pastors, but there was also a Florida politician who called trans people “demons and imps” and lots of instances of adjacent hate speech.

FTR some of those quotes were misrepresented.  Of the two that actually appeared to justify killing LGBT+ people, one was spoken by a failed candidate 10 years ago (apparently never elected, possibly because of how open he is about his unpopular beliefs), who was talking about the law during Bible times, and said he had no intentions of proposing that if he were elected.  The other one was a mayor of a tiny town in Alabama a (population < 2,000), who resigned less than a year later over various dumb remarks he posted on facebook.  Neither of these individuals ever had any real power to call for anyone's death or impact US policy.

The one that is supposedly a guy joking about killing gays ... someone else asked him if he would propose a law, and he said "I wonder how that would go over."  In other words, the question was ridiculous, or the person asking it was just trying to get it into the record.  And the fourth linked story was a guy who read an excerpt from Romans that talked about a variety of sins and also included a reference to death as a penalty for sins.

I understand not liking each of these, but to take these as evidence that the US is legislating genocide of LGBT+ people is very misleading.

Edited June 21, 2023 by SKL