Except you're wrong, and the anti-trans movement is not restricted to issues regarding minors. There are laws being introduced and passed at the state and federal level that target transgender adults. This includes attempts to keep transgender people from serving in the military to revoking funding for groups that provide any type of gender affirming care.

Regarding minors and gender affirming care, the funny part of this controversy is that the vast majority of minors receiving these surgeries actually aren't trans at all. The most common type of gender affirming surgery for minors is chest reductions for males (ie cisgender males, people born male). This is especially common for people suffering from gynecomastia. Recent reports show that well over 90% of all gender affirming surgeries for minors are cases like that. That's what your legislation is desperately trying to stop. Congratulations.

I would be against any legislation that prevents trans adults from pursuing any job they are otherwise qualified for.

I'm admittedly skeptic about your second point, but you raise a legitimate issue and I will certainly research it more to further develop my postion.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Quote:

---

You can't just state something is "reality" without backing up that claim.

---

People who are born with and X and a Y are boys. People who are born with an X and an X are girls.

Reality.

Yes, there is an extremely small percentage of people who don't fit into either of those categories but we both know thats not what this debate is about at all.

---

You've already accepted that biology isn't as simple as XX vs XY, why not consider that there might be more to sex than just a person's chromosomes? The process of sexual development from the very beginning is an incredibly complex thing. A person physically develops as male because their body released the right hormones at the right time to trigger that development. What if that process doesn't go as smooth as normal? Studies of identical and non-identical twins show that identical twins are much more likely to both be transgender than non-identical twins. I'm convinced that there is physical, genetic basis for transgenderism and its not a mental issue. It's structural.

And that doesn't even go into the sex =/= gender part of the discussion.

Rocag said:

---

Except you're wrong, and the anti-trans movement is not restricted to issues regarding minors. There are laws being introduced and passed at the state and federal level that target transgender adults. This includes attempts to keep transgender people from serving in the military to revoking funding for groups that provide any type of gender affirming care.

Regarding minors and gender affirming care, the funny part of this controversy is that the vast majority of minors receiving these surgeries actually aren't trans at all. The most common type of gender affirming surgery for minors is chest reductions for males (ie cisgender males, people born male). This is especially common for people suffering from gynecomastia. Recent reports show that well over 90% of all gender affirming surgeries for minors are cases like that. That's what your legislation is desperately trying to stop. Congratulations.

---

You're right, and it's not that big of a deal. Generally speaking, mentally unstable people should not be in the military if we know about it. And in restrooms with kids of the opposite sex. And if you want affirming care for rejecting material reality, it should be entirely on your own dime. All totally normal straightforward ideas that don't merit a second thought.

The funny part about the trans controversy is that you'd rather feed it than force them to undergo a full years worth of counseling sessions, say 52 or more hours, before letting them do body modifications. It's just weird that you're here dying on this hill.

Hey I wanted ask you this on the previous thread before it got locked (mea culpa, I know I was partially to blame there)...

I get how you disagree with RFK's covid vaccine positions, but do you find overlap with his concerns about Big Food and Big Pharma in general? I think he (with Casey Means guiding him) is making very reasonable points that our number one health crisis in this country is we eat, and more tragically feed our children, poison.

I don't like demonizing industries as a whole. I think Big Ag and Big Food have done amazing things. Food is cheaper and more abundant in the US then anytime in world history. However, I think in an effort to increase shelf lives and make it tastier they have also made it considerably less healthy.

I would love to see some of ya'lls thoughts on that because I think it's an area we could find considerable agreement on.

You know what would help you educate yourself? Actually listen to some trans kids about what they go through and the care they receive. They are not immediately jumping in to any permanent changes and are actually counseled to start with smaller changes to see how it makes them feel. Things like changing the clothes they wear or how they cut their hair or what name they go by. And this is accompanied by the counseling you're asking for.

You're accusing me of "dying on a hill" of something I'm not even arguing for.

Rocag said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Quote:

---

You can't just state something is "reality" without backing up that claim.

---

People who are born with and X and a Y are boys. People who are born with an X and an X are girls.

Reality.

Yes, there is an extremely small percentage of people who don't fit into either of those categories but we both know thats not what this debate is about at all.

---

You've already accepted that biology isn't as simple as XX vs XY, why not consider that there might be more to sex than just a person's chromosomes? The process of sexual development from the very beginning is an incredibly complex thing. A person physically develops as male because their body released the right hormones at the right time to trigger that development. What if that process doesn't go as smooth as normal? Studies of identical and non-identical twins show that identical twins are much more likely to both be transgender than non-identical twins. I'm convinced that there is physical, genetic basis for transgenderism and its not a mental issue. It's structural.

And that doesn't even go into the sex =/= gender part of the discussion.

---

You're making an argument for nurture, not nature. And I'm sure we agree that it's nurture. But a bigger problem is making exceptions essentials, which is what this line of argumentation is. We should treat these people as exceptions and deal with them case by case instead of providing blanket support which encourages more exceptions.

Wait, how do you interpret that as nurture instead of nature? The start difference in rates of transgenderism between identical twins and non-identical twins would argue to me that the underlying cause is genetic (ie nature).

And some exceptions are more common than others. Last number I saw there were well over a million openly trans people in the United States, somewhere over 0.5%. So not that uncommon.

Rocag said:

---

Wait, how do you interpret that as nurture instead of nature? The start difference in rates of transgenderism between identical twins and non-identical twins would argue to me that the underlying cause is genetic (ie nature).

And some exceptions are more common than others. Last number I saw there were well over a million openly trans people in the United States, somewhere over 0.5%. So not that uncommon.

---

Or they share common upbringing and experiences in the womb, so not necessarily genetic.

And numbers don't really prove anything. There didn't use to be nearly that many but we're constantly assured they were always there anyways. That's not an argument.

nortex97 said:

---

Trans everything is (one of the many things that) lost the election for the communists, and now they want bipartisanship? LOL.

Hey we threw a bunch of your constituents in prison, censored them, called them nazis, and even arrested and tried to bankrupt your leader. We also raided his home, went through all of his personal belongings, and put him through 4 show trials. Why can't we all just get along??!!

— Fogbank (@FogbankDM) November 13, 2024

---

I hope the left can handle it; Trump appears to be much stronger this time.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

On the bright side people suddenly lost the complete confidence that election determinable fraud was widespread. So at least that's a nice thing we don't need to spend four more years hearing about.

---

2020 election was an outlier in a lot of ways. And that led to the lack of confidence.

---

How was it an outlier? Trump and company spent 4 years talking about widespread fraud, but everything I have been able to find points to there being no widespread fraud. There were confirmed cases of small numbers of fraudulent votes, but nothing that would have moved the needle. If I'm consuming the wrong media, let me know.

---

Biden had 20+ MILLION votes than any other president.

Rongagin71 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Trans everything is (one of the many things that) lost the election for the communists, and now they want bipartisanship? LOL.

Hey we threw a bunch of your constituents in prison, censored them, called them nazis, and even arrested and tried to bankrupt your leader. We also raided his home, went through all of his personal belongings, and put him through 4 show trials. Why can't we all just get along??!!

— Fogbank (@FogbankDM) November 13, 2024

---

I hope the left can handle it; Trump appears to be much stronger this time.

---

Sorry. Most of the Jan 6ers got what they deserved. I'm on board shutting down the trans stuff but I agree, as did every judge, that those convicted had justice. I also believe Trump was guilty of some of the crimes he was indicted for, and now that he will never be prosecuted, I do think he'll return the favor....and if so, then it takes away any of the indignity expressed by those who thought it was only solely a political attack and he was innocent of everything. His best bet is to move on and focus on the economy, immigration and social issues that ran amok. Retribution removes the ability to argue against anything the Dems did

Quote:

---

Biden had 20+ MILLION votes than any other president.

---

This isn't actually true, by the way. Biden got about 81.2 million votes in the 2020 election. The votes from this year are still being counted, but Harris is probably going to end up with about 75.5 million votes (that's Nate Silver's prediction as of today). So that's about 6 million less than Biden.

So is that suspicious? Well, consider that Harris lost Arizona, Nevada, Michigan, and Wisconsin but the Democratic candidates for Senator in all four of those swing states beat their Republican competitor. Harris lost because she failed to win over people that showed up at the polls and voted for Democrats in other races.

I mean, even a 9% drop in votes would probably the largest in US history for either party....

Rocag said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

I mean, even a 9% drop in votes would probably the largest in US history for either party....

---

I was curious, so I looked and there have been some big drop offs before. Here's a (fairly recent example)

Reagan 1984: 54.4 million
Bush 1988: 48.8 million
Bush 1992: 39.1 million

That's a loss of 15 million voters in 8 years.

Democrats saw their own huge decrease from 1964 to 1968 (Johnson 43.1 million to Humphrey 31.2 million). So yeah, it happens more than you might think.

---

'72 to '76 is good example too. 28 million votes for McGovern who lost to Nixon in '72 and then 42 million votes for Carter 4 years later. A 41% increase in democratic votes between elections by my math. Republicans dropped off about 16% that same election cycle.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Rocag said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

I mean, even a 9% drop in votes would probably the largest in US history for either party....

---

I was curious, so I looked and there have been some big drop offs before. Here's a (fairly recent example)

Reagan 1984: 54.4 million
Bush 1988: 48.8 million
Bush 1992: 39.1 million

That's a loss of 15 million voters in 8 years.

Democrats saw their own huge decrease from 1964 to 1968 (Johnson 43.1 million to Humphrey 31.2 million). So yeah, it happens more than you might think.

---

'72 to '76 is good example too. 28 million votes for McGovern who lost to Nixon in '72 and then 42 million votes for Carter 4 years later. A 41% increase in democratic votes between elections by my math. Republicans dropped off about 16% that same election cycle.

---

I think it has been shown that large changes in voter allegiance have occurred. The problem with Biden's uptick was that he appeared so unpopular during his campaigning in 2020. That is explained not by saying Trump was unpopular (when Trump's total was higher than in 2016 or 2024) unless you think so many people voted for Biden because they thought Trump was bad and Biden might be a re-uniter.
Many Republicans will always believe the Dems used the Covid emergency to manipulate and increase vote harvesting that would not have normally been legal.

NPR: "Evangelical Latino's praise Trump as a leader who will respect Christians." Actually an excellent piece.

Quote:

---

Jonathan Vega, who grew up in a Puerto Rican family in the Bronx, says Trump shares his family values and opposition to abortion. When it comes to immigration, he also agrees with the president-elect.
"As far as the mass deportation question? I'm all for it because I think there's a method to it," Vega said.
Vega says his friends in New York have told him about problems in their community, including recent arrests of alleged gang members from countries including Venezuela.
"I think we need to for sure get rid of those people, and from there we have to make some tough decisions," Vega explained.
Erika Vega was born in Colombia and is a naturalized citizen. She says she feels for people who are undocumented and just trying to build better lives.

---

More at the link!

I also think Donald Trump exemplifies conservative family values and American Christianity.

Thx. Good folks, agreed.

Great parents, hardworking folks:

Quote:

---

Mahaux has since had the opportunity to immortalize the Trumps repeatedly and did a series of family portraits in the beginning of the presidential campaign.

"I like working with the family's imageit speaks to me, it inspires me. I have a lot of freedom and responsibility. They let me express myself as an artist," says the photographer. "The Trumps are far from the people I see in the press. They are very hardworking and always take things seriously. I know that the European press is very hard on Donald TrumpI don't know if it's the same in the United States. They attack him with a lot of things I just don't see."

---

Rocag said:

---

I also think Donald Trump exemplifies conservative family values and American Christianity.

---

He may support conservative family values and American Christianity, but he doesn't exemplify them.

Supreme Court appointments and legislation he has pushed supports our ideals.

Multiple divorces, affairs, ***** grabbing, never needing forgiveness, endless personal insults is not exemplary behavior.

Rocag said:

---

It's always appeared to me that the attitude and behavior are what most of Trump's fans like about him.

---

It's not occurring in a vacuum. How disaffected and helpless in the face of your party's platform and policies must these people feel to vote for him? That's what you should be asking yourself. This should be a second principal skinner moment for dems but few are taking that approach.

dermdoc said:

---

Rocag said:

---

It's always appeared to me that the attitude and behavior are what most of Trump's fans like about him.

---

I am a Trump voter and those things disgust me.

---

Really? All of it?

Is it possible that Trump's f*** you attitude toward the media, democrat politicians, and other liberal snowflakes like rocag are what makes him effective?

Captain Pablo said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Rocag said:

---

It's always appeared to me that the attitude and behavior are what most of Trump's fans like about him.

---

I am a Trump voter and those things disgust me.

---

Really? All of it?

Is it possible that Trump's f*** you attitude toward the media, democrat politicians, and other liberal snowflakes like rocag are what makes him effective?

---

I was just talking about the things he listed. Adultery, etc.

Rocag said:

---

It's always appeared to me that the attitude and behavior are what most of Trump's fans like about him.

---

I think they do like that. They want a fighter and George W wasn't one.

Is he more effective because of it? Probably not, but he sticks it to the libs so people like it.

dermdoc said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Rocag said:

---

It's always appeared to me that the attitude and behavior are what most of Trump's fans like about him.

---

I am a Trump voter and those things disgust me.

---

Really? All of it?

Is it possible that Trump's f*** you attitude toward the media, democrat politicians, and other liberal snowflakes like rocag are what makes him effective?

---

I was just talking about the things he listed. Adultery, etc.

---

Ahh.

Pro Sandy said:

---

Rocag said:

---

It's always appeared to me that the attitude and behavior are what most of Trump's fans like about him.

---

I think they do like that. They want a fighter and George W wasn't one.

Is he more effective because of it? Probably not, but he sticks it to the libs so people like it.

---

I think he's more effective when he fights

He laid down for Fraudci and Birx and look where that got us

Also, what's wrong with sticking it to the libs? If you're gonna stick it to someone, libs are a great place to start

Were you whining when the libs were sticking it to America for the last 4 years, and before that?

Rocag said:

---

It's always appeared to me that the attitude and behavior are what most of Trump's fans like about him.

---

It's the name calling and general attitude that turned folks off on team Democrat this time, imho. Charles says it better than me:

Quote:

---

"We lost because we had no game plan," Barkley continued. "We still haven't solved the immigration problem…never addressed inflation. Bringing all these stupid stars out to rally the vote, what was that? I love Beyonc. That ain't gonna make me vote a certain type of way."

"You guys lost because y'all stupid. Come up with solutions."

Sir Charles then urged Democrats to get off the nonsense that the President-elect and his supporters are racist.

"I don't think everybody who voted for Trump is racist or whatever," he said. "I'm not a fan of the guy, but he's the president. I'm gonna have to respect the office."

Try getting an actual Democrat politician to admit that. In fact, despite the incendiary rhetoric getting a clear rebuke by the American people on November 5th, the minority party and their media puppets have now decided that it's not just white Trump supporters who are racists, but it's Blacks and Hispanics, too.

"Everybody I disagree with is a racist" is a bold strategy. Not a winning strategy, but a bold one nonetheless.

---

Hopefully your team sticks with that moving forward.

Rocag said:

---

I actually laughed out loud when I read the part about how electing Donald Trump was a "clear rebuke" of "incendiary rhetoric". Thanks for the chuckle, bud.

Everybody's got an opinion on why the last election turned out how it did, myself included. Whose opinion is the right one? I don't see that there's a way to know for sure. And everyone has suggestions about what to do next. I personally think this country is in for a bad time over the next few years and that's going to be the story dominating the next few elections.

---

Want to expound in that? Will inflation be worse? The Middle East more unstable? What type of bad?