https://www.instagram.com/reels/DbUNnyeMVYO/
This is a really good question. "What makes an American?"
Unlike Europe, Much of Asia, and Africa, geography is not the answer. Unlike the 57 Muslim countries, adherence to a religion, is not the answer.
The answer seems to be somewhere in the neighborhood of "shared values".
It is a good question and while it might be true that we might have some shared values, we also have disparate values. I would say, at least in our better moments, we have shared beliefs in human rights and freedom and opposition to harm but otherwise freedom to let people make their own decisions and choices. Those specific shared values.
ReplyDeleteDan
Sadly, over the last half century or more, American values have been perverted and distorted to mean that which are contrary to them. The progressive continues dragging the nation away from them.
ReplyDeleteAnd that comment from Marshal, and that comment from me, is part of what's separating and dividing this nation. My group believes in the freedom and human right that each person can be themselves and hold their own values as long as they're not harming others.
ReplyDeleteMarshal, on the other hand, identifies this era where we've moved into greater rights and liberties, where Black people and women and LGBTQ people have finally started getting some rights and opportunities. Marshalls identifying that period as a problematic period. It makes it sound like he wants his nation back. I think the great thing about the US is it was never Marshal's nation to begin with.
Dan
Of course both groups agree that individual freedom is one of the things that separates America from the European countries that the early settlers came from.
DeleteWhere the divide is tends to be about limits and financial support.
For example, if a legal adult with the legal capacity to sign a contract and make informed consent, wants to use their own money or insurance to lop off perfectly functioning body parts I couldn’t care less about their choice. When they insist that I pay for their choice and that I indulge their every whim, I’m out.
Likewise when a convicted criminal (male) suddenly decides he’s a woman and must be housed in a women’s prison, proceeds to violently rape women prisoners, that seems like a problem to me. Why should I pay for a sexual predator to be locked in a building with hundreds of victims.
Finally, when a Muslim city council prevents church bells, but blasts the calls to prayer, that crosses a line.
Freedom comes with limits, and respect for the freedom of others.
Finally freedom to insist that a lie must be accepted as the Truth, seems like an infringement on the rights of others.
When you start to lie, you lose me.
Like most, if not all "progressives", Dan confuses license for liberty. Doing what you want needn't result in direct harm in anyone else in order for society in general to oppose or even outlaw what one wants to do. The general population isn't required to "tolerate" the many deviant and wacky things "progressives" demand we must. What's more, our opposition doesn't deny the "progressive" his right to "pursue" what he wants. That's the extent of societal obligation...not to help obtain what the "progressive" pursues.
DeleteTo those like Dan, not getting his way is "oppression", "bigotry" and/or "hate", which are word expressly chosen to pressure accommodation, for no one wishes to be regarded as oppressive, bigoted or hateful. But people of character don't care what people lacking character ("progressives") call them.
I've never said this is my nation, as if I own it exclusively. But I do maintain...because it is true...that what this nation was intended to be and how I believe ought to be is very much the same thing. It was never meant to be what Dan and his kind stupidly and without any basis whatsoever want it to be. And to do that, Dan does what he always does: he pretends he believes in principles like "liberty" but badly corrupts them to his liking. "'Our Constitution was made only for a MORAL and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.'" It is wholly inadequate to the government of progressives.
Good point about license v. liberty. Liberty comes with responsibilities, license doesn't. I see very little in Dan which shows that he is concerned about the responsibilities of those he advocates for or the policies he champions. Failing to give everyone what they want, except for those Dan hates, is oppression.
DeleteI agree that Dan's version of the US is far from what the Founders established, and he and his ilk, want to fix the mistakes the Founders made.
Craig:
ReplyDeleteWhen they insist that I pay for their choice and that I indulge their every whim, I’m out.
First of all, that is an extremely rare thing to happen (ie, that tax dollars are used for trans surgeries).
But secondly, rightly understood, YOU want to be the one who gets to decide about some other people's medical treatments and procedures, not the person themself. Again, IF we're having funds for healthcare that come in part from tax dollars (like for military members or Medicaid), then people by and large can choose their own medical treatment (along with a proper medical provider and guidance)... that is a free state. In a state where SOME citizens want to decide for OTHER citizens what their medical treatment plans are, that is NOT a free state. That is YOU deciding for OTHER people.
I vote for more freedom, not less EXCEPT, as always, in the cases where someone is causing harm to someone else. THAT "harm to others" is the right dividing line in a free nation.
And it's especially egregious when a NON-medical expert such as yourself wants to decide AGAINST medical advice for someone else the best plan of care, that is less freedom, not more.
Craig:
Finally, when a Muslim city council prevents church bells, but blasts the calls to prayer, that crosses a line.
That doesn't happen in a more free state/city/locale. It's not happening in the US. Those who say so are engaging in rumor mongering and bearing false witness.
From AI:
No, city councils in the United States and Western countries are not banning church bells to allow the Islamic call to prayer. Rumors or claims stating otherwise are false and typically stem from online misinformation.
Craig:
when a convicted criminal (male) suddenly decides he’s a woman and must be housed in a women’s prison, proceeds to violently rape women prisoners, that seems like a problem to me. Why should I pay for a sexual predator to be locked in a building with hundreds of victims.
Convicted criminals should not be allowed to cause harm to other prisoners. No one is promoting that idea. No one. That is a case of someone BREAKING the law, not following the law.
The trans prisoner should not be punished because of someone else's actions. Facts:
* Studies indicate that roughly 30% to 59% of transgender prisoners experience sexual assault during their incarceration, depending on the facility type and housing placement.
* Transgender women housed in male facilities (ie, what CRAIG is promoting) face the highest risk of targeted violence and abuse.
Freedom from lies is indeed a good thing. Why don't you begin with your entirely corrupt, hedonistic and perverted president? How about just condemning his attacks on individuals with false claims (as in the false accusations and harassment against the "vandals" and "illegal immigrants" and protesting citizens)? THAT is not freedom and should not happen in a free society, right? Begin with condemning the one YOU brought to the party.
First remove the plank from your own eye.
YES, freedom DOES come with limits and respect for the freedom of others, that is precisely what I'm saying. But it's NOT "respecting" the "freedom" of some to cause harm to others. That is not freedom, right?
What "Lie" are you suggesting I've made? I'm just pointing to reality.
"I vote for more freedom, not less EXCEPT, as always, in the cases where someone is causing harm to someone else."
DeleteExcept those still in utero. Dan doesn't mind ripping them limb from limb as they're murdered. F**k their freedom, right Dan?
No one denies medical treatments, but Dan would pretend that murdering the innocent in utero is "health care", again corrupting what that term means to get his way. Those states which limit or outlaw abortion aren't denying health care. They're denying infanticide because of the American principle that all are endowed by their Creator with the unalienable right to life. The conceived are created people and Dan believes he's endowed with some kind of unalienable right to dictate who is or isn't a person endowed with the unalienable right to life. That's the progressive way. It's neither the American way nor more certainly the Christian way.
The same goes for sex change operations. Those are elective surgeries because despite the lies of the progressive, they are wholly unnecessary to resolve any medical issue. They're "plastic surgery" on a grander scale and therefore elective and not entitled to any tax dollars to fund it. These procedures have NOT been shown to reduce suicide rates among the disordered who seek them. This fact, as is true of the lack of any medical need for abortion, is the result of scientific medical expertise.
Dan thinks we should pay for elective surgeries for disordered criminals. I'd be more willing to have it go to pay for either their security against assaults by other criminals and perhaps even counseling to help them overcome their disordered self-perception. NEVER to pay for elective sex change surgery.
There are far, far more lies coming from those like Dan than any told by Trump, if there are any at all.
"Convicted criminals should not be allowed to cause harm to other prisoners."
DeleteHeaven forbid that we not encourage policies that put some convicted criminals in a position to harm others.
Let me clarify a bit more on this. ..
ReplyDelete"When they insist that I pay for their choice and that I indulge their every whim, I’m out."
One of the ways we deal with medical care in this free state is through Medicaid and Medicare. The way that's always been done has been one that's respectful of individual rights. If a medical doctor is recommending I get a treatment for cancer and that's what I want to do, I get the treatment for cancer. No one second-guesses my doctor's opinion or my decision because why should they? It's not any of their business.
If a doctor recommends to a person a CPAP for the sake of their health, no one's going to go back and second-guess that doctor. Individual citizens who are not experts on a given person or the medical steps involved don't GET an opinion about someone else's medical decisions because of course they don't.
Where do you draw the line on where I get to decide what you can and cannot do for your medical treatment? Why do you presume to have a right over someone elses medical treatment that you would not grant to anyone else?
There are some religions who do not believe in getting medical treatments like surgeries and that's on them but should they get to decide that for you? The premise is absurd.
It is exactly an attack on human liberty. The great thing about our nation and its better ideals, when we live up to them, is that we have the freedom to make decisions for ourselves where it's not hurting anyone else. It's our life and our decisions to make. We haven't always lived up to that ideal but it is one of our great ideals about the United States, which, when fully lived up to, makes us a better nation and the world a better place. Live and let live.
Dan
"No one second-guesses my doctor's opinion or my decision because why should they?"
Delete1. I've always been told that getting a second opinion was a wise choice. I guess I was wrong.
2. The goal post move here is spectacular. You're comparing specific medical treatment for a specific medical condition which has specific negative consequences, to elective surgeries which either end a unique, individual, human life or remove body parts which are functioning perfectly well at their intended/biological purpose.
"Where do you draw the line on where I get to decide what you can and cannot do for your medical treatment?"
1. I do not draw any lines regarding what medical procedures you choose to do with your own money or privately paid for insurance. If you want to have your leg amputated and eye removed so you can cosplay as a pirate, feel free. Just don't expect me to pay for it.
2. As far as taxpayer funded medical procedures, it seems reasonable to draw a line at elective/cosmetic/non necessary surgical procedures. Before you start, obviously reconstructive surgery due to an accident or cancer is not elective.
In other words, if you want boobs or bigger boobs, you can pay for them yourself. If you need to replace one or both which have been lost due to cancer or an accident, that makes perfect sense.
"Why do you presume to have a right over someone elses medical treatment that you would not grant to anyone else?"
I don't. Why do you presume that you have a right over my tax money being used for non necessary, elective surgery?
"There are some religions who do not believe in getting medical treatments like surgeries and that's on them but should they get to decide that for you? The premise is absurd."
No, but I appreciate another false equivalence.
The interesting question, related to your idiotic question, is "Do you or anyone else have the right to force someone who doesn't believe in medical care to get medical care for themselves or their children?
"It is exactly an attack on human liberty."
What are you even talking about? Human liberty demands that I fund your choices? What an absurd, insane, thought.
"The great thing about our nation and its better ideals, when we live up to them, is that we have the freedom to make decisions for ourselves where it's not hurting anyone else."
Where, exactly, have I advocated for limiting people's freedom to make decisions for themselves?
"It's our life and our decisions to make."
Sure, you are free to make as many bad/stupid decisions as you want. Just don't expect me to fund the decisions or the consequences of those decisions.
"Live and let live."
Coming from someone who's constantly whining about the decision other people make, this seems like an odd way to end your rant.
I was going to begin a list of Dan's lies in answer to his laughable question (which actually has been answered simply in responding to all his crap which preceded it), and then I saw this:
Delete"Live and let live."
Clearly he lies when he says this as long as he continues to defend infanticide as "a private health care decision". There's nothing at all about this which lives up to any truly American ideal..which then constitutes yet another lie he tells.
Yeah, that's what happens when morality is subjective.
Delete"First of all, that is an extremely rare thing to happen..."
ReplyDeleteAcknowledging that my tax dollars are being used to pay for elective surgeries for people is actually making my point. The public should not be paying for elective surgeries period. But thanks for acknowledging my point as being accurate.
"But secondly, rightly understood,"
Let me get this straight. You have decided that you are the person to "rightly understand" what I really meant by what I said. Since when were you given this power and authority?
"YOU want to be the one who gets to decide about some other people's medical treatments and procedures, not the person themself."
I'm confused, since when is "rightly" understanding something actually lying about the thing you claim to "rightly" understand?
"I vote for more freedom, not less EXCEPT, as always, in the cases where someone is causing harm to someone else. THAT "harm to others" is the right dividing line in a free nation."
I understand. You vote for "more freedom" "EXCEPT" when you decide that "more freedom" is inappropriate. I guess I'm confused by how expecting people to pay for their own choices is denying them freedom.
"And it's especially egregious when a NON-medical expert such as yourself wants to decide AGAINST medical advice for someone else the best plan of care, that is less freedom, not more."
Again, if you are going to make these claims, you need to be able to support them.
You won't support your false claim, because you can't. Yet you'll continue to ignore this and repeat the lie because your committed to the lie.
Your selective reliance on AI is amusing. If I've been misinformed, that I stand corrected.
If I understand you correctly, you are ignoring the documented cases of man claiming to be women so they can be put in a women's prison, and making unsupported claims to justify putting biological males in women's prisons. Thank you for clarifying.
"(ie, what CRAIG is promoting)"
Where, specifically, did I "promote" this? Quotes and links are the only acceptable response to this question. I expect proof of this claim, or an apology.
I've consistently criticized Trump for his relationship with the Truth since 2015, I see no reason to do so merely to meet your demands. Coming from someone who wholeheartedly supported Biden, with his documents history of plagiarism and lying over decades in elected office, your selective commitment to Truth seems strange.
"But it's NOT "respecting" the "freedom" of some to cause harm to others. That is not freedom, right?"
No, yet demanding that taxpayers subsidize one's personal and individual choices is not causing them harm.
"What "Lie" are you suggesting I've made? I'm just pointing to reality."
I've pointed to two in your most recent comment alone. There's your persistent lie that abortion does not end a human life. Or that it is possible to transition from male to female. Who knows. The point stands (that forcing people to accept of subsidize a lie is not freedom) regardless of the specific lie in question.
Craig:
ReplyDeleteYou have decided that you are the person to "rightly understand" what I really meant by what I said. Since when were you given this power and authority?,/I>
YOU, when you immediately keep writing and confirming that YOU think that YOU (ie, voters who happen to think like you but who are NOT the people in question and who are NOT medical experts) are the ones who should decide.
As you demonstrate in YOUR OWN WORDS, right here:
The public should not be paying for elective surgeries period.
Who the hell made you or other bigots in "the public" the arbiter of what is and isn't medically necessary? Here, you're failing to understand "elective surgeries..." as if it's just a whim and not necessary. That's a position steeped in ignorance.
AI:
"Transgender surgeries are technically classified as elective because they are scheduled ahead of time and are not emergency life-saving procedures. However, major medical organizations and insurance providers recognize them as medically necessary treatments for gender dysphoria, meaning they are essential for a patient's health and well-being rather than purely cosmetic"
and, AI:
Cataract surgery is technically classified as an elective surgery because it is scheduled in advance and is not an emergency. However, it is widely considered medically necessary
So, if you're scheduled for cataract surgery (ie, it's not an emergency and thus, technically, it's elective) according to doctor's advice and your own decision, "the public" should get to decide that "WE WILL NOT PAY FOR IT because WE, the NON-EXPERT PUBLIC don't want to pay for it! You'll be oppressing us if you make us pay for your cataract surgery!"
I don't think you'd support "the public" making that decision for you or anyone else, would you?
And so, WHICH medical treatments does the public get to vote against and based upon what?
You've lost.
Clearly, you lying sack of shit, we use the term "elective" in this case as sex change surgeries are akin to plastic surgeries. Craig made plain the distinction between that which is done for personal satisfaction (breast enlargement) versus the same or similar procedure to restore damage from illness or injury.
DeleteIn the meantime, there is no legitimate evidence that sex change improve the lives of those who undergo them. Suicide and depression rates stay have stayed the same and in some case worsen when the patient realizes it didn't do for them what they believed or were told it would. But then, how could it, when the problem is totally and unarguably mental rather than physical? It's a very expensive bandage which doesn't result in healing. Psychological counseling...as sketchy as that can be...is the more reliable method, though many in THAT field are down with the LGBTQ agenda more than they are healing the confused and delusional...like Dan.
Thus, we see Dan lie yet again as if he had any doubt about what was meant by "elective surgeries".
Both private and publicly funded health insurers deny coverage of various elective procedures, such as cosmetic surgeries. All such surgeries are subjectively chosen as worthy of coverage or not depending upon medical necessity, which sex change surgeries aren't. Those who decide, especially in cases like abortion and "gay" stuff, are highly politicized in favor of "progressive" nonsense, and despite your personal glee at such favoritism, they are not the last word on what is "medically necessary" nor honest. I prefer objective sources who offer info produced by actual science, not "pro-LGBTQ" favoritism and activism.
It's just Dan playing semantic games, because he doesn't actually have an argument otherwise.
DeleteBy pretending that scheduling is the only factor between elective and other surgeries, Dan elevates "trans" surgeries to a place they do not deserve.
According to Dan's definition my spine surgery would be considered unnecessary and elective because my surgeon and I decided to schedule it BEFORE I had permanent nerve/spine damage or became paralyzed. By Dan's definition the only surgeries that are not elective are those that aren't scheduled. Insanity and ignorance, not a good combination.
Craig:
ReplyDeleteI've pointed to two in your most recent comment alone. There's your persistent lie that abortion does not end a human life. Or that it is possible to transition from male to female.
As far as I can tell, I haven't made a comment about abortion in this thread. But setting that aside: What MY actual position is on abortion is that YOU do not know and can not prove that the human fetus (which IS a living human fetus) has all the same rights (or even some partial undefined list of rights) as the woman and that the unborn fetus' "rights" (which you objectively can no prove exist) outweighs any concerns the human woman may have about carrying it to completion.
That you think something does not make it true or proven.
Secondly, I haven't said that a "man can transition to a woman." I've noted that some women are born in a male-appearing body, and they CAN transition to a body that fits their gender which THEY are the ones who can decide what that gender is.
So, two strikes on any lies. Just objective realities.
And this is important: DO YOU UNDERSTAND that I'm just noting observably objective realities in those statements above?
"What MY actual position is on abortion is that YOU do not know and can not prove that the human fetus (which IS a living human fetus) has all the same rights (or even some partial undefined list of rights) as the woman and that the unborn fetus' "rights" (which you objectively can no prove exist) outweighs any concerns the human woman may have about carrying it to completion."
DeleteOnly Jesus-hating "progressives" like you dare demand the obvious be proven. So here I go again:
First, you lie by your intentional misuse of the word "fetus" as if it makes any difference. "Fetus" is a stage of prenatal development of, in this case, a PERSON. You treat this person like it's mere tissue, like a bit of skin...the "clump of cells" lie as if we all aren't also "clumps of more cells" than are millions of others already outside the womb. Just as easily and with just the same amount of evil deception can any child younger than 18 be treated so cavalierly based on the same cheap rationalization. The size, age and location of a person are not mitigating factors regarding their humanity, nor the fact they are created beings in the image and likeness of the God you only pretend to worship or in Whom you pretend to believe.
Thus, as this person in utero is a creation, it, too, is endowed by its creator...i.e. God (that Supreme Being your every claim to follow is mockery and insult to Him) with the same unalienable right to life you claim for yourself but of which you prove so undeserving.
As such, the onus is on YOU to provide a scientific evidence-based...and Christianity-based...argument which compels decent people of character to conclude along with your sorry ass that they are NOT equal in value to the mother who seeks their destruction. And as there is no medical reason which justifies ripping the child limb from limb or through the use of chemicals or any other means to ending it's life which is of far more value than your own, that onus demands you bring forth that argument rather than to simply assert we need to prove a person isn't a person, you vile POS!
"I've noted that some women are born in a male-appearing body"
DeleteThis is another straight up lie you put forth as "objective reality"! Nonsense. There is no woman born with a penis who isn't a woman with a developmental abnormality. And if you're trying to use this rarity as an excuse to allow you to get a sex change, your lie is worse as a result. The vast majority of sex changes are not due to such developmental abnormalities. So again, you're playing games with pretending our positions don't account for legitimate issues. The typical "transitioner" is suffering from mental delusion, not developmental abnormality. A person who believes they were "born in the wrong body" is a mental case, not a person in need of surgery.
So that's two home runs on two lies by you...three if you insist on referring to them as "objective realities".
Not that it hasn't been said multiple times before, and not that Dan has a reasonable response for it, but his "all rights that a full grown adult has" argument is simply a BS lie to escape the obvious. Dan has no problem with a woman choosing to unilaterally deny her living, individual, unique, healthy, properly developing child it's God given right to life. Further, he wants the State to support this denial of the one singular right on which all others depend. That this termination of life is virtually ALWAYS done for mere convenience is beside the point. Women should be able to end their children's lives whenever and for whatever reason they choose, no matter how trivial and no matter that the child is viable.
DeleteThe "male appearing body" argument is likewise fatally flawed. The notion that human bodies have absolutely zero biological, genetic, muscular, skeletal, or physical characteristics which make them objectively male and female is simply absurd. To pretend that the physical, biological, genetic reality plays second fiddle to whatever someone chooses to believe about themselves simply makes no sense at a most basic level. Then to single out "gender" as the ONLY physical/biological/genetic characteristic that is "fluid" makes the insanity even more ridiculous.
That the tiny minority of people born with a genetic or physical abnormality are used to justify the the billions of dollars a year "trans" medical complex and enrich those who who are willing to due the surgeries shows an abject lack of concern for those who are truly affected.
Dan:
ReplyDeleteTransgender women housed in male facilities...
"(ie, what CRAIG is promoting)"
Craig:
Where, specifically, did I "promote" this? Quotes and links are the only acceptable response to this question.
My claim is based upon your words here:
Likewise
when a convicted criminal (male)
suddenly decides he’s a woman
and must be housed in a women’s prison, proceeds to violently rape women prisoners, that seems like a problem to me. Why should I pay for a sexual predator to be locked in a building with hundreds of victims.
Now maybe I misunderstood you. If so, I can apologize once you clarify. It SOUNDS very much like you're saying that you object to "paying" for a transgender woman (what you abusively and oppressively call a "convicted prisoner (male) who "suddenly" decides to become a woman... AND therefore, you would NOT want for transgender women to be housed in women's prisons.
DO YOU SUPPORT transgender women being housed in women's prisons OR was I correct that you are promoting NOT letting transgender women being housed in women's prisons.
I don't think I'm mistaken, but by all means, prove me wrong. I'd love to hear that you're progressive on this point and fully support transgender women being in the jail that aligns with their gender (ie, a women's prison).
Correct me OR admit I understood you correctly and apologize for suggesting I was wrong when I was just taking you at your words.
And as I've already made clear, actual predatory men (you know, like the guy you voted for three times now) who only pretend to "become" a woman so they can be housed in with women... they are NOT transgender women and of course, we don't need to accommodate them and of course, we should not allow any abuse to happen.
Now, as someone who actually cares about stopping sexual predation by men (and it IS predominantly a male thing), if we want to speak to the VERY few instances of sexual predatory men abusing the system to try to get in to women's prisons, THAT would be a place where people who affirm human rights and ideals of liberty that actually make the US great could find some common ground. If the applicant is someone with a lengthy record of already sexually preying upon women (or others), that should be a red flag there. We could make the process more deliberate and careful.
But we must not attack, malign, abuse or blame transgender women for the actions of sexually predatory males.
Yet another lie as you assert a "trans woman" is actually a woman. He is not. He is a man with mental problems. This is scientific fact. You have no science, data or studies which refutes this fact, you have only LGBTQ propaganda and lies.
Delete"As far as I can tell, I haven't made a comment about abortion in this thread."
ReplyDeleteThis explains so much. That you can somehow separate out what you've said elsewhere from what you've said in this thread as if your previous comments have no bearing on this thread makes so much of what you do and say make more sense.
"But setting that aside: What MY actual position is on abortion is that YOU do not know and can not prove that the human fetus (which IS a living human fetus) has all the same rights (or even some partial undefined list of rights) as the woman and that the unborn fetus' "rights" (which you objectively can no prove exist) outweighs any concerns the human woman may have about carrying it to completion."
Yeah, yeah, yeah. The simple reality is that abortion ends the life of an individual, unique, human being, which is harmful to that human by any definition you can concoct. Given the unquestioned data regarding why women get abortions well over 90% of abortions come down to the convenience of the mother. But if you want to argue that ending an individual, unique, human life for the mother's convenience is perfectly fine, you do you. If you want to vote for politicians that want to expand abortion until (or after) birth or make all abortions taxpayer funded, then that's on you.
"That you think something does not make it true or proven."
Do you read or think about things before you type them? Where have I ever said this? Maybe you should apply the same standards to yourself that you demand of others.
"Secondly, I haven't said that a "man can transition to a woman." I've noted that some women are born in a male-appearing body, and they CAN transition to a body that fits their gender which THEY are the ones who can decide what that gender is."
What is "a male appearing body"? How is it possible to transition the entire musculo-skeletal system from one body to another? How does one alter brain function, heart and lung function, and genetic make up from one to the other? Don't get me wrong, it's possible to cut off a guys genitals and to replace them with a hole that performs no actual function and to add bags of silicone to a guys chest to make fake boobs, but that doesn't make the biological reality any less real.
"So, two strikes on any lies. Just objective realities."
That you think something does not make it true, proven, objective, or reality.
"And this is important: DO YOU UNDERSTAND that I'm just noting observably objective realities in those statements above?"
Except you are not. Taking a "male appearing body" and surgically altering it by removing perfectly functioning parts and adding non functioning parts doesn't make it a "woman's body", it makes it a man's body with some superficial changes.
Craig:
ReplyDeleteit seems reasonable to draw a line at elective/cosmetic/non necessary surgical procedures.
And yet, as I've already pointed out: BOTH cataract surgery and transgender surgery are deemed (by actual medical experts) to be both elective AND medically necessary.
What are you even talking about? Human liberty demands that I fund your choices?
Human liberty demands that you stay out of other people's medical choices. Again, YOU don't want someone else to decide what medical procedures you are making - especially for religious reasons contrary to your own - don't make such decisions for others.
If we want to limit Medicare money to eliminate elective NON-necessary (or even COUNTER-to medical advice) we could have that discussion. But cataract and transgender surgeries are medically recommended/necessary.
Butt out.
"My claim is based upon your words here:"
ReplyDeleteIn other words, no you cannot support your false claim. But you're going to try to twist and manipulate things to pretend otherwise. Because that's what you do.
"...AND therefore, you would NOT want for transgender women to be housed in women's prisons."
1. I'm speaking of the instances where a male has been convicted of a crime, sent to prison, then decides to identify as a woman after being sent to prison, demands (using taxpayer dollars to fund the appeals) to be placed in a women's prison, and the proceeds to rape the women prisoners.
2. My objection is to biologically male prisoners being placed in a position where they can rape prisoners who are biological women.
But you take that and turn it into whatever you want to that allows you to continue to lie about what I actually said. You and I both know that there will be no apology coming.
"I don't think I'm mistaken,"
Of course not. You are too arrogant and narcissistic to conceive of the possibility that you could be mistaken.
The rest of your self serving, blather isn't worth my time.
"YOU, when you immediately keep writing and confirming that YOU think that YOU (ie, voters who happen to think like you but who are NOT the people in question and who are NOT medical experts) are the ones who should decide."
DeleteWell, if you're going to make shit up, go big or go home. FYI, you do understand the difference between "decide" and "pay for", do you not? If you want elective surgery, pay for it yourself.
Again with the false equivalency. Cataract surgery is repairing something that is physically wrong with the eye. It's removing a lens which has become non functional and replacing it with a lens that is functional. It's restoring the normal function to the eye. However "trans" surgery does the opposite. It takes perfectly functioning human body parts and replaces them with (mostly) non functioning facsimiles of human body parts. Without cataract surgery, you'll lose the ability to see. With "trans" surgery, you'll lose (among other things) the ability to reproduce.
A further problem with your false equivalency is that cataract surgery is correcting a physical problem with a physical solution. While "trans" surgery is correcting a mental problem with a physical solution.
"I don't think you'd support "the public" making that decision for you or anyone else, would you?"
If I wanted elective surgery, I wouldn't expect the public to either decide or pay for it.
"And so, WHICH medical treatments does the public get to vote against and based upon what?"
As the public doesn't vote on medical treatments, this is one more idiotic questions based on a false premise.
Well, Dan's wrong and lying about it in any case. There's no such thing as a "trans woman" or a "trans man".
DeleteSo SAY it: Say, I support transgender women (not sexual predators but people who are actually transgender women) being in women's facilities.
ReplyDeleteYou won't because I'm not mistaken, and yet you're unwilling to admit that I was correct in my assessment and choose to remain in your false beliefs.
Speaking of...
What is "a male appearing body"?
Sigh. Have you NOT read or are you NOT familiar with the science and psychology of gender? Gender determination is not limited to whether one has a peepee or a woowoo at birth. That APPEARS to be your mistake (by all means, confirm if you understand that gender is more of a spectrum and not merely the presence of a penis.)
There's a lot of data out there. Read and learn:
https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/cme-issue-brief-sex-gender-medical-education.pdf
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6677266/
https://www.openmindmag.org/articles/lgbtq-a-guide
But it IS true that many guys on the internet don't understand what the experts are saying. Doesn't make the non-expert internet dudes correct, it just means they haven't learned the latest news and their understanding on gender and sex remains at a grade school level. No offense to such fellas (and women). Just noting that I don't want to remain at a grade school level of understand about all kinds of things - the age of the earth, the earliest histories of humanity, sexual orientation, gender and sex identification, etc. When I CAN learn from experts, I will.
"And yet, as I've already pointed out: BOTH cataract surgery and transgender surgery are deemed (by actual medical experts) to be both elective AND medically necessary."
ReplyDelete1. SInce when is AI an actual medical experts?
2. I've addressed the significant differences between the two.
3. That you think something does not make it true or proven.
"What are you even talking about? Human liberty demands that I fund your choices?"
Since when does human liberty demand that I fund the choices of others? You are free to exercise your individual human liberty for paying for your own choices (FYI Medicare is a shitty example, because it's essentially insurance). I'm more talking about the people who demand that the military or prison system pay for their elective surgeries to deal with non physical medical issues.
"Human liberty demands that you stay out of other people's medical choices. Again, YOU don't want someone else to decide what medical procedures you are making - especially for religious reasons contrary to your own - don't make such decisions for others."
Again, when you lie, go big. Right? What part of you is confused about the difference between "choice" and "pay for your choice"?
"If we want to limit Medicare money to eliminate elective NON-necessary (or even COUNTER-to medical advice) we could have that discussion. But cataract and transgender surgeries are medically recommended/necessary."
Damn, the goal post moves are insane.
1. Recommended and necessary are not the same things.
2. Cataract is a physical problem with a physical solution.
Feel free to ignore me and simply argue with yourself, if that's easier.
"Butt out."
I'm not butting in. I guess you'd prefer that I not exercise my freedom to express myself, on my blog.
"And so, WHICH medical treatments does the public get to vote against and based upon what?"
ReplyDeleteAs the public doesn't vote on medical treatments, this is one more idiotic questions based on a false premise.
Okay, you want to be the one who decides that "the public" decides which MEDICAL TREATMENTS (and cataract and gender surgeries ARE necessary medical treatments) will be paid for and which ones won't.
You appear to be saying that you think that ANY treatment, then, that is elective - even IF it's medically necessary - should NOT be paid for by medicaid. BUT, you're willing to make SOME exceptions for elective cataract surgery, presumably, and potentially others that you personally would consent to. Is that correct?
By all means, make yourself clear. WHAT is the consistent basis for "the public" deciding which medically necessary surgeries will not be paid for? Only the ones that you understand the need for?
If so, isn't that presumptuous?
You're making it clear that you value YOUR OWN "liberty" to impose limits on payments to SOME people for SOME surgeries over the individual's right to have those surgeries paid for like any other medically necessary surgery.
That's the problem. I think it comes down to this: IN YOUR mind, YOU personally don't understand or "believe" that trans surgery IS medically necessary and therefore, you want YOUR personal religious and human opinion to hold more sway than actual medical experts.
But once again, that you don't understand something is not evidence that you're right.
"So SAY it: Say, I support transgender women (not sexual predators but people who are actually transgender women) being in women's facilities."
ReplyDeleteWhy should I give in to your demands that I say exactly what you want in the exact words you demand I use. I made myself clear, while demonstrating your lies. I have nothing more to accomplish here.
"You won't because I'm not mistaken, and yet you're unwilling to admit that I was correct in my assessment and choose to remain in your false beliefs."
The arrogance and hubris you choose to exhibit are astounding. But thank you for confirming that (regardless of what I did or said) that your offer to apologize was a lie.
"Sigh. Have you NOT read or are you NOT familiar with the science and psychology of gender?"
That's not an answer or even an attempt at an answer.
"Gender determination is not limited to whether one has a peepee or a woowoo at birth. That APPEARS to be your mistake (by all means, confirm if you understand that gender is more of a spectrum and not merely the presence of a penis.)"
1. You literally, specifically, referred to the "body". As I understand it physical/biological sex (what the body is/has) is separate from gender which is a construct of the mind.
2. As noted, despite your "peepee" obsession, physical/biological sex goes far deeper than simply one's "peepee".
Your reliance on "experts" seems limited to whether or not those experts agree with your worldview.
I'd wait for you to address what I've already responded to you on this off topic diversion, but I don't have that much time. So, I'll enjoy watching your ignore what I say, ignore my questions, and argue with a caricature of me instead of with me.
I was using AI as a shortcut - you've used AI and I figured it was a safe shortcut even if not ideal, especially on topics that are pretty well known - but the data is out there and you'd know that if you were informed. Now, there's no shame on being ignorant on certain topics - we can't all know everything, of course. BUT, when one is promoting public policy positions from a place of ignorance, THAT is not welcome.
ReplyDeleteYou are entirely free in a free republic such as ours, to be ignorant on certain or even all topics. But you can't expect people to take such positions from ignorance seriously.
Leading medical organizations in the United States agree that gender-affirming care are the most effective treatment for gender dysphoria. The American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association have issued position statements supporting coverage for medically necessary treatment as determined by a patient and their health care provider.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/31/health/transgender-medically-necessary-procedures
When I've used AI, you've complained about it. It's one more example of you demanding a standard of behavior from others that you don't apply to yourself. You seem to be ignoring the reality that AI will often tell you what you want to hear and will give different answers to the same prompt based on the person asking.
DeleteBecause we've learned nothing about gender dysphoria since 2018. gotcha.
I'll be honest about one thing. When the "experts" are an integral part of an industry that is raking in billions of dollars a year and they always seem to find results that keep the billions of dollars flowing, I tend to be skeptical.
Deletehttps://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/feb/24/meet-the-neuroscientist-shattering-the-myth-of-the-gendered-brain-gina-rippon
DeleteThe above is also speaking of what's also known as "neuroplasticity", which also shatters to pieces the claims of the homosexual that he can't change to live as God intended. The following is a video of Ms. Rippon explaining the case in the first link above:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj0DjVlX-BQ
The following is a different expert in the field:
https://neurosciencenews.com/male-female-brain-debunked-18276/
Each of these address the flavor of the day by the types of "experts" which give Dan a tingle in his lady bits.
As Dan's already hijacked the thread, feel free to respond to him if you want. I have no desire to do so any more than I have to.
DeleteCraig, missing the point entirely:
ReplyDeleteWhy should I give in to your demands that I say exactly what you want in the exact words you demand I use.
For some self-integrity and clarification? YOU claimed that I was mistaken in thinking you were saying you did not want transgender women in women's prisons, that you wanted transgender women in MEN's prisons. I'm just asking you to clarify: DID I or did I not correctly state your position?
In an effort to be clear, why not just answer the question at hand?
Is it because, in your mind, you don't "believe in" transgender women..."? Then SAY so. Deny reality if you wish, but make yourself clear.
Of course, as anyone who lives in the world and meets people outside their own comfort zones, it's not that hard to MEET actual transgender women (and transgender men). They exist. They're out there. Even if you don't understand them, you can't deny they're out there.
Why wouldn't a person in a good faith argument simply answer a direct question when they've lodged a charge (false, in this case) against someone else?
The incantations are back, the incantations are back!!!!
DeleteThat you think something does not make it true or proven.
"For some self-integrity and clarification?"
I don't need to jump through your hoops for "se;f-integrity" (kind of redundant also). I was precisely as clear as I intended to be.
"YOU claimed that I was mistaken in thinking you were saying you did not want transgender women in women's prisons, that you wanted transgender women in MEN's prisons. I'm just asking you to clarify: DID I or did I not correctly state your position?"
Ok, I'll clarify. You did not correctly state my position.
"In an effort to be clear, why not just answer the question at hand?"
Because it doesn't matter what I say or how I answer the question, you'll ignore or twist it anyway. You made a claim about my position, which you claimed was based on what I said. You failed to prove your claim, and that should be the end of it. You took what I did say, made some shit up based on what you wanted me to have said, and got called out so you need some way to divert attention from your lie and this is one of your usual ways to do so.
"Is it because, in your mind, you don't "believe in" transgender women..."? Then SAY so. Deny reality if you wish, but make yourself clear."
No. But keep making shit up if it makes you feel good.
"Why wouldn't a person in a good faith argument simply answer a direct question when they've lodged a charge (false, in this case) against someone else?"
That is an excellent question. One reasonable answer is that I see no reason to do what you will not do.
You made a false claim, which you could not back up based on what I'd said, so now you're going down any rabbit hole you can in order to avoid apologizing. Arrogance and hubris are problematic.
As there is no such thing as "transgender women", then such men...because that's what they are...should be sentenced upon conviction of a serious crime to a men's prison, not a woman's prison. For those who have actually gone through some degree of surgical alterations, that's likely not going to have any difference on the degree to which they'd be targeted for sexual attack by other criminals, as they're sure to be perceived as target material. It might have been better that they not have broken the law. That's where Dan's focus should be...not on putting female criminals at risk as if Dan truly gives a flying rat's ass about women being victimized...which he doesn't.
DeleteI believe that on some level, even if it's just a desire to impose his worldview, Dan cares about "victims". What I also believe is that Dan's care isn't equal or universal. He seems to have a hierarchy of victim hood and cares more for those at the top "trans", than for those lower "women". He's clearly more concerned that the "trans" not be bothered than that "innocent" women be raped.
DeleteThe fact that the only solution he sees un unrestricted access to women's prisons/prisoners by "trans" folx tells me what his priorities are.
It's most superficial posturing on Dan's part. Will his heart go out to a man on fire right in front of him? I'm sure it will. Does he prefer that no man be enveloped in flames? I'm sure that's most probable. But as you say, his concern for the oppressed is still quite suspect given everything he says. His concern for women is nonsensical given all he supports which puts them in jeopardy. And of course, he promotes the bullshit notion that the value of a given human being compared to another is a matter of size, age and location. He's a total fraud.
DeleteYou're probably right about what is right in front of him. That's even the excuse he uses to avoid being too critical of the depredations of Islam across the globe, he's focused locally. But it certainly does seem that his concern has levels which seem to align with his politics and worldview.
Delete"Okay, you want to be the one who decides that "the public" decides which MEDICAL TREATMENTS (and cataract and gender surgeries ARE necessary medical treatments) will be paid for and which ones won't."
ReplyDeleteThe fact that I haven't said anything close to this, and have said the opposite clearly means nothing to you. You've simply decided to have an argument with you playing both parts. Enjoy.
"You appear to be saying that you think that ANY treatment, then, that is elective - even IF it's medically necessary - should NOT be paid for by medicaid. BUT, you're willing to make SOME exceptions for elective cataract surgery, presumably, and potentially others that you personally would consent to. Is that correct?"
No.
"By all means, make yourself clear. WHAT is the consistent basis for "the public" deciding which medically necessary surgeries will not be paid for? Only the ones that you understand the need for?"
How could I possibly clarify something I have not said? Why would you demand that I do so?
I do appreciate the goal post move though. Going from elective, to necessary is impressive. Because losing one's sight is medically equivalent of denying one's biology.
"If so, isn't that presumptuous?"
No more than your presumption in deciding what elective procedures should be paid for by taxpayers.
"You're making it clear that you value YOUR OWN "liberty" to impose limits on payments to SOME people for SOME surgeries over the individual's right to have those surgeries paid for like any other medically necessary surgery."
No, this is also a lie.
"That's the problem. I think it comes down to this: IN YOUR mind, YOU personally don't understand or "believe" that trans surgery IS medically necessary and therefore, you want YOUR personal religious and human opinion to hold more sway than actual medical experts."
That's the problem. You think that it comes down to some nonsense that you made up and decided to attribute to me and demand that I defend your nonsense as if it was my own.
But hey, it's easier to respond to shit you make up, than what I've actually said.
But once again, that you don't understand something is not evidence that you're right.
Craig falsely claimed...
ReplyDelete"You made a false claim..."
That remains entirely to be seen. I've asked you to clarify and told you precisely what I was saying and why. Then you refused to clarify. By all means, be a rational adult and clarify. Is it the case that you do not want transgender women held in women's jails?
If your answer is yes then I made a MISTAKEN claim and I will gladly apologize for being mistaken. What I did was make a good faith claim based on what I THINK you've said and what I STILL think you're saying. Clarify if you want to be understood.
The false claim is itself a false claim. Do you understand all that?
Dan
I’m simply done with these incantation preceded, off topic, BS, comments.
DeleteIf you want to keep looking stupid, feel free. But I’m doing indulging your idiocy and off topic nonsense. If you can’t prove your claim by quoting me, then your claim was false.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteIn another thread accused me of being "hostile" for pointing out that he made an off topic comment on a post he couldn't have been bothered to read, (which I responded to) and then simply ignored my response to his off topic comment.
His excuse was that he wanted to show respect by not continuing the off topic conversation, yet here we see Dan hijacking a thread about the fact that being an American is not solely based on geography, but one something else, and turning it into a rant repeating his outdated "trans" talking points.
I'll be honest, I gave him the leeway to drive this thread so far off topic, and I enabled him in doing so. I'll acknowledge that. But for Dan to pretend that he respects and doesn't go off topic, is simply not supported by the reality we see in this tread alone.
It's rather routine, in fact. Almost like he's paid to do it.
DeleteAlmost.
Delete:Taylor et al. (2024) — Interventions to Suppress Puberty in Adolescents Experiencing Gender Dysphoria or Incongruence: A Systematic Review — Archives of Disease in Childhood
ReplyDeleteTaylor et al. (2024) — Masculinising and Feminising Hormone Interventions for Adolescents Experiencing Gender Dysphoria or Incongruence: A Systematic Review — Archives of Disease in Childhood
Miroshnychenko et al. (2025) — Gender-Affirming Hormone Therapy in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis — Archives of Disease in Childhood
Miroshnychenko et al. (2025) — Puberty Blockers for Gender Dysphoria in Youth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis — Archives of Disease in Childhood
McKean et al. (2023) — Interventions to Reduce Suicide Risk in Transgender and Gender-Diverse Youth: A Systematic Review