Tomorrow You Will Apologize. The Year After, Persecute. How Cults Progress

[Silhouette]

I do have a problem with this. No 15-year-olds should be allowed to undergo any kind of cosmetic surgery. These are permanent changes and sometimes they don't turn out very well. A 15-year-old is still a child in the mind (despite what some of the sickos will claim) and not able to consent to such life-changing surgeries. I find this to be wrong. It is easy to see how a 15-year-old child can be just "confused" about his or her sexual identity and have plenty of time to learn how to deal with these things in a healthy and productive manner and more than likely will have things figured out by the time they are into their 20s.

The part I underlined in her quote is her saying that "sex change" amputations are not healthy or productive. The way she says it she means in general, EVER. It is clear from her comments she is basically wholly against sex change operations but afraid to say it just like that. She believes they are in no way healthy or productive.
So, do you agree with her?

I've told you my position: I think gender reassignment surgery should wait until you're 18. Feel free to quote me....

So you disagree with ChrisL. She at least says kids should wait until their "into their 20s". But she also seems to indicate that even then it's an idea only a "sicko" would promote. Her bent seems to be that amputating healthy genitals is never a good idea to solve what she seems to feel is an issue stemming from a mental and not a physical dysfunction.

And I agree. But you disagree. How can Syriusly be welcomed into the LGBT fold if she is against "T"? She vigorously defends all things gay, for example. Just not transgenderism. How do you address her rebellion on "T"?

Seriously.

Seriously what? Either you said what you said and meant what you meant or you didn't? Are you going to let Skylar pressure you into changing your tune now?

 

[ChrisL]

I do have a problem with this. No 15-year-olds should be allowed to undergo any kind of cosmetic surgery. These are permanent changes and sometimes they don't turn out very well. A 15-year-old is still a child in the mind (despite what some of the sickos will claim) and not able to consent to such life-changing surgeries. I find this to be wrong. It is easy to see how a 15-year-old child can be just "confused" about his or her sexual identity and have plenty of time to learn how to deal with these things in a healthy and productive manner and more than likely will have things figured out by the time they are into their 20s.

The part I underlined in her quote is her saying that "sex change" amputations are not healthy or productive. The way she says it she means in general, EVER. It is clear from her comments she is basically wholly against sex change operations but afraid to say it just like that. She believes they are in no way healthy or productive.
So, do you agree with her?

I've told you my position: I think gender reassignment surgery should wait until you're 18. Feel free to quote me....

So you disagree with ChrisL. She at least says kids should wait until their "into their 20s". But she also seems to indicate that even then it's an idea only a "sicko" would promote. Her bent seems to be that amputating healthy genitals is never a good idea to solve what she seems to feel is an issue stemming from a mental and not a physical dysfunction.

And I agree. But you disagree. How can Syriusly be welcomed into the LGBT fold if she is against "T"? She vigorously defends all things gay, for example. Just not transgenderism. How do you address her rebellion on "T"?

Seriously.

Seriously what? Either you said what you said and meant what you meant or you didn't? Are you going to let Skylar pressure you into changing your tune now?

Because demons.

 

[Syriusly]

I welcome, as I've been asking for pages now, either Skylar or Syriusly to say if they agree with ChrisL's comments in the OP. So far just ad homimens and strawmen....but I keep hope alive that they will weigh in on those very LGBT-controversial comments..

Keep asking away- I have asked you to explain why you keep lying about the report by Dr. Hall and Dr. Hall, but apparently I am as destined as you are for disappointment.

 

[Silhouette]

Because demons.

So you won't answer whether or not you're changing your position on transgender surgery for minors?

Syriusly, I'm going to ignore your spamming/orchestrated distractions and will continute to repost the questions for both ChrisL and Skylar until they answer them.

 

[Syriusly]

I do have a problem with this. No 15-year-olds should be allowed to undergo any kind of cosmetic surgery. These are permanent changes and sometimes they don't turn out very well. A 15-year-old is still a child in the mind (despite what some of the sickos will claim) and not able to consent to such life-changing surgeries. I find this to be wrong. It is easy to see how a 15-year-old child can be just "confused" about his or her sexual identity and have plenty of time to learn how to deal with these things in a healthy and productive manner and more than likely will have things figured out by the time they are into their 20s.

The part I underlined in her quote is her saying that "sex change" amputations are not healthy or productive. The way she says it she means in general, EVER. It is clear from her comments she is basically wholly against sex change operations but afraid to say it just like that. She believes they are in no way healthy or productive.

So, do you agree with her?

I've told you my position: I think gender reassignment surgery should wait until you're 18. Feel free to quote me....

And I agree. But you disagree. How can Syriusly be welcomed into the LGBT fold if she is against "T"? She vigorously defends all things gay, for example. Just not transgenderism. How do you address her rebellion on "T"?

Well.....Silhouette.

As I have mentioned many times, I am a married man with a wife and child. So either:

a) you have memory issues or
b) you have problems using gender pronouns or
c) you are for some reason lying again.

Why would I care about what the LGBT community thinks about me or my posts? I defend what I think is right against what I think is wrong.

Your campaign to villify homosexuals is wrong- and sick. So I attack your campaign.

Now- would you care to explain why you continue to lie about the paper by Dr. Hall and Dr. Hall?

 

[ChrisL]

Because demons.

So you won't answer whether or not you're changing your position on transgender surgery for minors?

Syriusly, I'm going to ignore your spamming/orchestrated distractions and will continute to repost the questions for both ChrisL and Skylar until they answer them.

Am I changing my position? No. Why would I do that. I come here to give my opinions. Your paranoid rants aside, I am not a member of a "cult" or any other group. I'm just a person who is a mom, works every day and lives my life. Are you going to continue to insist that my opinions are not my own?

 

[Skylar]

I do have a problem with this. No 15-year-olds should be allowed to undergo any kind of cosmetic surgery. These are permanent changes and sometimes they don't turn out very well. A 15-year-old is still a child in the mind (despite what some of the sickos will claim) and not able to consent to such life-changing surgeries. I find this to be wrong. It is easy to see how a 15-year-old child can be just "confused" about his or her sexual identity and have plenty of time to learn how to deal with these things in a healthy and productive manner and more than likely will have things figured out by the time they are into their 20s.

The part I underlined in her quote is her saying that "sex change" amputations are not healthy or productive. The way she says it she means in general, EVER. It is clear from her comments she is basically wholly against sex change operations but afraid to say it just like that. She believes they are in no way healthy or productive.
So, do you agree with her?

I've told you my position: I think gender reassignment surgery should wait until you're 18. Feel free to quote me....

So you disagree with ChrisL. She at least says kids should wait until their "into their 20s". But she also seems to indicate that even then it's an idea only a "sicko" would promote. Her bent seems to be that amputating healthy genitals is never a good idea to solve what she seems to feel is an issue stemming from a mental and not a physical dysfunction.

And I agree. But you disagree. How can Syriusly be welcomed into the LGBT fold if she is against "T"? She vigorously defends all things gay, for example. Just not transgenderism. How do you address her rebellion on "T"?

Syrius is a married dude. And you know this. Making all your 'T' babble pointless noise. Syrius is also over 18. Making your babble doubly pointless.

Your personal opinion on transgender issues aren't particularly relevant. As you have no say on any of these issues, nor should. Nor have any idea what you're talking about. The perspective of a transgender person is immediately relevant. As they know the issues they face far better than you do pretending to speak for them.

Given that suicide rates among the transgender drops by 90% post surgery, its clear that the full transition dramatically helps them. If it benefits them and doesn't hurt me.....why would I give a shit? This is the part of your obsession with gay people that I've never understood. It simply doesn't involve you. Why then would you devote this much energy to it?

Or with your rampant misquotes and lies, trade your integrity for it?

 

[ChrisL]

I do have a problem with this. No 15-year-olds should be allowed to undergo any kind of cosmetic surgery. These are permanent changes and sometimes they don't turn out very well. A 15-year-old is still a child in the mind (despite what some of the sickos will claim) and not able to consent to such life-changing surgeries. I find this to be wrong. It is easy to see how a 15-year-old child can be just "confused" about his or her sexual identity and have plenty of time to learn how to deal with these things in a healthy and productive manner and more than likely will have things figured out by the time they are into their 20s.

The part I underlined in her quote is her saying that "sex change" amputations are not healthy or productive. The way she says it she means in general, EVER. It is clear from her comments she is basically wholly against sex change operations but afraid to say it just like that. She believes they are in no way healthy or productive.
So, do you agree with her?

I've told you my position: I think gender reassignment surgery should wait until you're 18. Feel free to quote me....

So you disagree with ChrisL. She at least says kids should wait until their "into their 20s". But she also seems to indicate that even then it's an idea only a "sicko" would promote. Her bent seems to be that amputating healthy genitals is never a good idea to solve what she seems to feel is an issue stemming from a mental and not a physical dysfunction.

And I agree. But you disagree. How can Syriusly be welcomed into the LGBT fold if she is against "T"? She vigorously defends all things gay, for example. Just not transgenderism. How do you address her rebellion on "T"?

Syrius is a married dude. And you know this. Making all your 'T' babble pointless noise. Syrius is also over 18. Making your babble doubly pointless.

Your personal opinion on transgender issues aren't particularly relevant. As you have no say on any of these issues, nor should. Nor have any idea what you're talking about. The perspective of a transgender person is immediately relevant. As they know the issues they face far better than you do pretending to speak for them.

Given that suicide rates among the transgender drops by 90% post surgery, its clear that the full transition dramatically helps them. If it benefits them and doesn't hurt me.....why would I give a shit? This is the part of your obsession with gay people that I've never understood. It simply doesn't involve you. Why then would you devote this much energy to it?

Or with your rampant misquotes and lies, trade your integrity for it?

I think the poster was referring to me and is confusing names.

 

[Silhouette]

So there is a rift in the LGBT cultures about the transgender issue. Why is Oregon funding mutilating surgery then if even the people begging the state to do this are at odds with each other about it? I thought "LGBT" was a clearly defined group that thereby "deserves civil rights"?? What's all this with demands for transgender bathrooms and all the rest if you folks arent' even sure among yourselves if these are mental delusions or physical problems? We're going to build separate bathrooms or force kids of the opposite gender to have "visitors" to their bathroom that aren't their gender because of mental problems?

Should we also mandate vomit urns on restaurant tables because some people suffer from habitual bulimia as "their eating orientation"?

 

[Skylar]

So there is a rift in the LGBT cultures about the transgender issue.

You mean among millions and millions of people, one of them disagrees with another?

Think of the odds.

Why is Oregon funding mutilating surgery then if even the people begging the state to do this are at odds with each other about it? I thought "LGBT" was a clearly defined group that thereby "deserves civil rights"?? What's all this with demands for transgender bathrooms and all the rest if you folks arent' even sure among yourselves if these are mental delusions or physical problems? We're going to build separate bathrooms or force kids of the opposite gender to have "visitors" to their bathroom that aren't their gender because of mental problems?

Should we also mandate vomit urns on restaurant tables because some people suffer from habitual bulimia as "their eating orientation"?

Bulimia isn't a sexual orientation, Sil. You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Syriusly]

So there is a rift in the LGBT cultures about the transgender issue.

So you just keep making crap up.

 

[Syriusly]

So there is a rift in the LGBT cultures about the transgender issue. Why is Oregon funding mutilating surgery then if even the people begging the state to do this are at odds with each other about it? I thought "LGBT" was a clearly defined group that thereby "deserves civil rights"?? What's all this with demands for transgender bathrooms and all the rest if you folks arent' even sure among yourselves if these are mental delusions or physical problems? We're going to build separate bathrooms or force kids of the opposite gender to have "visitors" to their bathroom that aren't their gender because of mental problems?

Should we also mandate vomit urns on restaurant tables because some people suffer from habitual bulimia as "their eating orientation"?

Silhouette's meltdown continues.

 

[Montrovant]

So there is a rift in the LGBT cultures about the transgender issue. Why is Oregon funding mutilating surgery then if even the people begging the state to do this are at odds with each other about it? I thought "LGBT" was a clearly defined group that thereby "deserves civil rights"?? What's all this with demands for transgender bathrooms and all the rest if you folks arent' even sure among yourselves if these are mental delusions or physical problems? We're going to build separate bathrooms or force kids of the opposite gender to have "visitors" to their bathroom that aren't their gender because of mental problems?

Should we also mandate vomit urns on restaurant tables because some people suffer from habitual bulimia as "their eating orientation"?

Are you trying to say that any group of people, based on a single characteristic, must agree on all issues? Do all Republicans agree on the proper way to deal with illegal immigration? Do all Christians agree on the importance of baptism? Do all economists agree on the right policies for government to implement?
Of course not.

 

[Silhouette]

So there is a rift in the LGBT cultures about the transgender issue. Why is Oregon funding mutilating surgery then if even the people begging the state to do this are at odds with each other about it? I thought "LGBT" was a clearly defined group that thereby "deserves civil rights"?? What's all this with demands for transgender bathrooms and all the rest if you folks arent' even sure among yourselves if these are mental delusions or physical problems? We're going to build separate bathrooms or force kids of the opposite gender to have "visitors" to their bathroom that aren't their gender because of mental problems?....Should we also mandate vomit urns on restaurant tables because some people suffer from habitual bulimia as "their eating orientation"?

Are you trying to say that any group of people, based on a single characteristic, must agree on all issues? Do all Republicans agree on the proper way to deal with illegal immigration? Do all Christians agree on the importance of baptism? Do all economists agree on the right policies for government to implement?
Of course not.

OK, let's turn this around. Let's say that transgenders started saying that they think lesbians are a bunch of sickos because they're "really just men born in women's bodies (the bull dykes anyway) and "continuing in their lives in delusion, they refuse to do the right thing and get surgery"..? Or transgenders start talking out about how weird it is anyway that lipstick lesbians crave and desire all the trappings of a masculine person to be with and then start accusing lipstick lesbians of being closeted hetersexuals?

Yes, all black people should agree that having black ancestory that's evident upon one's person makes you black. LGBTs should all agree that transgender sugeries are appropriate at any age. Why not? If a child isn't the right gender, isn't it torturous to make them continue on in that "false gender"? Why suddenly are your ranks splitting with one faction saying children will be harmed by amputation and the other faction saying they'll be harmed without it? That's a pretty big rift especially when children's wellbeing hangs in the balance.

...maybe you folks should straighten out that dogma within your ranks before you sell it to the public eh?

 

[Montrovant]

So there is a rift in the LGBT cultures about the transgender issue. Why is Oregon funding mutilating surgery then if even the people begging the state to do this are at odds with each other about it? I thought "LGBT" was a clearly defined group that thereby "deserves civil rights"?? What's all this with demands for transgender bathrooms and all the rest if you folks arent' even sure among yourselves if these are mental delusions or physical problems? We're going to build separate bathrooms or force kids of the opposite gender to have "visitors" to their bathroom that aren't their gender because of mental problems?....Should we also mandate vomit urns on restaurant tables because some people suffer from habitual bulimia as "their eating orientation"?

Are you trying to say that any group of people, based on a single characteristic, must agree on all issues? Do all Republicans agree on the proper way to deal with illegal immigration? Do all Christians agree on the importance of baptism? Do all economists agree on the right policies for government to implement?
Of course not.

OK, let's turn this around. Let's say that transgenders started saying that they think lesbians are a bunch of sickos because they're "really just men born in women's bodies (the bull dykes anyway) and "continuing in their lives in delusion, they refuse to do the right thing and get surgery"..? Or transgenders start talking out about how weird it is anyway that lipstick lesbians crave and desire all the trappings of a masculine person to be with and then start accusing lipstick lesbians of being closeted hetersexuals?

Yes, all black people should agree that having black ancestory that's evident upon one's person makes you black. LGBTs should all agree that transgender sugeries are appropriate at any age. Why not? If a child isn't the right gender, isn't it torturous to make them continue on in that "false gender"? Why suddenly are your ranks splitting with one faction saying children will be harmed by amputation and the other faction saying they'll be harmed without it? That's a pretty big rift especially when children's wellbeing hangs in the balance.

...maybe you folks should straighten out that dogma within your ranks before you sell it to the public eh?

The fact that you think there are 'ranks' and 'dogma' shows your idiocy. I would guess that most of the people talking about this here aren't even gay.

There is no total agreement about who is or is not black. The standard used to be a single drop of blood, if I remember correctly.

Why not isn't the appropriate question. Why? You are making a claim that all LGBTs should agree about the appropriateness of transgender surgeries. Why should they? Just because you want them to isn't a valid reason. That's especially true considering how you are arguing about wants and needs in regards to children in your other thread.

You may think that creating standards of agreement within a particular group upon your whim is somehow a reasonable stance. I don't think you'll find much agreement with it.

 

[Silhouette]

Why not isn't the appropriate question. Why? You are making a claim that all LGBTs should agree about the appropriateness of transgender surgeries. Why should they? Just because you want them to isn't a valid reason. That's especially true considering how you are arguing about wants and needs in regards to children in your other thread.

You may think that creating standards of agreement within a particular group upon your whim is somehow a reasonable stance. I don't think you'll find much agreement with it.

Because they pitch themselves as the same cultural movement that just hoodwinked the US Supreme Court by self-assigned assumed identity/"innateness" claimed for so-called transgenders and got the Court to circumvent the separation of powers (by adding for just their favorites, a new protected class to the Constitution based for the first time on odd behaviors) in order to escape majority regulation of a repugnant minority behavior.

LGBTs the "LG" part just pitched cohesiveness "gay gay gay" as a binding agent to gain a legal advantage as a separate class of people. My contention is that if you have a class of people based on behaviors, you'd better well have a clear definition of what those behaviors are and that all the people in that class agree to/adhere to them or else...you don't have a class...you have a bunch of individuals falsely using a label that does not apply in order to gain legal perks.

 

[ChrisL]

So there is a rift in the LGBT cultures about the transgender issue. Why is Oregon funding mutilating surgery then if even the people begging the state to do this are at odds with each other about it? I thought "LGBT" was a clearly defined group that thereby "deserves civil rights"?? What's all this with demands for transgender bathrooms and all the rest if you folks arent' even sure among yourselves if these are mental delusions or physical problems? We're going to build separate bathrooms or force kids of the opposite gender to have "visitors" to their bathroom that aren't their gender because of mental problems?....Should we also mandate vomit urns on restaurant tables because some people suffer from habitual bulimia as "their eating orientation"?

Are you trying to say that any group of people, based on a single characteristic, must agree on all issues? Do all Republicans agree on the proper way to deal with illegal immigration? Do all Christians agree on the importance of baptism? Do all economists agree on the right policies for government to implement?
Of course not.

OK, let's turn this around. Let's say that transgenders started saying that they think lesbians are a bunch of sickos because they're "really just men born in women's bodies (the bull dykes anyway) and "continuing in their lives in delusion, they refuse to do the right thing and get surgery"..? Or transgenders start talking out about how weird it is anyway that lipstick lesbians crave and desire all the trappings of a masculine person to be with and then start accusing lipstick lesbians of being closeted hetersexuals?

Yes, all black people should agree that having black ancestory that's evident upon one's person makes you black. LGBTs should all agree that transgender sugeries are appropriate at any age. Why not? If a child isn't the right gender, isn't it torturous to make them continue on in that "false gender"? Why suddenly are your ranks splitting with one faction saying children will be harmed by amputation and the other faction saying they'll be harmed without it? That's a pretty big rift especially when children's wellbeing hangs in the balance.

...maybe you folks should straighten out that dogma within your ranks before you sell it to the public eh?

The fact that you think there are 'ranks' and 'dogma' shows your idiocy. I would guess that most of the people talking about this here aren't even gay.

There is no total agreement about who is or is not black. The standard used to be a single drop of blood, if I remember correctly.

Why not isn't the appropriate question. Why? You are making a claim that all LGBTs should agree about the appropriateness of transgender surgeries. Why should they? Just because you want them to isn't a valid reason. That's especially true considering how you are arguing about wants and needs in regards to children in your other thread.

You may think that creating standards of agreement within a particular group upon your whim is somehow a reasonable stance. I don't think you'll find much agreement with it.

This whole thing is beyond silly.

 

[ChrisL]

Why not isn't the appropriate question. Why? You are making a claim that all LGBTs should agree about the appropriateness of transgender surgeries. Why should they? Just because you want them to isn't a valid reason. That's especially true considering how you are arguing about wants and needs in regards to children in your other thread.

You may think that creating standards of agreement within a particular group upon your whim is somehow a reasonable stance. I don't think you'll find much agreement with it.

Because they pitch themselves as the same cultural movement that just hoodwinked the US Supreme Court by self-assigned assumed identity/"innateness" claimed for so-called transgenders and got the Court to circumvent the separation of powers (by adding for just their favorites, a new protected class to the Constitution based for the first time on odd behaviors) in order to escape majority regulation of a repugnant minority behavior.

LGBTs the "LG" part just pitched cohesiveness "gay gay gay" as a binding agent to gain a legal advantage as a separate class of people. My contention is that if you have a class of people based on behaviors, you'd better well have a clear definition of what those behaviors are and that all the people in that class agree to/adhere to them or else...you don't have a class...you have a bunch of individuals falsely using a label that does not apply in order to gain legal perks.

These people are taxpaying citizens. Just because you don't like their sex lives, that is not a valid reason to deny them any rights or "perks" that other citizens enjoy, such as being able to shop at the store of your choice or marrying the person of your choosing.

 

[Silhouette]

These people are taxpaying citizens. Just because you don't like their sex lives, that is not a valid reason to deny them any rights or "perks" that other citizens enjoy, such as being able to shop at the store of your choice or marrying the person of your choosing.

The legal equivalent to this infighting would be like chinese, swedish & eskimos all wanting to be considered "black Americans".

 

[ChrisL]

These people are taxpaying citizens. Just because you don't like their sex lives, that is not a valid reason to deny them any rights or "perks" that other citizens enjoy, such as being able to shop at the store of your choice or marrying the person of your choosing.

The legal equivalent to this infighting would be like chinese, swedish & eskimos all wanting to be considered "black Americans".

What infighting are you talking about? I don't know what your delusions tell you, but I am just a lone person here, expressing my own opinions, and you are just another nut job on the internet.