Two Questions that non-LGBT-Q Supporters of Trans Rights Must Answer to be Credible

[JoeB131]

It is illegal to destroy an eagle’s egg. Fines are as high as $5,000 and imprisonment up to 3 years.

Is an eagle's egg and eagle?

It's also illegal to collect an Eagle's feather or disturb an Eagle's nest. Neither of those can be claimed to be an Eagle.

Not even a nice try.

 

[SaxonJackson]

It's also illegal to collect an Eagle's feather or disturb an Eagle's nest. Neither of those can be claimed to be an Eagle.

Not even a nice try.

Is an eagle's egg an eagle?

Why are you fined for killing an unborn eagle but killing an unborn human is perfectly acceptable?

Try to focus. Deflection is cowardice.

 

[JoeB131]

Is an eagle's egg an eagle?

No. In fact, the majority of Eagle Eggs never hatch.

Why are you fined for killing an unborn eagle but killing an unborn human is perfectly acceptable?

Because Eagles are endangered and humans are not.
In fact, less humans would be a good thing. The planet is already overpopulated and running out of resources.

You are fined for doing ANYTHING that could potentially harm an Eagle, including disturbing their nests or collecting their feathers.

About a decade ago, we had an eagle nest near my Wisconsin Property, and the Eagle routinely shed feathers, which my nieces and nephew collected, kids being kids.

If the Fish and Wildlife department found out, we could have been fined.

 

[SaxonJackson]

No. In fact, the majority of Eagle Eggs never hatch.



Because Eagles are endangered and humans are not.
In fact, less humans would be a good thing. The planet is already overpopulated and running out of resources.

You are fined for doing ANYTHING that could potentially harm an Eagle, including disturbing their nests or collecting their feathers.

About a decade ago, we had an eagle nest near my Wisconsin Property, and the Eagle routinely shed feathers, which my nieces and nephew collected, kids being kids.

If the Fish and Wildlife department found out, we could have been fined.

So “being endangered” turns eagles' eggs into eagles? You said that a human fetus isn't a human. I'm just trying to figure out if you are consistent and honest where unborn life forms are concerned.

Is an eagle egg an eagle?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

To me, that is none of my business

I can’t understand why Republicans obsess over it

Republicans don't obsess over it.
Democrats obsess over saying Republicans obsess over it.

Non religious conservatives really don't give a shit, and would say EXACTLY what you did in your answer. What conservatives don't want is to be forced to play along with another persons fantasy. Nor are we willing to put other people in awkward positions, and even in danger, to play along with again, someone's fantasy. And - here is the big one - we want children to be kept out of it.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Fetuses aren't children.

That echoes the attitudes of your relatives back in the Old Country, regarding Jews and other Untermenschen.

No surprise, that you're not nearly as distanced from that heritage as you'd like to claim.

And in fact that is where the Big Lie tactic originates that you are trying to employ here; tell a big enough lie, often enough, and people will believe it to be true. tell people that Jews, black people, unborn children, or others are not really fully human, and do not deserve to be accorded even the most basic of human rights, and if you do it loudly enough and often enough, the premise of this technique is that eventually, you'll be given some undeserved credence.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

And by the way - another thing conservatives have kept saying - "this madness will not stop till it gets to the point of complete madness".
And that is exactly what is happening.
On social media there is a significant push to normalize incest and decriminalize it.
Recently it is beginning to get coverage in mainstream media. Right now liberals are staying away from the topic, but when they need a new thing to virtue signal about - I guarantee you decriminalizing incest will be their next new thing.

 

[JoeB131]

That echoes the attitudes of your relatives back in the Old Country, regarding Jews and other Untermenschen.

No surprise, that you're not nearly as distanced from that heritage as you'd like to claim.

And in fact that is where the Big Lie tactic originates that you are trying to employ here; tell a big enough lie, often enough, and people will believe it to be true. tell people that Jews, black people, unborn children, or others are not really fully human, and do not deserve to be accorded even the most basic of human rights, and if you do it loudly enough and often enough, the premise of this technique is that eventually, you'll be given some undeserved credence.

Except Germans had to take away rights from Jews. And the Nazis had to hide what they were doing because it would have offended the sensibilities of regular Germans. (The reason why Sgt. Schultz's "I know nothink! nothink!" was so funny was that this was the attitude of most Germans about the stuff the Nazis did.)

Fetuses never had the recognition to start with. In fact, abortions were performed by midwives for centuries before professional "Doctors" took over and decided abortions were beneath them. (Ironically, these same doctors probably killed thousands of infants by not embracing sanitation theories.) But even during the period when abortion was illegal, it was never charged as "Murder". Women were never arrested for having them and providers were only arrested when they screwed up and injured the woman.

So analogy fail.

This has never been about "the Children". If it was, you wouldn't be against poverty programs to help Children. This is about keeping women in their place. Always was. Except they aren't putting up with it, so now you want to threaten them with death.

 

[JoeB131]

nd by the way - another thing conservatives have kept saying - "this madness will not stop till it gets to the point of complete madness".
And that is exactly what is happening.
On social media there is a significant push to normalize incest and decriminalize it.
Recently it is beginning to get coverage in mainstream media. Right now liberals are staying away from the topic, but when they need a new thing to virtue signal about - I guarantee you decriminalizing incest will be their next new thing.

Naw, if you are going to go after an outmoded sex law, they should probably go after the Polygamy/Bigamy Laws. Or the Prostitution laws.

Of course, you can make an argument against incest in that close relatives marrying or having sex will lead to inbreeding.

Unlike your anti-LGBTQ arguments, which are just "God Says it's bad" and "I think it's icky".

Now, if you could only make a consistent set of laws.

 

[JoeB131]

So “being endangered” turns eagles' eggs into eagles? You said that a human fetus isn't a human. I'm just trying to figure out if you are consistent and honest where unborn life forms are concerned.

Is an eagle egg an eagle?

Uh, dude, I made it pretty clear to you. ANYTHING even tangentally involved with Eagles is protected. Their habitat, their nests, their feathers.

That doesn't make an eagle egg an eagle.

 

[HeyNorm]

Naw, if you are going to go after an outmoded sex law, they should probably go after the Polygamy/Bigamy Laws. Or the Prostitution laws.

Of course, you can make an argument against incest in that close relatives marrying or having sex will lead to inbreeding.

Unlike your anti-LGBTQ arguments, which are just "God Says it's bad" and "I think it's icky".

Now, if you could only make a consistent set of laws.

Joe seems quite taken by the idea of castration of children.

Thoughts?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Yes, a very few of them. They'll lose, because they had parental consent and the minor insisted they were the other gender.

The left keeps saying that very few children get gender affirming care, and a tiny fraction of those get the surgeries before 18. So how few is very few of a tiny group like that?

How do you know that they insisted that they were the other gender? How do you know that they did not get an early diagnosis and then experienced pressure not to change their minds. Have you verified this with each and every case?

I believed you when you said that about Chloe, who is sueing, but now I'm wondering where you got the information that she "stomped her little feet" and demanded the surgery. Why did she need to stomp her feet? Are you seriously telling me that the Gender Specialist did not want to go through with the surgery, and her mom was skeptical, but those adults gave into a kid?

IRRC, she talked about having multiple mental disorders along with the Gender Dyphoria. That is very common, according to the DSV-V. She is rightfully angry that the adults around her chose to mutilate her secondary sex organs instead of providing the mental health therapies any counseling intern should have seen that she needed.

Again I ask: given the propensity of children to petulantly demand things that are not good for them, why is so-called "consent of the child" even part of the debate?

I did nothing of the sort. I just pointed out that once you allow adults to second guess medical treatments they got as children, you've pretty much made pediatric medicine impossible. Given the high rate of suicide among transgender people who don't get treatment, non-treatment of Gender Dysphoria can be as fatal as non-treatment for cancer.

The suicide rate of all transgenders is shockingly high, and there is no valid clinical study that shows that gender-affirming care reduces that rate in the slightest.

Suicide Risk Reduces 73% in Transgender, Nonbinary Youths with Gender-Affirming Care

Transgender and nonbinary youths, a population with an exceptional risk of suicide and poor mental health outcomes, were found to have 60% lower odds of depression after receiving gender-affirming intervention.

www.hcplive.com

I want to comment on that article, but I want you to first tell me honestly if you read it?

There's also substantial evidence that gender affirming care given early can reduce suicide risks.

Suicide Risk Reduces 73% in Transgender, Nonbinary Youths with Gender-Affirming Care

Transgender and nonbinary youths, a population with an exceptional risk of suicide and poor mental health outcomes, were found to have 60% lower odds of depression after receiving gender-affirming intervention.

www.hcplive.com

Did you read that one also? I mean thoroughly, and you accept what it says, even in the last few paragraphs?

I won't dwell on that point. I'll assume that you did read it and do accept it, so:

That article talks about things like suicidality and depression, not suicide itself. The evidence it cites are not stats about suicide, but self-reports from members of the transgender community. Former transgenders, like Chloe are most often excluded form the surveys. Anyone who can read the survey can easily figure out its purpose and which answers would best serve its purpose.

Even if the improved outcomes are true, those "studies," did nothing to separate the results of surgeries and hormones from the results of the counselling, therapies, and support that nearly always accompany such treatments.

What is needed are long-term studies about suicide among transgenders with the surgery and hormones as children and those without. Right now, we have no long-term studies, because this insanity has been so recent. Unfortunately, the American left doesn't want science, they want to stomp their little feet and get what they want RIGHT NOW.

Not at all... Once you get into "My parents made medical decisions for me I disagree with, so I'm suing", pediatric medicine will be a thing of the past. No one would take the liability.

Of course they would. They would pay more for insurance and keep raking in that Obamacare money for surgeries that harm children.

Or . . . the country turns to more heavily regulated/government medicine as they have in Europe where the more enlightened countries are braking hard on gender-affirming care for kids. I believe the profit motive, but I also recognize that it sometimes leads to profit-seekers putting the dollar over the well-being of the people they serve. GA care is a prime example of that.

Well, that's an easy one. A tatoo provides no medical benefit. Gender affirming care does.

What is the medical benefit that over-rides the harm of chemically and surgically castrating a child, or removing their secondary sexual organs? Stick to medical benefits, not mental, since we've discussed the mental health outcomes.

How is the child's body more healthy after such procedures?

 

[SaxonJackson]

Uh, dude, I made it pretty clear to you. ANYTHING even tangentally involved with Eagles is protected. Their habitat, their nests, their feathers.

That doesn't make an eagle egg an eagle.

So you and the Libs place eagles on a higher scale of importance that humans?

 

[rightwinger]

So you and the Libs place eagles on a higher scale of importance that humans?

Lets be clear…

Eagles are on a higher scale of importance than Conservatives.
If Conservatives go extinct, nobody really cares.

 

[HeyNorm]

Lets be clear…

Eagles are on a higher scale of importance than Conservatives

Let’s be clear…

is on a higher scale of importance than liberals. Plus, it smells better.

 

[SaxonJackson]

Lets be clear…

Eagles are on a higher scale of importance than Conservatives.
If Conservatives go extinct, nobody really cares.

So all unborn babies are “conservatives?”

 

[rightwinger]

So all unborn babies are “conservatives?”

Conservative unborn?

Who cares?

 

[SaxonJackson]

Conservative unborn?

Who cares?

Yeah ... who cares about unborn humans when there's all of those unborn eagles to worry about.

On the other hand ... global warming is more important than eagles:

 

[rightwinger]

Yeah ... who cares about unborn humans when there's all of those unborn eagles to worry about.

On the other hand ... global warming is more important than eagles:

See those windmills in the background?




Obvious case of Windmill Cancer

 

[Seymour Flops]

Naw, if you are going to go after an outmoded sex law, they should probably go after the Polygamy/Bigamy Laws. Or the Prostitution laws.

Of course, you can make an argument against incest in that close relatives marrying or having sex will lead to inbreeding.

Unlike your anti-LGBTQ arguments, which are just "God Says it's bad" and "I think it's icky".

Now, if you could only make a consistent set of laws.

Is there a source for that chart? "Incestual marriage is legal?" I'd like to know how whoever made it defines "incestual marriage."