Transgendered children

[Violet]

People should be able to get married to whoever they want, but people are dicks, so you americans had to push it all the way to your supreme court to get anywhere with it. You're also saying "respect the opinions of people you disagree with", but at the same time, surely they should respect ours too? Cyclical, isn't it?

Say that when this is used to bring polygamy into legality. There's a real risk of runaway legislation under the guise of interpreting the 14th amendment. It doesn't matter that it was probably the right thing to do: it was the wrong way to go about it. It's just the same with Roe vs Wade: probably the right thing to do, but the wrong way to go about it, and it's a bad decision even though I agree that abortion should be legal to some extent (and with the exceptions of major risk to life/terrible deformities).

State legal authority is an important thing to me, I will say. I disagree with how Florida and California legislate... but I wouldn't want to (except in the very most important cases) intrude on the way that the people within those states have voted in the people who decide how they operate. The point at which I'm willing to do that, and the point at which other people are willing to do that are at different points... hence the election of justices to the supreme court that gets to decide these things often occurs in respect to ruling party judicial interests. It mostly balances out: most of the time the supreme court delivers well enough for me.

But I'm not going to pat them on the back for jobs hack done.

I've yet to meet a bad person with dyed hair, ironically enough. So basically what you're saying is; You've had bad experiences with people with pink hair, therefore all people with pink hair are bad? Because that's what you appear to be implying

Opposite enough to me. What I consider to be a bad person and what you consider to be a bad person likely differ. In my opinion, those individuals have ruined it for me. That is all I am saying. I associate them negatively. Of course not all pink haired people are literally Lena Dunham.

But that still doesn't mean that you should stick pink hair on a child.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah, first gays can get married, then polygamy, then sex with kids and marrying goats!  Cmon...try harder?

Roe v Wade, next? As performance art, Violet, this is bland and derivative.

[Jello]

People should be able to get married to whoever they want, but people are dicks, so you americans had to push it all the way to your supreme court to get anywhere with it. You're also saying "respect the opinions of people you disagree with", but at the same time, surely they should respect ours too? Cyclical, isn't it?

Say that when this is used to bring polygamy into legality. There's a real risk of runaway legislation under the guise of interpreting the 14th amendment. It doesn't matter that it was probably the right thing to do: it was the wrong way to go about it. It's just the same with Roe vs Wade: probably the right thing to do, but the wrong way to go about it, and it's a bad decision even though I agree that abortion should be legal to some extent (and with the exceptions of major risk to life/terrible deformities).

State legal authority is an important thing to me, I will say. I disagree with how Florida and California legislate... but I wouldn't want to (except in the very most important cases) intrude on the way that the people within those states have voted in the people who decide how they operate. The point at which I'm willing to do that, and the point at which other people are willing to do that are at different points... hence the election of justices to the supreme court that gets to decide these things often occurs in respect to ruling party judicial interests. It mostly balances out: most of the time the supreme court delivers well enough for me.

But I'm not going to pat them on the back for jobs hack done.

I've yet to meet a bad person with dyed hair, ironically enough. So basically what you're saying is; You've had bad experiences with people with pink hair, therefore all people with pink hair are bad? Because that's what you appear to be implying

Opposite enough to me. What I consider to be a bad person and what you consider to be a bad person likely differ. In my opinion, those individuals have ruined it for me. That is all I am saying. I associate them negatively. Of course not all pink haired people are literally Lena Dunham.

But that still doesn't mean that you should stick pink hair on a child.

So basically; People should fight to their last dying breath for what should be a basic right, just because some people - who it won't effect - Don't want it to be a thing.

Oh, and your own personal experience is apparently gospel fact about everybody everywhere all over the world...
And i'm gonna take a stab in the dark and say the kid probably wanted it. I know my little sister wanted to dye her hair pink when she was that young, so i don't see a problem? The only reason we didn't let her is because the school she went to would have thrown a complete hissy fit. But i guess that makes my law abiding, police officers for parents actually bad parents, right?

[Violet]

The 'right way' AKA deny people their rights until the majority supports it.  Which is fucking bullshit.  You probably also had a problem with Loving v. Virginia.

Social change should be slow; fast change is irresponsible. I will say that minorities should be looking for acceptance by majority populations by being respectable and by themselves changing hearts and changing minds. I mean, it's like Trump and the popular vote: do you believe that it matters, and that a majority supporting a person/group is important? Of course we should defend the rights of minorities... WHERE other persons' rights are not being infringed upon (the cake debacle from the left, for instance. That was disgusting in the way that the woman not signing marriage licenses was also disgusting).

Wouldn't know, not familiar with the case.

You've attacked this lesbian couple--for absolutely no reason other than your own self hatred.  And then attacked their child for--having pink hair.  Which I find to be total bullshit. I mean bitch, please.  I know young people with all different kinds of hair colors that all turned out fine.  Nobody had any problem with them except the bullshit traditionalists like yourself.

My perception of them my have been incorrect... a lot of my worst information (and renewed interest) regarding this case has come from a pretty intense portion of the internet. That said, I still do believe that their situation is very suspicious, and I still do believe that they may have some hidden motives. There've been some very intense monsters out there, Divinity.

Traditionalists are important... without them you wouldn't have a stable or distinct culture anywhere. I haven't always been one... but I am proud to be one here and now. I've known children with zany hair colours myself... not as many success stories from what i've seen (I've got a sister who's a total brat, for instance).

If you're offended by how I speak, then too damn bad.  Go find yourself a safe space.   I'm sick and fucking tired of you traditionalists who call people 'weird' because they're different.   Who think that lesbians, gays, single moms and dads, can't POSSIBLY raise their child properly.  Especially since I was a single mother myself.  (And before you go accusing me of teaching my daughter to 'hate men' because apparently that's what you think people do--I'll say get fucked.)  We're not living in the 1920's anymore.  I know you wish we were, but we're not, and we're not going back to that time no matter how much your orange messiah wants to.

I'm offended by calling someone a pedophile without any evidence of such. That is an incredible allegation that has tremendous capacity to cause harm to a person's reputation and/or their business and/or their family and/or their person. There are some lines that your parents may not have taught you to not cross, but I'm telling you now: calling someone a pedophile (or a rapist, as if you don't recognize the one...) is wrong to do without evidence. If you're going to do it, then do it because you have significant evidence and/or concerns regarding something you have witnessed. To do otherwise is irresponsible.

I don't need a safe space, i'm not even sure how leftists can even say that without a shred of irony... you'll notice that I'm in here arguing on a 8 sides with 7 people? That's not what a safe-space needing person engages in... it's just wholly inaccurate. Observe a proper bite that would seem to be evidenced by your vitriol, as it relates to the way I feel children ought to be taught: while I havent said this before, I could indeed ask now of you if perhaps a person so filled full of hatred of your fellow (heh) man as you have been acting within this thread DID raise her children to hate men: how could I know? I surely couldn't. It would seem to be within your personality to do so, though, hence the validity of a criticism levied wonting refutation. That is how to properly work any vestige of ad hom into an argument as part of furthering the understanding of the bias of the other party, according to response. In that way while it has nothing to do with the overall argument, it can help two people to better frame an argument such that two disputing parties can come to a basic level of understanding regarding terms and bias, and can better present their arguments. Consider this an unintentionally condescending education:

When you call someone a pedophile, you don't just get to run away from that scott free... that is an incredibly serious (on level of libel law invocation) claim that is entirely outside of a person's right to make without any evidence. Tell me, what evidence do you have that I am a pedophile (let alone the thing where you think i absolutely must hate myself to disagree with you, as that's a proper and fair level of back and forth). You really do have to tell me... at least, if you want to see the respect of continued dialogue. It's really gone too far, Divinity, the moment you said that.

As for single mothers: the data speaks for itself. It isn't a good picture. 2 parents is always better. Traditional parenting is best. I absolutely do believe that single motherhood statistically speaking leads more often to less successful children by comparison, especially when welfare comes into the equation and the children aren't raised to understand that work is either necessary or to be respected, and often leaves them unprepared for the reality of a working life.

I infact don't wish we were living in the 1920s: I'd have killed myself. Why do you consider to assert this nonsense baselessly? What is your stake in my preferring any time period whatsoever in the course of human history?

---

So basically; People should fight to their last dying breath for what should be a basic right, just because some people - who it won't effect - Don't want it to be a thing.

Oh, and your own personal experience is apparently gospel fact about everybody everywhere all over the world...
And i'm gonna take a stab in the dark and say the kid probably wanted it. I know my little sister wanted to dye her hair pink when she was that young, so i don't see a problem? The only reason we didn't let her is because the school she went to would have thrown a complete hissy fit. But i guess that makes my law abiding, police officers for parents actually bad parents, right?

No? It is in my opinion not the right way to go about things to apply bad blanket laws across the nation that bring with them the possibility of later being used as precedence for the indefensible (shariah law, polygamy, transspecial marriage). Slippery slope and all that... but it's entirely open if someone wants to bring the argument for polygamy right now. Is polygamy not in accordance with the 14th amendment as well?

I just don't think that anyone should get shit deducted on their taxes for simply being married. My personal argument supersedes the legal opinion... why does the government dictate who you can or can't marry in the first place? Why does marriage mean anything in and of itself? Prenuptial agreements is really the place where government should be involved, not whether a person wants to participate in a the tradition of marriage But as I say: pointless argument at this point, and it'd be a real derail to discuss it. Anyways:

How many children with pink hair have you seen end up in a suit and tie? Curious. Teaching children to become responsible adults would be what I consider the responsible technique. If you believe differently, you can do it another way. I'll surely judge you for your way, and you'll surely judge me for mine... and that is surely acceptable?

---

Yeah, first gays can get married, then polygamy, then sex with kids and marrying goats!  Cmon...try harder?

Roe v Wade, next?  As performance art, Violet, this is bland and derivative.

Pretty much. Seriously, how is polygamy not a concern with the manner in which this is being done? Then again, what should we have against polygamy to begin with, heh.

I'd have preferred interracial marriage had been done by the legislative branch of the united states as well. I believe in the separation of powers, that's my schtik. For all the hate of trump, a lot of you are sure loving the separation of powers blocking him at every turn, aren't you?

Not a question of art this time, ol' friend

---

OFC you can...because ultimately you;re just like "those people" anyway...and you know this.  Why don;t you just go dye your hair purple and stop bitching?  

It is purple. Hence the bitching

What I think is far more important for me than what anyone in my environment thinks. I've begun to think differently as a result of my environment, sure... but that's just life for ya, eh?

So, if nobody has to do anything based on what you or anyone else thinks..why do you blame the lgbt community for what conservatives think about you?  You must realize that they already thought those things about you...purple hair or pink, before they knew you..and even back when the lgbt community properly knew it's place and kept it's filthy mouth shut.....?  It seems, to me, as though you find yourself aping the propaganda of people who fucking -loathe- you, and always have...?  

How did that happen....and don't say "because of the lgbt community"...because you just established that these sorts of things aren't forced by anyone, they're your decisions, based upon what you value in your life.......

There's always been a pretty slow and anti-science contingent to the conservative party, so.. no. I don't blame them for what conservatives think.

I do, however, blame them for what the moderates think. I, luckily enough, loathe pretty much ever party. But I've always respected the moderates in this world... and when people who've treated me well enough most of my life suddenly flip? It's a pretty big blow. There's a very wide conservative rise in the united states (and the whole of the west, really) happening right now, and I absolutely blame the hysteria of the left for a lot of that. The LGBT crowd just happens to be largely leftist (for good reason, it's been in their best interest regarding social issues in the past), and transtrenders just so happen to be some of the loudest and least compromising members of the overall 'trans' community.

Of course it's not entirely anyone's sole fault that the things that happen happen... but large groups of people do have effects.

[Jello]

I'm not judging you for your way of raising people, i'm merely curious as to why you think someone's choice in hair colour dictates whether or not they will be successful, and that it automatically makes them and their parents bad people? Like i mentioned, therapists of friends of mine have all kinds of coloured hair, unless of course, your idea of "successful" is narrow as all fuck to a select category of jobs. "successful" to me just means you're not doing some menial labour job in the middle of fuck off nowhere, because you can't get a better job, and that you can actually afford to keep your family happy and able to live somewhere without issues.

[The Grand Nudger]

---

Yeah, first gays can get married, then polygamy, then sex with kids and marrying goats!  Cmon...try harder?

Roe v Wade, next?  As performance art, Violet, this is bland and derivative.

Pretty much. Seriously, how is polygamy not a concern with the manner in which this is being done? Then again, what should we have against polygamy to begin with, heh.

Then how is a concern at all?  

I'd have preferred interracial marriage had been done by the legislative branch of the united states as well. I believe in the separation of powers, that's my schtik. For all the hate of trump, a lot of you are sure loving the separation of powers blocking him at every turn, aren't you?

Would've been nice, but..again, we live in the kind of shithole where other means are, apparently, necessarry...which is probably why those other mans exist in the first place. You know, it kind of is the supreme courts job to determine whether or not something is unconstitutional..right, it's not as if that was an abrogation of any particular power or authority.....? Plenty of states -did- do so legislatively, the scotus decision was for the usual suspects.

Not a question of art this time, ol' friend

No, well...that's too bad then.  

---

It is purple. Hence the bitching  

-and even if it weren't you'd still get lumped in with those deviant purple haired hookers, and you know this.  

What I think is far more important for me than what anyone in my environment thinks. I've begun to think differently as a result of my environment, sure... but that's just life for ya, eh?  

Sure, and sometimes experience in our environment can lead us to self loathing conclusions.  You spend the past year in the basement of a conservative thinktank or something?

There's always been a pretty slow and anti-science contingent to the conservative party, so.. no. I don't blame them for what conservatives think.

You just did..though, not but a few posts back.  I'm glad we're making progress, I guess?  

I do, however, blame them for what the moderates think. I, luckily enough, loathe pretty much ever party. But I've always respected the moderates in this world... and when people who've treated me well enough most of my life suddenly flip? It's a pretty big blow.

You sure it isn't something -you've- done or said..like..maybe, anything in these last few posts?

There's a very wide conservative rise in the united states (and the whole of the west, really) happening right now, and I absolutely blame the hysteria of the left for a lot of that.  The LGBT crowd just happens to be largely leftist (for good reason, it's been in their best interest regarding social issues in the past), and transtrenders just so happen to be some of the loudest and least compromising members of the overall 'trans' community.

Of course it's not entirely anyone's sole fault that the things that happen happen... but large groups of people do have effects.

Well, some group has certainly had an effect on you....but I think your attributions have been a bit shaky.

[Violet]

I'm not judging you for your way of raising people, i'm merely curious as to why you think someone's choice in hair colour dictates whether or not they will be successful, and that it automatically makes them and their parents bad people? Like i mentioned, therapists of friends of mine have all kinds of coloured hair, unless of course, your idea of "successful" is narrow as all fuck to a select category of jobs. "successful" to me just means you're not doing some menial labour job in the middle of fuck off nowhere, because you can't get a better job, and that you can actually afford to keep your family happy and able to live somewhere without issues.

It doesn't necessarily make their parents bad people... but I certainly don't agree that children should be allowed to dye their hair fantastic colours if the parents are looking to see their children succeed in the most well-paying fields, as early abandonment of the cultural norms of professional presentation is not guaranteed to be without risk of blowing those interviews in later life.

Sure, you could teach them later, such as in highschool, that's your right. I personally believe that it's better to maintain standards from an early age.

Furthermore... with the way that the child in question's parents HAVE massively publicized the fact that their child is trans? Unless there's a cultural shift coming in the future where that literally won't be an issue with anyone anywhere: it stands to reason that the child could see significant flak for publicly being trans. That's probably why it bothers me so much in this case... not only is the child outed to the whole world, but the parents think that pink hair on their child is acceptable. This case raises so many questions for me that even the little things (child having pink hair) start to look like further evidence of bad parenting.

And, that wouldn't be my measure of success. That would be a verrrrry long thread, however.

[Jello]

I'm not judging you for your way of raising people, i'm merely curious as to why you think someone's choice in hair colour dictates whether or not they will be successful, and that it automatically makes them and their parents bad people? Like i mentioned, therapists of friends of mine have all kinds of coloured hair, unless of course, your idea of "successful" is narrow as all fuck to a select category of jobs. "successful" to me just means you're not doing some menial labour job in the middle of fuck off nowhere, because you can't get a better job, and that you can actually afford to keep your family happy and able to live somewhere without issues.

It doesn't necessarily make their parents bad people... but I certainly don't agree that children should be allowed to dye their hair fantastic colours if the parents are looking to see their children succeed in the most well-paying fields, as early abandonment of the cultural norms of professional presentation is not guaranteed to be without risk of blowing those interviews in later life.

Sure, you could teach them later, such as in highschool, that's your right. I personally believe that it's better to maintain standards from an early age.

Furthermore... with the way that the child in question's parents HAVE massively publicized the fact that their child is trans? Unless there's a cultural shift coming in the future where that literally won't be an issue with anyone anywhere: it stands to reason that the child could see significant flak for publicly being trans. That's probably why it bothers me so much in this case... not only is the child outed to the whole world, but the parents think that pink hair on their child is acceptable. This case raises so many questions for me that even the little things (child having pink hair) start to look like further evidence of bad parenting.

And, that wouldn't be my measure of success. That would be a verrrrry long thread, however.

You're still not explaining why pink hair = bad, in the slightest, other than you have the opinion that they cannot be successful because of it, which is also unsubstantiated

[The Grand Nudger]

Fake it till you make it..I think, is what you're trying to say Violet...with regards to hair color choices and sexual orientation.

All this leftists this, lgbt that, conservative uprising, i've been mistreated by friends bullshit is unneccessary.

[Violet]

Then how is a concern at all?  

The data isn't particularly friendly to polygamy. Lotta really bad examples, including inside the united states (Utah, anyone?).

It's also a property law nightmare waiting to happen. But just because it hasn't worked out so well before and I don't know a way to make the laws work with it without shredding dozens of other laws that currently make marriage work the way it does (which, could be fine).

Would've been nice, but..again, we live in the kind of shithole where other means are, apparently, necessarry...which is probably why those other mans exist in the first place.  You know, it kind of is the supreme courts job to determine whether or not something is unconstitutional..right, it's not as if that was an abrogation of any particular power or authority.....?  Plenty of states -did- do so legislatively, the scotus decision was for the usual suspects.  

To interpret the legislation within the law is the purpose of the lesser courts, to interpret the meaning of legislation as it applies to the constitution is the job of the supreme court, yes. That doesn't mean that the decisions made by the supreme court are not heavily politicized (as they're picked by partisan presidents), it doesn't mean that irreconcilable interpretations of the constitution can't be active at the same time, it doesn't mean that supreme court rulings are not subject to change over time... and most critically, it doesn't mean that the supreme court is always right to *choose* to delegate some of the cases that they do.

It's not like it's a broad decision over an entire subject every time the supreme court rules... it's a single case raise in a single state about (typically) a single law which they then rule on the constitutionality of (in the case of gay marriage they ran into an inconsistency between the first and the 14th amendments for instance). Then lawyers in the various states challenge various laws within their states citing the supreme court's (usually) most recent ruling on that specific case as grounds to see laws that passed state legislatures and governorship overturned on the argued unconstitutional grounds of the law on the books. I'm not arguing with you on anything here, just denoting the way things occur, and that just because the supreme court has decided the constitution should be interpreted in a certain way: doesn't mean they're necessarily in the right to have done so. The supreme court doesn't (and likely shouldnt) have the power to make refined decisions affording allowances that could be settled by the legislative branch (there was a way to gay marriage that didn't force religious establishments to perform them). My opinion is that when they come to a constitutional irreconcilability between two constitutional amendments (legislative origin) : they should not make a decision either way/not take a flawed case.

I'm fairly certain that I could get the people terrified of trump's picks all hot and bothered over the idea that perhaps the president (notably a partisan figure in many cases) should not be the one who picks supreme court justices, and that a nonpartisan supreme court with term limits and a refined scope on specifically constitutional law whether they personally like the decision or not is probably the way to go. That said, I liked Trump's first pick well enough, young, smart, and not unwilling to make a decision that he doesn't particularly like... about perfect for the control seat where things stand. I respect that first pick... but I highly doubt the next 3-4 will be of similar caliber, and it risks throwing the balance of the supreme court entirely into big-government supporting partisan hacks who couldn't care less about the fourth amendment if it bit them in the penis.

-and even if it weren't you'd still get lumped in with those deviant purple haired hookers, and you know this.

Purpose of my hormones and surgeries and whatever is to "infiltrate women's groups", as the first few batches of feminists liked to say. Neither the left nor the right is my friend in my illness... wouldn't make sense for me to reach out to either side: both bad remarkably similar ways (some of which Trump certainly shares, that authoritarianism though).

Sure, and sometimes experience in our environment can lead us to self loathing conclusions.  You spend the past year in the basement of a conservative thinktank or something?

I've spent the last year or so reevaluating my relationship with my progressive friends. Haven't had many, but I found myself at an impasse over responsibility. As such, I've increasingly looked out for conservative opinions and leftist opinion that have reached me whether through news (BBC, CNN, etc) until the bias grew so onesided and the falsehoods so many that I just couldn't handle it anymore.

If you happen to know of any news that *isn't* right wing as fuck or left wing as fuck, I'd much appreciate ya tellin me. As it is, I trust very little news, as whether it's raised by the right or the left: it's always overblown.

You just did..though, not but a few posts back.  I'm glad we're making progress, I guess?  

Well yeah, we're coming to better understand what each other are wanting to say. Narrowing it down, as it were

You sure it isn't something -you've- done or said..like..maybe, anything in these last few posts?

I haven't talked to myself in a long time, so... not sure what you mean by this?

Well, some group has certainly had an effect on you....but I think your attributions have been a bit shaky.

Perhaps they are... but I see plenty of them reaffirming themselves often enough.

---

Fake it till you make it..I think, is what you're trying to say Violet...with regards to hair color choices and sexual orientation.

All this leftists this, lgbt that, conservative uprising, i've been mistreated by friends bullshit is unneccessary.  

You got it, bro

Fake it till ya make it. I like it.

---

You're still not explaining why pink hair = bad, in the slightest, other than you have the opinion that they cannot be successful because of it, which is also unsubstantiated

Bad, if your understanding of bad is that it reduces the chances of a child succeeding in a professional setting. It is an opinion, it matters to me, and it would appear to be shared by many employers in this country (america, not where I am).

Good, if you're intending to see your child succeed in some artistic merit, perhaps. Doesn't pay as well on average though: market's oversaturated.