LGBT, LGBTQ, LGBT+ Thread (1 Viewer)

[IvanKaramazov]

Of course, if the stripper is wearing the same outfit as the teacher would typically wear I'd be totally fine with it. 

I'd say the same for a drag queen, but then it wouldn't really be a drag queen reading to kids it would be an adult indistinguishable from a drag queen.

Same.  I don't care if the person in question is a stripper, a prostitute, a drag queen, trans, gay, straight, or whatever.  I'm just asking that if you're reading to kids in a school, that you're dressed appropriately.  That's not much of an ask IMO.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

I can't speak for the QAnon types, but for me personally, I'm very comfortable using terms like "pedophilia" to describe what's happening in the video that we're all responding to.  Taking a little kid to a strip club where they can hang out with half-naked strippers is walking right up to the line of outright pedophilia.  And you seem basically cool with that, so . . . .

Whereas you believe that every parent who was at that restaurant should be thrown in jail and permanently lose custody of their children, so ...

Anyway, thank you for proving my point about the overly promiscuous use/weaponization of "pedophilia"

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

Just in case anyone has lost sight of what this is actually about for politicians on the right, here is a helpful reminder:

Ken Paxton Among AGs Suing USDA Over LGBTQ School Meal Directive

More than 20 Republican attorneys general have filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration over a Department of Agriculture school meal program that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity

Basically, they don't wanna have to pay for school lunches for kids they don't like.

I once got suspended for repeating this famous line, so I'll just leave the hyperlink there and let people draw their own conclusions about its applicability.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Whereas you believe that every parent who was at that restaurant should be thrown in jail and permanently lose custody of their children, so ...

Anyway, thank you for proving my point about the overly promiscuous use/weaponization of "pedophilia"

I think you're making the same mistake here and in the George Soros thread.  You're getting stuck on a "false trope" narrative when the trope in question is actually happening in a non-false way.

George Soros is Jewish, and he's also a very wealthy man who likes to use his money and connections to influence public policy from behind the scenes.  Criticizing him for being Jewish is very bad.  George Soros should not be criticized for his Jewishness.  But he also shouldn't be immune from criticism just because he's Jewish.  If a person who doesn't share Soros's political opinions wants to criticize him using the same kind of language that one might direct toward the Koch brothers, that's cool.  

Similarly, it's obviously homophobic to accuse gay people (as a class) of being pedophiles.  It's also homophobic to accuse a gay guy of being a pedophile just because he happens to be gay.  But being gay, or trans, or whatever doesn't make that person immune from criticism either.  A gay guy who sexualizes little kids is a pedophile.  He's a pedophile not because of the "gay" part, but because of the "sexualizing little kids" part.  

In both cases, you're getting sidetracked by a red herring.  In the first case, you're getting hung up on George Soros being Jewish, which is causing you to lose sight of the fact that he is actually a puppet-master in the way that term is normally used.  Likewise, the events in the video under discussion (which I can't even open because I'm at work, and it's NSFW then I'm not sure why it's appropriate for toddlers but whatever) are uncomfortably pedo-like regardless of whether the performer is a straight woman, a gay guy in drag, trans etc.  Their sexual orientation and/or gender identity is a red herring.

 

[John123]

Just in case anyone has lost sight of what this is actually about for politicians on the right, here is a helpful reminder:

Basically, they don't wanna have to pay for school lunches for kids they don't like.

I once got suspended for repeating this famous line, so I'll just leave the hyperlink there and let people draw their own conclusions about its applicability.

I don't think this is what the lawsuit, which is joined by like 20+ states IIRC, is about.  But you keep doing you. 

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

I don't think this is what the lawsuit, which is joined by like 20+ states IIRC, is about.  But you keep doing you. 

If you've got an alternate explanation for why they chose to bring this lawsuit, I'm all ears. For what it's worth every single state that joined has a Republican AG- Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and West Virginia. So that appeal to the "20+ states" doesn't really prove what you think it proves.

I'll even give you their stated rationale- they think the order goes beyond the express limits of the statute that forms the basis for the program.

The response, of course, is that I can think of 100 examples of administrations on both sides of the aisle taking executive action far more questionable than this one (which rests on the scope of the Civil Rights Act post-Obergefell), so why this one?  In every single other example I can think of where Republican AGs have attacked executive action, they have done so because they clearly disapprove of the underlying policy.  See, eg, this one. 

Is it possible that 20 state GOP attorneys general had a "come to Jesus" moment at exactly the same time and decided that they just had to bring this challenge to executive branch overreach, even if it meant authorizing discrimination in school lunch programs which they're totally very sad about but had no choice, and even if this is doesn't even crack the Top 100 examples of executive branch overreach in the last couple years?  I guess it's possible. I think it's a lot more likely that they just wanna keep being cruel to the same people they've been openly mocking and using as scapegoats for the last couple decades, though. Don't you?

 

[shader]

Just in case anyone has lost sight of what this is actually about for politicians on the right, here is a helpful reminder:

Basically, they don't wanna have to pay for school lunches for kids they don't like.

I once got suspended for repeating this famous line, so I'll just leave the hyperlink there and let people draw their own conclusions about its applicability.

i can’t imagine a worse summary of the article than that.

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

i can’t imagine a worse summary of the article than that.

Why do you say that? I explained why I summarized it that way in my next post. If you disagree with any aspect of that explanation I'm happy to discuss it.

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

Here is the Indiana AG, in the release that accompanied the announcement of the lawsuit:

“We all know the Biden administration is dead-set on imposing an extreme left-wing agenda on Americans nationwide. But they’ve reached a new level of shamelessness with this ploy of holding up food assistance for low-income kids unless schools do the Left’s bidding,” Rokita said.

Does anyone want to argue that the "extreme left-wing agenda" and "the Left's bidding" here means anything other than protecting LGBTQ+ kids from discrimination in school lunch programs?  I think it's pretty obvious. But then I thought it was pretty obvious what was going on as soon as I saw the lawsuit, so

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

Gotta go, but I really enjoy watching reasonable, intelligent people on the right slowly being forced to come to grips with what the rest of us already know about the Trump-era GOP. So I look forward to continuing this discussion of this delightful lawsuit tomorrow! 

 

[BladeRunner]

I can't believe that there are posters in here defending pedophile behavior.

Is a good portion of the left so far gone that they can't draw ANY lines at ANY time?  Anything goes?  Aren't we supposed to be protecting children here?

 

[squistion]

I can't believe that there are posters in here defending pedophile behavior.

Is a good portion of the left so far gone that they can't draw ANY lines at ANY time?  Anything goes?  Aren't we supposed to be protecting children here?

Yes, that would indeed be appalling if it actually had happened.  Fortunately, no one here has defended pedophile behavior in this thread or on this forum. 

 

[Juxtatarot]

Gotta go, but I really enjoy watching reasonable, intelligent people on the right slowly being forced to come to grips with what the rest of us already know about the Trump-era GOP. So I look forward to continuing this discussion of this delightful lawsuit tomorrow! 

It seems like they want the money to feed the kids. They just don’t want strings attached.

 

[shader]

Here is the Indiana AG, in the release that accompanied the announcement of the lawsuit:

Does anyone want to argue that the "extreme left-wing agenda" and "the Left's bidding" here means anything other than protecting LGBTQ+ kids from discrimination in school lunch programs?  I think it's pretty obvious. But then I thought it was pretty obvious what was going on as soon as I saw the lawsuit, so

Can you find an example of how this lawsuit is supposed to discriminate against these kids in school lunch programs?  I literally have no idea where you are getting that from. If true, yeah that would be bad.  But the link you posted says the exact opposite. It appears one side doesn’t want to allow boys (who claim to be girls) to go in the girls bathroom, and they don’t want to allow boys (who claim to be girls) to play on girls sports teams, and the Biden administration is the one withholding school lunch programs.  But maybe I’m tired and reading it wrong. Just not seeing where you’re getting your info from.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

I think you're making the same mistake here and in the George Soros thread.  You're getting stuck on a "false trope" narrative when the trope in question is actually happening in a non-false way.

George Soros is Jewish, and he's also a very wealthy man who likes to use his money and connections to influence public policy from behind the scenes.  Criticizing him for being Jewish is very bad.  George Soros should not be criticized for his Jewishness.  But he also shouldn't be immune from criticism just because he's Jewish.  If a person who doesn't share Soros's political opinions wants to criticize him using the same kind of language that one might direct toward the Koch brothers, that's cool.  

Similarly, it's obviously homophobic to accuse gay people (as a class) of being pedophiles.  It's also homophobic to accuse a gay guy of being a pedophile just because he happens to be gay.  But being gay, or trans, or whatever doesn't make that person immune from criticism either.  A gay guy who sexualizes little kids is a pedophile.  He's a pedophile not because of the "gay" part, but because of the "sexualizing little kids" part.  

In both cases, you're getting sidetracked by a red herring.  In the first case, you're getting hung up on George Soros being Jewish, which is causing you to lose sight of the fact that he is actually a puppet-master in the way that term is normally used.  Likewise, the events in the video under discussion (which I can't even open because I'm at work, and it's NSFW then I'm not sure why it's appropriate for toddlers but whatever) are uncomfortably pedo-like regardless of whether the performer is a straight woman, a gay guy in drag, trans etc.  Their sexual orientation and/or gender identity is a red herring.

More straw-manning, but I don't feel like relitigating the Soros thread, mostly because this is something completely different. Whether or not Soros is a "puppetmaster", and whether that's offensive, is ultimately a subjective opinion. What you're doing in this thread is flat-out smearing people with demonstrably false allegations. You think teachers who teach young kids about gender identity are doing so for the purpose of committing sexual abuse. Drag queens are committing child rape. Parents who bring their children to a brunch in a public restaurant that features a risque performance should forfeit their right to be parents. (OK, technically that one is a subjective opinion. But it's also a completely bonkers opinion.)

While it is true that false accusations of pedophilia against gay people do fuel homophobia, the much bigger problem is the "false" part. It would be like if you called Soros a puppetmaster, only you thought he was actually attaching strings to the backs of DAs so he could physically manipulate them.

I've never written, nor do I think, you're motivated by homophobia. Like Tim said, on most subjects you're smart and make intelligent points, even when I disagree with you. But when it comes to this subject you seem to be caught up in some bizarre "Won't someone please think of the children"-type panic that leads you to label anyone who acts in a way you disapprove of as a pedophile. In other words, you believe every one of these people is sexually attracted to, and engages in sexual acts with, children. I'm glad you're not a QAnon conspiracist, but in some ways it would be easier to explain your behavior if you were.

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

Can you find an example of how this lawsuit is supposed to discriminate against these kids in school lunch programs?  I literally have no idea where you are getting that from. If true, yeah that would be bad.  But the link you posted says the exact opposite. It appears one side doesn’t want to allow boys (who claim to be girls) to go in the girls bathroom, and they don’t want to allow boys (who claim to be girls) to play on girls sports teams, and the Biden administration is the one withholding school lunch programs.  But maybe I’m tired and reading it wrong. Just not seeing where you’re getting your info from.

Sure.  Here's the directive that the state agencies are seeking to ignore. And since I don't expect anyone to wade through the boring stuff, here's the operative language:

Thus, FNS concludes the focus on individual households and the prohibition of discrimination “by reason of” sex under the Food and Nutrition Act is sufficiently similar to Title VII such that the Bostock analysis applies to the Food and Nutrition Act. This means that the certification of applicant households for SNAP shall be conducted without discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation.

There's nothing about bathrooms or sports teams. The only requirement created by this executive actions is that states not discriminate in handing out SNAP benefits, ie food to poor people, which in the case of school lunches means food for poor children. The only reason to oppose such a measure is because you want to continue to discriminate against poor people/poor children in handing out food.

Just in case anyone is inclined, let me head off one argument- nobody brings a lawsuit just because they think there's executive overreach. I've worked in administrative law for 20+ years so I've seen literally thousands of challenges to agency action like this one and I've never seen a case where the person bringing the challenge wasn't opposing the underlying policy- in fact it's something of a legal requirement (standing). 

The state AGs have brought this challenge for one reason and one reason only- they want their states to be able to receive federal funds for SNAP benefits while continuing to discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community in disbursing those benefits (ie giving food/money for food to poor hungry kids). That's it. That's what they're doing, because this is who they are.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

More straw-manning, but I don't feel like relitigating the Soros thread, mostly because this is something completely different. Whether or not Soros is a "puppetmaster", and whether that's offensive, is ultimately a subjective opinion. What you're doing in this thread is flat-out smearing people with demonstrably false allegations. You think teachers who teach young kids about gender identity are doing so for the purpose of committing sexual abuse.

No, I'm just responding to the video that was posted earlier.  That isn't a teacher teaching a young kid about gender identity.  It's a stripper who is inappropriately sexualizing a young kid (grooming).

Teaching kids about gender identity is also inappropriate, because it's more like religious indoctrination than teaching them about math or history or the periodic table.  But it's not grooming.  You're throwing all this stuff in one big giant bucket, when these are different issues that should handled differently.

I've never written, nor do I think, you're motivated by homophobia.

I don't take it personally and it's NBD honestly.  These days, being accused of homophobia, racism, transphobia, or whatever is kind of like being accused of heresy by somebody in a religion that you don't subscribe to. 

For example, I understand that Muslims would consider me a heathen because I don't acknowledge that Muhammed was anybody special.  I totally understand why -- in the context of their faith -- they believe that.  That makes sense given their belief structure.  But I don't share their religion, so what do I care what they think about the status of my eternal soul?  

Likewise, the type of person what want to indoctrinate little kids into gender ideology in public schools, or who takes their toddler to Stripper Brunch, belongs to a religion that I don't subscribe to.  I don't begrudge them, but their opinions don't carry a lot of weight with me because we don't share many underlying values.  I have much more common ground with a typical Muslim than I do with the Stripper Brunch people, so if I don't worry too much about what Muslims think of me, I'm definitely not going to worry much about the mood of the woke congregation either.  

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

The stripper brunch people belong to a religion? 

Anyway it looks like the Governor may file a complaint against the establishment. On this story, I only know what I saw in the video. My comments thus far have been limited to not agreeing with the parents for bringing their kids to this, but that I wouldn't be in favor of investigating and punishing them, as I find that to be un-American.

However, when it comes to the establishment, I can easily see how they may have been out of bounds of what is allowed on their premises. I don't know all the ordinances, etc. well enough to comment with full knowledge, but I will say this. If the establishment broke any rules, I can see them facing a complaint, and I don't have any problem with that.

For example, if a nightclub stays open past hours, I wouldn't want the patrons investigated and punished even though I might not agree with their behavior, but the business owner facing consequences, I get that.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

You're throwing all this stuff in one big giant bucket, when these are different issues that should handled differently.

Yes, they should be handled by not falsely accusing people of crimes.

If you refer to people as "groomers" and "pedophiles", you are accusing them of abusing, molesting and raping children. If someone told me my son's teacher was a "groomer", I'm not going to think, "Oh no, he's teaching him about gender identity at too early of an age". I'm going to think the teacher is a criminal who is manipulating children for the purpose of sexually abusing them. If you tell me a drag brunch featured "pedophilia", I'm not going to think that means there was "inappropriate sexualization of children," I'm going to assume there was child rape going on at the event.

You can try to claim that you didn't actually mean to allege physical abuse on the part of these teachers or drag performers, but those of us who are sentient human beings and whose birthday is not July 28, 2022 understand exactly what those words mean.

 

[jon_mx]

Yes, they should be handled by not falsely accusing people of crimes.

If you refer to people as "groomers" and "pedophiles", you are accusing them of abusing, molesting and raping children. If someone told me my son's teacher was a "groomer", I'm not going to think, "Oh no, he's teaching him about gender identity at too early of an age". I'm going to think the teacher is a criminal who is manipulating children for the purpose of sexually abusing them. If you tell me a drag brunch featured "pedophilia", I'm not going to think that means there was "inappropriate sexualization of children," I'm going to assume there was child rape going on at the event.

You can try to claim that you didn't actually mean to allege physical abuse on the part of these teachers or drag performers, but those of us who are sentient human beings and whose birthday is not July 28, 2022 understand exactly what those words mean.

If they are talking to 8 year old children and trying to put them in sexual identity buckets (which will eventually lead to hormone-blocking drugs and possibly unnecessary surgeries mutilating their aexual organs) they are absolutely abusing children and causing more permanent physical harm than pedophiles.  It is a horrific form of both physical and mental child abuse and must be called out.  If you ask 100 kids a question which they are too young to comprehend and then shower them with praise and support depending on how they answer, that is manipulation and the root of this manufactured epidemic.   There is going to be numerous incorrect answers from kids whom many still believe they are batman.  These teachers are playing dangerous psychoanalytic games with children's minds and what you get out of it is being offended of the calling of these teachers  'groomers'?????

 

[squistion]

If they are talking to 8 year old children and trying to put them sexual identity buckets (which will eventually lead to hormone-blocking drugs and possibly unnecessary surgeries mutilating their aexual organs) they are absolutely abusing children and causing more harm than pedophiles.  It is a horrific form of child abuse and must be called out.  If you ask 100 kids a question which they are too young to comprehend and then shower them with praise and support depending on how they answer, that is manipulation and the root of this epidemic.   There is going to be numerous incorrect answers from kids whom many still believe they are batman.  These teachers are playing dangerous psychoanalytic games with children's minds and what you get out of it is being offended of the calling of these teachers  'groomers'?????

These teachers are causing more harm than pedophiles? 

 

[BladeRunner]

The stripper brunch people belong to a religion? 

Anyway it looks like the Governor may file a complaint against the establishment. On this story, I only know what I saw in the video. My comments thus far have been limited to not agreeing with the parents for bringing their kids to this, but that I wouldn't be in favor of investigating and punishing them, as I find that to be un-American.

However, when it comes to the establishment, I can easily see how they may have been out of bounds of what is allowed on their premises. I don't know all the ordinances, etc. well enough to comment with full knowledge, but I will say this. If the establishment broke any rules, I can see them facing a complaint, and I don't have any problem with that.

For example, if a nightclub stays open past hours, I wouldn't want the patrons investigated and punished even though I might not agree with their behavior, but the business owner facing consequences, I get that.

I feel like there is an ordinance or something they broke by bringing a child to this.   There simply HAS to be something on the books in just about EVERY city, town, district or state that says kids aren't allowed in establishments like this.  The fact you have someone doing this, barely clothed, has to have violated some law.

Was this an official strip club?  if not, I don't see how they wouldn't be considered one if they are having events like this.

 

[squistion]

I feel like there is an ordinance or something they broke by bringing a child to this.   There simply HAS to be something on the books in just about EVERY city, town, district or state that says kids aren't allowed in establishments like this.  The fact you have someone doing this, barely clothed, has to have violated some law.

Was this an official strip club?  if not, I don't see how they wouldn't be considered one if they are having events like this.

This was at a "drag brunch" that the restaurant holds regularly and there are no laws on the books in Florida prohibiting bringing a child to that. The closest DeSantis could come was citing "a 1947 Florida Supreme Court decision that found that “men impersonating women” in the context of “suggestive and indecent” performances constitutes a public nuisance." 

 

[BladeRunner]

This was at a "drag brunch" that the restaurant holds regularly and there are no laws on the books in Florida prohibiting bringing a child to that. The closest DeSantis could come was citing "a 1947 Florida Supreme Court decision that found that “men impersonating women” in the context of “suggestive and indecent” performances constitutes a public nuisance." 

My point is that just because you're NOT considered a strip club or adults-only club, doesn't mean you can get away with having events like this.  Just because you're not OFFICIALLY classified like that doesn't mean you're absolved of the same responsibility/laws as those types of clubs.

What are the ordinances for strip clubs/adults-only clubs?  I feel like there has to be laws on the books for those establishments and that "restaurant" would fall under those.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

I feel like there is an ordinance or something they broke by bringing a child to this.   There simply HAS to be something on the books in just about EVERY city, town, district or state that says kids aren't allowed in establishments like this.  The fact you have someone doing this, barely clothed, has to have violated some law.

Was this an official strip club?  if not, I don't see how they wouldn't be considered one if they are having events like this.

IANAL but isn't there a long-established precedent that, if pasties are covering nipples, it does not count as nudity? I feel like this may have even come up in a Supreme Court decision at one point.

I agree that's a ridiculous standard if two square inches of fabric matter that much, but, legally speaking, that would seem to distinguish the restaurant from a strip club.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

If they are talking to 8 year old children and trying to put them sexual identity buckets (which will eventually lead to hormone-blocking drugs and possibly unnecessary surgeries mutilating their aexual organs) they are absolutely abusing children and causing more harm than pedophiles.  It is a horrific form of child abuse and must be called out.  If you ask 100 kids a question which they are too young to comprehend and then shower them with praise and support depending on how they answer, that is manipulation and the root of this epidemic.   There is going to be numerous incorrect answers from kids whom many still believe they are batman.  These teachers are playing dangerous psychoanalytic games with children's minds and what you get out of it is being offended of the calling of these teachers  'groomers'?????

Yes, I am primarily focused on the problem of children who suffer physical sexual abuse. Apparently you think that is a lesser concern.

If I were inclined to use the logic of some in this thread, I would say that makes you an apologist for pedophiles.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

These teachers are causing more harm than pedophiles? 

I really didn't think he could top "Trump and January 6 defendants are equivalent to Blacks lynched in the Jim Crow South" in the Most Offensive, Overwrought Comparison Contest, but I will admit I underestimated him

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Many people have different ideas of what "drag show" means. Here's a video where people are show some of the vial videos. Some people changed their minds and some kept their same opinion. LINK

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Yes, they should be handled by not falsely accusing people of crimes.

If you refer to people as "groomers" and "pedophiles", you are accusing them of abusing, molesting and raping children. If someone told me my son's teacher was a "groomer", I'm not going to think, "Oh no, he's teaching him about gender identity at too early of an age". I'm going to think the teacher is a criminal who is manipulating children for the purpose of sexually abusing them. If you tell me a drag brunch featured "pedophilia", I'm not going to think that means there was "inappropriate sexualization of children," I'm going to assume there was child rape going on at the event.

You can try to claim that you didn't actually mean to allege physical abuse on the part of these teachers or drag performers, but those of us who are sentient human beings and whose birthday is not July 28, 2022 understand exactly what those words mean.

That's not what those words mean, though.

Grooming is what you do before you start abusing, molesting, or raping anybody.  If I say that someone is "grooming" a child, I'm saying that they're laying a foundation for future abuse, not they're abusing someone right now.

Pedophilia is a sexual orientation.  Pedophiles may or may not actually have sex with children.  They're attracted to children, but just as I can be attracted to women and refrain from having sex with anyone besides my spouse, pedophiles can be sexually attracted to kids but never act on that inclination.

I'm using terms like "inappropriate sexualization of children" to be as explicit about that as I can be.  The fact is that if you bring a toddler to a strip club and have them parade around with a naked sex worker, you're going to have to vocabulary aimed in your direction that you might find unsettling.  That's a "you" problem.  

 

[squistion]

Many people have different ideas of what "drag show" means. Here's a video where people are show some of the vial videos. Some people changed their minds and some kept their same opinion. LINK

I love these random "people on the street" interviews done by a completely unbiased source with no personal agenda. 

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

That's not what those words mean, though.

Grooming is what you do before you start abusing, molesting, or raping anybody.  If I say that someone is "grooming" a child, I'm saying that they're laying a foundation for future abuse, not they're abusing someone right now.

Pedophilia is a sexual orientation.  Pedophiles may or may not actually have sex with children.  They're attracted to children, but just as I can be attracted to women and refrain from having sex with anyone besides my spouse, pedophiles can be sexually attracted to kids but never act on that inclination.

I'm using terms like "inappropriate sexualization of children" to be as explicit about that as I can be.  The fact is that if you bring a toddler to a strip club and have them parade around with a naked sex worker, you're going to have to vocabulary aimed in your direction that you might find unsettling.  That's a "you" problem.  

Oh, now I get it. You're not falsely accusing people of raping children, you're falsely accusing them of being sexually attracted to children and planning to rape them in the future. 

I am also curious as to who exactly you are accusing of harboring this sexual attraction to kids. The teachers? The drag queens? Their own parents?

In any event, I don't really feel like getting in a parsing war with you, because as I said, any sentient human being knows exactly what's implied when you call someone a groomer or a pedophile.

I honestly don't understand why you're so dug in on this. If someone punches you in the face and you call them a "murderer" and I point out no one died, you shouldn't start parsing the meaning of the word "murder", nor should you tell the person that being referred to as a murderer is a "you problem" they should have thought about before they punched you. (You also shouldn't accuse me of being an apologist for assault.) You should just admit that you're making #### up. 

Now, it so happens that in this case you're making #### up in a way that poisons our political discourse, furthers bigotry against a historically marginalized group and offers tacit support to the rantings of a bunch of crazed conspiracy theorists. But the root of the problem remains that you're making #### up

 

[IvanKaramazov]

furthers bigotry against a historically marginalized group 

Jesus, dude.  How many times do I have to tell you that I am opposed to this whether the stripper in question is male or female?

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Jesus, dude.  How many times do I have to tell you that I am opposed to this whether the stripper in question is male or female?

Apparently the same number of times that I have to tell you that I'm not accusing you personally of being homophobic. But surely you're not oblivious to the fact that there are people out there who are using this stuff to fuel a homo/transphobic agenda.

I know, I know. You don't think there's anything wrong with using the same language as bigots if what you're saying is true. Except, of course, that what you're saying is not true.

 

[BladeRunner]

Now, it so happens that in this case you're making #### up in a way that poisons our political discourse, furthers bigotry against a historically marginalized group and offers tacit support to the rantings of a bunch of crazed conspiracy theorists. But the root of the problem remains that you're making #### up

You see, you guys are way too hung up on this ####.  The fact that they are from <insert latest made up, oppressed group of the week here> doesn't mean they are beyond reproach, criticism or outright ridicule.

I feel like you guys on the left are so desperate for a cause that you have no idea what you're defending, even if it's the most heinous, despicable behavior one could do.  The child is what you should be focused on, not the cause.

This behavior is simply unacceptable and CLEARLY is the definition of grooming AT BEST.  Groomers and Pedophiles SHOULD be oppressed.

 

[Summer Wheat]

For the gay members in our forum be careful.

CNBC HEALTH AND SCIENCE:

WHO recommends gay and bisexual men limit sexual partners to reduce the spread of monkeypox

Spencer Kimball@SPENCEKIMBALL

Men who have sex with men are at the highest risk of infection right now from monkeypox, according to the WHO.

About 99% of cases are among men, and at least 95% of those patients are men who have sex with other men, according to WHO official Rosamund Lewis.

WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus 

 

[BladeRunner]

For the gay members in our forum be careful.

CNBC HEALTH AND SCIENCE:

WHO recommends gay and bisexual men limit sexual partners to reduce the spread of monkeypox

Spencer Kimball@SPENCEKIMBALL

Men who have sex with men are at the highest risk of infection right now from monkeypox, according to the WHO.

About 99% of cases are among men, and at least 95% of those patients are men who have sex with other men, according to WHO official Rosamund Lewis.

WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus 

So, is this primarily a disease spread amongst homosexual men?  Like AIDS?  What's going on?

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

So, is this primarily a disease spread amongst homosexual men?  

Time to double pants GB

 

[jon_mx]

Yes, I am primarily focused on the problem of children who suffer physical sexual abuse. Apparently you think that is a lesser concern.

If I were inclined to use the logic of some in this thread, I would say that makes you an apologist for pedophiles.

Your primary focus is to play semantics so to avoid discussing the sick psychological games teachers are playing with children by planting sexual identification labels on these young children.  As soon as these seeds are planted, this group of money-gravving quackopathic doctors who have crapped all over their hippocratic oath provide harmful drugs and horrific surgeries to children for no benefit.  These doctors are destroying the lives of tens of thousands of children with these harmful practices without proper diagnosis and with no medical studies proving the benefit.  Well except the benefit of lining their pockets.  At least pedophiles do not permently destroy the sexual organs of children.

 

[jon_mx]

I really didn't think he could top "Trump and January 6 defendants are equivalent to Blacks lynched in the Jim Crow South" in the Most Offensive, Overwrought Comparison Contest, but I will admit I underestimated him

That is not a quote you liar.   Don't you dare put quotes around sentences I did not say.  

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Your primary focus is to play semantics so to avoid discussing the sick psychological games teachers are playing with children by planting sexual identification labels on these young children.  As soon as these seeds are planted, this group of money-gravving quackopathic doctors who have crapped all over their hippocratic oath provide harmful drugs and horrific surgeries to children for no benefit.  These doctors are destroying the lives of tens of thousands of children with these harmful practices without proper diagnosis and with no medical studies proving the benefit.  Well except the benefit of lining their pockets.  At least pedophiles do not permently destroy the sexual organs of children.

Good rule of thumb: Any time you start a sentence with "At least pedophiles don't ..." you might want to take a step back and reflect on how you reached this point in your life.

I was being ironic when I called you an apologist for pedophiles, but ... sweet Jesus

 

[bigbottom]

People! With respect to the drag brunch video in question, there appears to be a relatively broad consensus from those who have posted that the situation is “not good.”  The ensuing back and forth has simply been over the degree to which it is not good. Let’s choose to focus on where we agree instead of attacking each other on the margins. It’s neither productive nor good for the soul. This has been your moment of zen. 

 

[skol asylum]

Some humor to lighten the mood.

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRDsyB6M/?k=1

 

[jon_mx]

Good rule of thumb: Any time you start a sentence with "At least pedophiles don't ..." you might want to take a step back and reflect on how you reached this point in your life.

I was being ironic when I called you an apologist for pedophiles, but ... sweet Jesus

Again you lie.  But you are a foolish leftwingee, so what choice do you have? I have said nothing which could be construed as defending pedophilia.  What I have done is try to put in perspective just how brutal these gender altering procedures are and how sick it is to preform them on children.  There should be no circumstances outside of cancer where breast or a uterus are surgically removed from a child.  But you don't want to talk about that, so instead you are forced to lie and make false statements. 

So why not address the issue.  Do you support removing breasts, uteruses and penises from children?  Or will you continue to avoid discussing the real issue here?  

 

[KarmaPolice]

My beef with "grooming" being used so much is now are at a point where it feels we are just labelling things we don't like in those extreme ways.  Yes, there are absolutely people who groom kids for abuse - teachers, priests, Scout leaders, whatever.   

Usually we can agree on what would be abusive behavior.   Now, just like anything else political these days, we don't even agree on that.  Now I have seen abuse thrown around in discussion about trans issues and LBGT issues - ie puberty blockers are a form of abuse or talking about pronouns and sexuality is abuse.  Yes, if you truly believe that's abuse then in that context I see why you are constantly using goomers, but that puts net pretty wide and just about any parent of an LBGT kid or teacher is a groomer.    

To me this is the right's version of the left using saying everything is racist.  And of course it's just going to escalate and the left is going to start calling people on the right groomers for things they think are abusive - ie forcing religion on kids or something.  

 

[BladeRunner]

My beef with "grooming" being used so much is now are at a point where it feels we are just labelling things we don't like in those extreme ways.  Yes, there are absolutely people who groom kids for abuse - teachers, priests, Scout leaders, whatever.   

Usually we can agree on what would be abusive behavior.   Now, just like anything else political these days, we don't even agree on that.  Now I have seen abuse thrown around in discussion about trans issues and LBGT issues - ie puberty blockers are a form of abuse or talking about pronouns and sexuality is abuse.  Yes, if you truly believe that's abuse then in that context I see why you are constantly using goomers, but that puts net pretty wide and just about any parent of an LBGT kid or teacher is a groomer.    

To me this is the right's version of the left using saying everything is racist.  And of course it's just going to escalate and the left is going to start calling people on the right groomers for things they think are abusive - ie forcing religion on kids or something.  

OMG!  We conservatives have been called racists, homophobe, bigots, etc...FOR 40 FREAKING YEARS simply because we didn't bow down to the altar of liberal dogma.

Now you know what it feels like.

 

[KarmaPolice]

OMG!  We conservatives have been called racists, homophobe, bigots, etc...FOR 40 FREAKING YEARS simply because we didn't bow down to the altar of liberal dogma.

Now you know what it feels like.

This feels like a "but they started it first" type of response we see around here a bit.    Don't do the same thing.   

See my last part of the post you quoted - it's wrong both ways, and kills the meaning of these words that used to mean something specific.

 

[jon_mx]

My beef with "grooming" being used so much is now are at a point where it feels we are just labelling things we don't like in those extreme ways.  Yes, there are absolutely people who groom kids for abuse - teachers, priests, Scout leaders, whatever.   

Usually we can agree on what would be abusive behavior.   Now, just like anything else political these days, we don't even agree on that.  Now I have seen abuse thrown around in discussion about trans issues and LBGT issues - ie puberty blockers are a form of abuse or talking about pronouns and sexuality is abuse.  Yes, if you truly believe that's abuse then in that context I see why you are constantly using goomers, but that puts net pretty wide and just about any parent of an LBGT kid or teacher is a groomer.    

To me this is the right's version of the left using saying everything is racist.  And of course it's just going to escalate and the left is going to start calling people on the right groomers for things they think are abusive - ie forcing religion on kids or something.  

You are COMPLETELY white-washing what is going on.   These are very young children which the vast majority have zero clue about their sexual identity and you have teachers playing doctor trying to shoehorn these highly impressionable children into their baskin-robbin of buckets of gender identities.  And once these children are manipulated to 'self-identify', that is all it takes for these sexual identity doctors to start these medical treatments.  These 'doctors' by their idiotic professional standards they created, don't diagnose gender identity, but are required to accept the self-identification of these children who are absolutely being manipulated by both on-line influences and/or by teachers often avoiding all parental knowledge or involvement.  

The obscene growth rate in children identifying themselves with gender dysphoria should be alarming, especially even after destroying their sexual organs through surgeries they are still 19 times more likely to commit suicide.  This is not helping children, it is destroying the future of these children who are way too young to comprehend what these choices mean and are not informed of the long-term consequences.  

 

[IvanKaramazov]

People! With respect to the drag brunch video in question, there appears to be a relatively broad consensus from those who have posted that the situation is “not good.”  The ensuing back and forth has simply been over the degree to which it is not good. Let’s choose to focus on where we agree instead of attacking each other on the margins. It’s neither productive nor good for the soul. This has been your moment of zen. 

https://forums.footballguys.com/topic/805271-desantis-files-complaint-against-restaurant-with-drag-show-citing-states-1947-sc-ruling-against-men-impersonating-women/

 

[SoBeDad]

You are COMPLETELY white-washing what is going on.   These are very young children which the vast majority have zero clue about their sexual identity and you have teachers playing doctor trying to shoehorn these highly impressionable children into their baskin-robbin of buckets of gender identities.  And once these children are manipulated to 'self-identify', that is all it takes for these sexual identity doctors to start these medical treatments.  These 'doctors' by their idiotic professional standards they created, don't diagnose gender identity, but are required to accept the self-identification of these children who are absolutely being manipulated by both on-line influences and/or by teachers often avoiding all parental knowledge or involvement.  

The obscene growth rate in children identifying themselves with gender dysphoria should be alarming, especially even after destroying their sexual organs through surgeries they are still 19 times more likely to commit suicide.  This is not helping children, it is destroying the future of these children who are way too young to comprehend what these choices mean and are not informed of the long-term consequences.  

When I went to high school in the 1970s, i can only think of 1 person who identified as gay in a school over 3000 students. Then the HIV/AIDS began in 1981. When a committee I was a member of called people for our 10th year reunion, we realized there were a lot more gay people in our class. If resources to gay students can help their physical and emotional health, I'm in favor. 

I'm not sure how common gender dysphoria is, but it may be much more common than you think. I believe parents should play a role in surgical decisions in minors. Parents need to keep lines of communication open with their kids, and vice versa. Easier said than done.

 

[unckeyherb]

It should be mentioned that the demographic that has seen the biggest rise in 'self identification' is pre-teen and teen girls.  This is a demographic that is super susceptible to social contagion.  Cyber-bullying, self-harm, anorexia, bulimia.  These are all social contagion issues that are overwhelmingly the realm of teen girls.  I'm not sure what this all means, but I think its really alarming that there are teachers, admins, doctors and policies that take this self-identification as the only justification necessary to start hormone blockers and eventually top and bottom surgery.

To use anorexia as an example, if a 15 year old girl is anorexic, she convinces herself that she is overweight when she isn't and uses extreme tactics like over-exercising and starvation, usually long past the point of doing real damage.  Even when she is clearly, dangerously underweight, she'll continue to look at herself as fat and apply the same tactics.  If we were to apply the same methodology here, the trans activists would tell the girl that yes, she is fat and to continue starving herself.  Rather than recognize that there is a problem, its considered more empathetic to affirm.  I don't have all the answers but this seems really wrong to me.