Dylan Mulvaney

[homersapien 11,440]

Furthermore, who am I supposed to be showing "empathy" for - the Lesbian who is being criticized for not being attracted to a trans female? 

Am I supposed to feel sorry for her because she's catching flak for simply standing byher true self feelings?  Sorry, but it's not my fault if she lacks the self-confidence to tell her criticizers to shove it.

Or am I supposed to be feeling "empathy" for the trans woman because there's a lesbian who's not sexually attracted to her?

That's crazy man. 

Edited May 9, 2023 by homersapien

[TexasTiger 13,006]

9 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Furthermore, who am I supposed to be showing "empathy" for - the Lesbian who is being criticized for not being attracted to a trans female?  Am I supposed to feel sorry for her because she's catching flak for standing by her true self and true feelings?  Sorry, but it's not my fault if she lacks the self-confidence to tell her criticizers to shove it.

Or am I supposed to be feeling "empathy" for the trans woman because there's a lesbian who's not sexually attracted to her?

That's crazy man. 

You seem to be concerned about a number of issues. You tell me why you care deeply about some and callously dismiss others. Sure, it’s your right not to care.

[homersapien 11,440]

15 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Not joking at all. Women have valid concerns. Lesbians have valid concerns. You haven’t taken the time to inform yourself beyond a surface level on topics for which you, nonetheless, render strong judgements. You’re dismissive of their concerns. I was, too. Then I began to actually listen. You’re entitled to your views. You asked me a question and I answered.

BS. 

Name ONE "strong judgment" I have rendered that I have been inconsistent about.  ONE

I have no idea what you are doing in this thread other than throwing questions at me in a challenging and pedantic way.  You have made NO points as far as I can tell, at least any that refute mine.  (All I have been doing is humoring you, because I enjoy the rhetoric of debate, even if I don't know what it is we are debating.)

And now you say I am "misogynistic and homophobic".  Because I am not clutching my pearls when some Lesbian is receiving criticism (presumably from trans-women) because she isn't attracted to trans women??? 

So exactly whom am I supposed to direct that empathy (that you feel) in this example?  The lesbian or the trans-woman?

[TexasTiger 13,006]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

BS. 

Name ONE "strong judgment" I have rendered that I have been inconsistent about.  ONE

I have no idea what you are doing in this thread other than throwing questions at me in a challenging and pedantic way.  You have made NO points as far as I can tell, at least any that refute mine.  (All I have been doing is humoring you, because I enjoy the rhetoric of debate, even if I don't know what it is we are debating.)

And now you say I am "misogynistic and homophobic".  Because I am not clutching my pearls when some Lesbian is receiving criticism (presumably from trans-women) because she isn't attracted to trans women??? 

So exactly whom am I supposed to direct that empathy (that you feel) in this example?  The lesbian or the trans-woman?

Not saying you’re “supposed” to do anything. I find your tone and response callous and tiring. But you be you. 

[homersapien 11,440]

14 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

You seem to be concerned about a number of issues. You tell me why you care deeply about some and callously dismiss others. Sure, it’s your right not to care.

Once again - and this has to be the fifth or sixth time - I feel transgenders exist on the natural spectrum of sexuality and we should accept them the same way we accept homosexuals.  They do not deserve - nor should they be subject to - generalized persecution or discrimination simple because they are transsexuals.

I am particularly concerned that the right wing political faction in this country does not feel that way - just the opposite.  The proof is state legislatures passing laws to interject themselves into the lives of transgenders. 

These are obviously  general issues.  I don't concern myself with the sort of individual, petty spats described above.

I don't see a need for me to weigh in on whether or not a given lesbian should be attracted to a trans woman.  That's her business.  Whom am I to judge who she should be attracted to.

(But - based on your posts in this thread - that sounds like something you would concern yourself with.   You're the one who seems hung up on pinning down all the nuances of sexuality and gender identity as if that's paramount.  Why? Do you feel the lesbian in this example should be attracted to the trans woman.  Is the criticism of her justified?

And again, since you didn't respond to my question:  Who in that case am I supposed to "feel empathy" for, and why?

I think you just want to challenge or argue with me, but you cannot articulate a reason to do so.  It's weird.

[homersapien 11,440]

On 5/9/2023 at 12:22 PM, TexasTiger said:

Not saying your  “supposed” to do anything. I find your tone and response callous and tiring. But you be you. 

Well I find your pointlessness tiring (but not so much I'm not having fun with it.  )

Edited May 10, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,440]

5 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Not saying you’re “supposed” to do anything. I find your tone and response callous and tiring. But you be you. 

Says the guy who called me "misogynistic and homophobic".  How's that for "tone"?

Like I said, you are apparently determined to argue with me, you're just not articulate enough to identify the point of contention. 

Either "up your game" or let's just agree not to continue.

Edited May 9, 2023 by homersapien

[TexasTiger 13,006]

22 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Says the guy who called me "misogynistic and homophobic". 

How's that for "tone"?

Like I said, you are determine to argue with me, you're just not articulate enough to create a point of contention.  (Certainly not for lack of trying.)

Either "up your game" or let's just agree not to continue.

Yep. I’m just not articulate. Lifelong affliction, I guess. I used to stutter, too.

[homersapien 11,440]

4 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Yep. I’m just not articulate. Lifelong affliction, I guess. I used to stutter, too.

Bless your heart. 

Edited May 9, 2023 by homersapien

[cbo 7,917]

I don't understand the infatuation with Dylan Mulvaney.

I wish there was half the outrage and media attention for the multiple states that have banned gender affirming care for minors. Children, for example, with high suicide risk who have had years of therapy and consultation with physicians before beginning testosterone treatment. Who are now forced to suddenly stop because misinformed lawmakers wish to appease their constituents' latest moral outrage. 

Any legitimate, licensed, credentialed physician is following the guidelines for gender affirming care established by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the Endocrine Society, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association. These groups have determined that gender affirming care for minors is medically necessary and the benefits outweigh the risks. 

But the party of "limited government" has decided they know better and can make medical decisions for you, against the advice of every serious medical association in the country. This should concern anyone. 

 

 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,983]

1 hour ago, cbo said:

Children, for example, with high suicide risk who have had years of therapy and consultation with physicians before beginning testosterone treatment. Who are now forced to suddenly stop because misinformed lawmakers wish to appease their constituents' latest moral outrage. 

Honest question: why hasn’t there been an enormous child suicide rates throughout history if children have only recently been offered to use puberty blockers and cross sex hormones and previous generations it was not available to them?  This seems odd to me.

[cbo 7,917]

47 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Honest question: why hasn’t there been an enormous child suicide rates throughout history if children have only recently been offered to use puberty blockers and cross sex hormones and previous generations it was not available to them?  This seems odd to me.

Teenagers have committed suicide for a very long time. Who knows how many of them were transgender. 

[cbo 7,917]

9 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Not joking at all. Women have valid concerns. Lesbians have valid concerns. You haven’t taken the time to inform yourself beyond a surface level on topics for which you, nonetheless, render strong judgements. You’re dismissive of their concerns. I was, too. Then I began to actually listen. You’re entitled to your views. You asked me a question and I answered.

I have to say I'm surprised how defensive and hostile you seem on this thread. A lot of insults and weird hypotheticals. But maybe that is my bias in play. 

I would honestly like to consider the concerns of women and lesbians as it relates to transgender rights. I admit I haven't read this entire thread, although I've tried to read most. But I haven't seen these concerns elucidated. 

If it helps, I will say in advance that I'm fine with a prohibition of transgender male to females participating in women's sports. I understand how that's a legitimate concern with an actual impact on other people. 

[TexasTiger 13,006]

49 minutes ago, cbo said:

I have to say I'm surprised how defensive and hostile you seem on this thread. A lot of insults and weird hypotheticals. But maybe that is my bias in play. 

I would honestly like to consider the concerns of women and lesbians as it relates to transgender rights. I admit I haven't read this entire thread, although I've tried to read most. But I haven't seen these concerns elucidated. 

If it helps, I will say in advance that I'm fine with a prohibition of transgender male to females participating in women's sports. I understand how that's a legitimate concern with an actual impact on other people. 

If you’ve really followed this broad topic across a few different threads, from my perspective a couple of folks have been frequently condescending and dismissive toward me while not engaging in good faith. My response is cumulative. Not sure which hypotheticals you deem “weird” without you being more specific, but folks often make broad conclusions on situations and detailed examples can challenge assumptions and test broad conclusions. 

[cbo 7,917]

9 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

If you’ve really followed this broad topic across a few different threads, from my perspective a couple of folks have been frequently condescending and dismissive toward me while not engaging in good faith. My response is cumulative. Not sure which hypotheticals you deem “weird” without you being more specific, but folks often make broad conclusions on situations and detailed examples can challenge assumptions and test broad conclusions. 

I have not followed this topic across threads. I was only speaking to this current thread where you seemed condescending and insulting to differing opinions. But it makes sense that history plays a part in this and I admit my ignorance in that regard. 

The hypotheticals I deemed "weird" were eunuchs and people who are left-handed. Seems to me like irrelevant and disingenuous comparisons. 

[TexasTiger 13,006]

1 minute ago, cbo said:

I have not followed this topic across threads. I was only speaking to this current thread where you seemed condescending and insulting to differing opinions. But it makes sense that history plays a part in this and I admit my ignorance in that regard. 

The hypotheticals I deemed "weird" were eunuchs and people who are left-handed. Seems to me like irrelevant and disingenuous comparisons. 

If one states they place high confidence in the most recent guidelines offered by WPATH, those same guidelines have a chapter on Eunuchs which it deems to be just another gender to be supported, no different than male, female or non-binary. If you hold that view, that’s your right, but if someone reflexively says they support the revised guidelines— which are a significant departure from previous guidelines at a time multiple European countries are questioning the scientific basis for much of the “affirming care” for adolescents and tapping the brakes, one should actually be familiar with those guidelines. If they aren’t, their response is as reactive as many on the right supporting legislation they probably haven’t read. If they do think someone choosing to be a Eunuch as something a psychologically healthy person does, that’s their right, too, and at least they’re consistent. If, on the other hand, one concludes WPATH’s judgement on Eunuchs is wrong, perhaps the their framework warrants a deeper look.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

30 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

If you’ve really followed this broad topic across a few different threads, from my perspective a couple of folks have been frequently condescending and dismissive toward me while not engaging in good faith. My response is cumulative. Not sure which hypotheticals you deem “weird” without you being more specific, but folks often make broad conclusions on situations and detailed examples can challenge assumptions and test broad conclusions. 

What is it exactly,,, that you have been trying to tell us?

[TexasTiger 13,006]

3 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

What is it exactly,,, that you have been trying to tell us?

You’re the primary person I was referring to about not engaging the discussion in good faith. So go ahead and give me yet another facepalm as you just reflexively did a moment ago. Or at long last, ignore me and go away.

[cbo 7,917]

3 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

If one states they place high confidence in the most recent guidelines offered by WPATH, those same guidelines have a chapter on Eunuchs which it deems to be just another gender to be supported, no different than male, female or non-binary. If you hold that view, that’s your right, but if someone reflexively says they support the revised guidelines— which are a significant departure from previous guidelines at a time multiple European countries are questioning the scientific basis for much of the “affirming care” for adolescents and tapping the brakes, one should actually be familiar with those guidelines. If they aren’t, their response is as reactive as many on the right supporting legislation they probably haven’t read. If they do think someone choosing to be a Eunuch as something a psychologically healthy person does, that’s their right, too, and at least they’re consistent. If, on the other hand, one concludes WPATH’s judgement on Eunuchs is wrong, perhaps the their framework warrants a deeper look.

Did anyone state they place high confidence in HPATH? Maybe they did and I missed it. Honestly. 

Did you read my post where I listed every single legitimate medical association in the country that would have a say in gender affirming care for minors, and how they all determined it was medically necessary? That's what is guiding my opinions. 

You are obviously a smart person with a big vocabulary who puts a lot of thought into this topic. But after 10 pages, I still don't know what you believe or what your point is. All I'm seeing is circuitous arguments against people who are transgender. 

So can you please tell me what you believe? If you were in charge, what would your regulations look like? What laws do you support and which do you not? In return, I'm happy to clearly state what I believe. 

[TexasTiger 13,006]

1 minute ago, cbo said:

Did anyone state they place high confidence in HPATH? Maybe they did and I missed it. Honestly. 

Did you read my post where I listed every single legitimate medical association in the country that would have a say in gender affirming care for minors, and how they all determined it was medically necessary? That's what is guiding my opinions. 

You are obviously a smart person with a big vocabulary who puts a lot of thought into this topic. But after 10 pages, I still don't know what you believe or what your point is. All I'm seeing is circuitous arguments against people who are transgender. 

So can you please tell me what you believe? If you were in charge, what would your regulations look like? What laws do you support and which do you not? In return, I'm happy to clearly state what I believe. 

Before I do, can you please directly quote me making “circuitous arguments against people who are transgender,” because I don’t think that’s a fair characterization, but perhaps you can demonstrate otherwise.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

8 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

You’re the primary person I was referring to about not engaging the discussion in good faith. So go ahead and give me yet another facepalm as you just reflexively did a moment ago. Or at long last, ignore me and go away.

I apologize.  I simply want to understand what point you are attempting to make.  You seem to circle back to WPATH and eunuchs.  Surely there is something more?

[TexasTiger 13,006]

2 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

I apologize.  I simply want to understand what point you are attempting to make.  You seem to circle back to WPATH and eunuchs.  Surely there is something more?

Any honest person would clearly see I was simply taking the time to clarify a response a seemingly sincere person had asked me about. Two folks are trying to engage in a respectful exchange. Please stop being a troll.

[cbo 7,917]

9 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Before I do, can you please directly quote me making “circuitous arguments against people who are transgender,” because I don’t think that’s a fair characterization, but perhaps you can demonstrate otherwise.

How about bringing up left handed people as an argument against adults having gender reassignment surgery. That is so far off the path of a constructive discussion. 

I'm surprised that's all you took from my post. But I don't want to get snippy with you. That's exactly why I'm trying to boil this down to the crux of the matter, without all the back and forth.

Anyway, I will happily retract my quoted statement and bow down to you, if you are only willing to tell me what you believe. 

I asked a simple, direct question and it's in everyone's interest to move on that point. 

Edited May 10, 2023 by cbo

[icanthearyou 4,463]

7 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Any honest person would clearly see I was simply taking the time to clarify a response a seemingly sincere person had asked me about. Two folks are trying to engage in a respectful exchange. Please stop being a troll.

This is an open forum.  If you cannot or, will not explain your point,,,  Well, I have no control over that.

[cbo 7,917]

39 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

 Please stop being a troll.

I don't know what these guys did to you in other threads. But I've read his posts for years and he is so clearly not a troll.