111 replies to this topic

[Mike K.]

Yup, I’ll spin it off.

What I find d amusing is that some of you are using this individual to support your idealism, when in reality, this individual is not only a oxymoron to themselves, but to what you are using to them for to support specific ideals and personal beliefs.

Why is Jenn Smith an oxymoron to himself?

[sdwright.vic]

Because he does not think of himself as a she.

Dud you miss the definition of Transgender Identified Male?

First you are uncomfortable with your gender as male and transgender to female, but take issue with yourself then as well and deem yourself lesser

[Mike K.]

What does Jenn Smith's sexuality have to do with his opinion that it is not ok for school-aged children to be exposed to educators who tell them that it's ok for a boy to become a girl?

 

If I understand your position, you are saying that an individual who presents as female, but identifies as male, is incapable of holding an opinion that appears to contradict their own choices.

[Nparker]

Do as I say rather than I do tends to invalidate many arguments.

[sdwright.vic]

^That would do it.

Especially when that opinion is basically the transgender version of being an antivacer

[Mike K.]

Do as I say rather than I do tends to invalidate many arguments.

So a chain smoker asking young people not to smoke is an invalid position, and the person should be shunned?

What if a doctor, who smokes, advises his patients not to. Does that invalidate the doctor’s position?

Life isn’t black and white, and demanding that advocates for some thing or some cause subscribe to our own notions of what is and isn’t acceptable erodes the entire foundation upholding the freedoms we enjoy as Canadians.

I’m shocked that in your opinion if someone doesn’t neatly fit a profile, that they should be kept from speaking their mind or holding controversial positions simply on the basis of how they look and the life choices they made.

[jasmineshinga]

If anything, wouldn't an adult transgendered person who has determined that medical transition is not sufficient to sort out ones issues with self-identity be even MORE in line with his point?

 

Children (and young adults) are terrible at making long-term, life-altering decisions for themselves and sober second thought by a responsible adult should continue to be part of the process. Excluding parents from their children's medical choices seems like a terrible idea. So too is allowing a parent to make all medical decisions for a child in spite of professional medical advice (anti-vax). Lifelong medical decisions should be a multi-party discussion, not a quick decision.

[Nparker]

I am not going to pretend I fully understand why someone like Jenn Smith has chosen this specific point of view. They are entitled to believe whatever they want. All I can say is from my own experience in these sort of matters, taking such a stance is often suggestive of some form of negative self-identification issues.

[sdwright.vic]

Also when you have the rest of the transgender community questioning your position and motives, you have to question the source. He is not standing up there with a community of individuals like himself, he is standing up their with a group of individuals that would be totally against him if the didn't have this ability to use him as a poster child.

As for children not knowing themselves, I have always known of my sexual identity and attraction. Is it better to accept these possibilities as an open discussion and make children feel more comfortable in there own skin, or suffer the way some of us did in days of old?

[Nparker]

Here's some information on the SOGI program: https://bc.sogieducation.org/

[Mike K.]

Also when you have the rest of the transgender community questioning your position and motives, you have to question the source. He is not standing up there with a community of individuals like himself, he is standing up their with a group of individuals that would be totally against him if the didn't have this ability to use him as a poster child.

However uncomfortable someone’s opinion may be, it is not the role of any community to decide who gets to voice an opinion and who doesn’t. Attempting to shut down Smith’s talk on the ground that he preaches intolerance is itself intolerant, and perhaps even more-so.

And it’s not your role or anybody else’s role to decide what community another individual chooses to belong to. Saying he is not standing with individuals “like himself” is an example of the kind of intolerance that is ripping society apart, where if you look a certain way, you’re automatically expected to think/act/love/cry/believe/vote a certain way or face ridicule and exclusion.

I don’t know enough about Smith to even form an opinion on his beliefs, but gosh golly, let the man speak for himself and engage him rather than shut him down.

[sdwright.vic]

^ Just going to through antivacer's out here again.

[sdwright.vic]

Also this individual is not interested in engagement, more discourse.

[sdwright.vic]

And it’s not your role or anybody else’s role to decide what community another individual chooses to belong to. Saying he is not standing with individuals “like himself” is an example of the kind of intolerance that is ripping society apart, where if you look a certain way, you’re automatically expected to think/act/love/cry/believe/vote a certain way or face ridicule and exclusion.

When Catholicism and other organized religions start acting the way you preach we can talk about your virtue signaling and kumbaya-ism.

Until then...

Edited by sdwright.vic, 02 May 2019 - 02:43 PM.

[Mike K.]

Be the change you want to see, is all I have to say to that, I guess.

[RFS]

^ Just going to through antivacer's out here again.

Anti-Vaxxers endanger their children based on their personal beliefs and questionable science. To me that sounds more like the people who want to mutilate children’s genitalia and feed them hormones and puberty blockers

[todd]

Anti-Vaxxers endanger their children based on their personal beliefs and questionable science. To me that sounds more like the people who want to mutilate children’s genitalia and feed them hormones and puberty blockers

The Anti-Vaxxers more just don’t trust their government, and doesn’t like being forcibly injected with things. Am I stretching it too far by saying that the government may one day decide it is necessary to change my genitalia?

Edited by todd, 02 May 2019 - 04:09 PM.

[Greg]

The Anti-Vaxxers more just don’t trust their government, and doesn’t like being forcibly injected with things. Am I stretching it too far by saying that the government may one day decide it is necessary to change my genitalia?

 

Yes.

[sdwright.vic]

Well, congratulations on your opinion.

However, you are blowing things out of proportion since that is not what SOGI is about in its spirit. It is what far right radicals want to promote as part of their virtue signaling.

So, let's keep this in line with what you argue as parents rights.

Whether I believe the folliwing comment or not; what you see as "mutilate children’s genitalia and feed them hormones and puberty blockers" may be another parent supporting a child, who they believe is suffering an issue causing that child great emotional distress?

Your negative description of things, and continual name calling of people that have ideas that are not in sync with a specific dogma betray you pretending to want to even have a discussion about anything. Nor, being willing to stray from dogmatic beliefs fed to you by personal idiomatic expressions

Blatantly disingenuous is what I would call it.

So if we are to discuss doing and being something other than an "example of the kind of intolerance that is ripping society apart, where if you look a certain way, you’re automatically expected to think/act/love/cry/believe/vote a certain way or face ridicule and exclusion"; let's express do that now! Let's "be the change you want to see"!

If I can't make a judgement based upon the principles of the community that I am a part of, then a BUNCH of crap should start to be called on this site as well. No more picking and choosing?

Like certain individuals being able to support their personal point of view saying things like crazy loony liberals and the like? Does this type of stuff support "the change you want to be"?

So, okay Mike, I will jump right on board with stopping "you’re automatically expected to think/act/love/cry/believe/vote a certain way or face ridicule and exclusion" and "be the change you want to see".

However, that is going to need to be across the board, otherwise disingenuous.

[Victoria Watcher]

i think if we are going to have a good discussion we aren’t likely to do that without some feeling upset.

but remember as we discuss facts they don’t care about your feelings.

but so be it. it’s worthwhile in order to have that discussion.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 02 May 2019 - 04:52 PM.