Charlamagne Tha God rejects activists using ‘transphobic’ label

[MrFanti]

Charlamagne Tha God rejects activists using ‘transphobic’ label amid debate over medical care for trans kids
https://www.wallstreetpr.com/charlamagne-tha-god-rejects-activists-using-transphobic-label-amid-debate-over-medical-care-for-trans-kids-48739

“There’s certain things minors cannot do because they’re minors. So you don’t think something as big as changing your gender, shouldn’t you wait until you’re at least 18? The fact that people can’t even have a conversation about that without labeling somebody transphobic is very, very, very, very strange to me because it’s not like these people are saying, ‘No, we don’t want anybody transitioning,’ you know. Or ‘being trans is wrong.’ They’re simply saying, ‘Hey, let these minors wait until they’re a certain age.’ That’s very worthy of a conversation,” Charlamagne said."

[Fitzcarraldo]

Well, I have no idea who that is, so whatever.

[MrFanti]

Well, I have no idea who that is, so whatever.
A lot of us Black Americans "follow" him....however, I do not.....

[Luke Warm]

Alternatively, he could mind his own business…




“…it’s not like these people are saying, ‘No, we don’t want anybody transitioning,’ you know. Or ‘being trans is wrong.’

The hell they’re not saying that. Bullshit.

[Fitzcarraldo]

A lot of us Black Americans "follow" him....however, I do not.....

So "whatever" from you as well.

[MrFanti]

So "whatever" from you as well.
Where did I say this? - This is you saying this.
That being said, he does have a right to his own perspective - regardless whether we agree or not.

[filghy2]

Where did I say this? - This is you saying this.
That being said, he does have a right to his own perspective - regardless whether we agree or not.

It's ironic that you defend other people's right to their opinions when you never seem to have any of your own. You really are like the Forrest Gump of this forum.

In any case, you have a fundamental misunderstanding: the right to express an opinion does not mean the right to not be criticised for that opinion.

[SanDiegoPervySage]

He's right somewhat. Medical transition aside, you get labeled transphobic if you don't want to date a trans person or ask for them to explain some label that will inevitably change in short time. It's gone from "let us live our lives" to "you will include me in your personal life, otherwise, you're a bigot". They expect people to follow and understand all these pronouns and identities but the definitions change by the day and by the person

[filghy2]

He's right somewhat. Medical transition aside, you get labeled transphobic if you don't want to date a trans person or ask for them to explain some label that will inevitably change in short time. It's gone from "let us live our lives" to "you will include me in your personal life, otherwise, you're a bigot". They expect people to follow and understand all these pronouns and identities but the definitions change by the day and by the person

I don't doubt that some people do this, but it seems a gross over-generalisation to say "they" as if it was a general thing among people who advocate for trans rights. I'm pretty sure the percentage of trans who want to impose themselves on others who are not interested is no higher than it is in the rest of the population. What would your reaction be if someone made a generalisation about what black people think or do based on a few instances they had come across?

[Fitzcarraldo]

Where did I say this? - This is you saying this.
That being said, he does have a right to his own perspective - regardless whether we agree or not.

You don't follow him. I don't know who he is. Yes, this person I've never heard of is entitled to his opinion, but his opinion has no meaning to me, so "whatever." If you don't follow him, why does his opinion matter to you?

[Stavros]

I don't know who this man is, and have no inclination to investigate. Anyone calling themselves 'God' is probably self-important beyond their ability.

What I so find annoying is the way in which in this 'either/or' public discourse, if a person does not actively support trans issues, they automatically become 'transphobic' which is to say they actively express an irrational fear of Trans people, when I suspect a lot of people don't have much of a view on the issues which are raised. If someone does not think Trans Rights should be extended to under-18s, they can explain why without having the 'transphobic' label attached, unless they are being derogatory and offensive about it.

That said, if a person can leave school and start work and pay taxes at the age of 16, should they also have individual rights not mediated by an adult? And for some, even the age of 18 is no indication of emotional or intellectual maturity. And is it still the case in some US States that a bar cannot sell alcohol to someone under the age of 21?

A pity the real issues cannot be handled with the sensitivity they deserve.

[MrFanti]

It's ironic that you defend other people's right to their opinions when you never seem to have any of your own. You really are like the Forrest Gump of this forum.

In any case, you have a fundamental misunderstanding: the right to express an opinion does not mean the right to not be criticised for that opinion.
If you disagree with my defending other people's right to speak - that's fine.
I do have some views on this but I like to LISTEN (a lost art in many ways) to other views first.....

[MrFanti]

You don't follow him. I don't know who he is. Yes, this person I've never heard of is entitled to his opinion, but his opinion has no meaning to me, so "whatever." If you don't follow him, why does his opinion matter to you?
Perspectives are perspectives.
There are no "rules" stating what you've said above.

There are quite a few people that I don't follow - but I do listen to their perspectives from time to time.

Again, like I said previously, it's called LISTENING....

[MrFanti]

He's right somewhat. Medical transition aside, you get labeled transphobic if you don't want to date a trans person or ask for them to explain some label that will inevitably change in short time. It's gone from "let us live our lives" to "you will include me in your personal life, otherwise, you're a bigot". They expect people to follow and understand all these pronouns and identities but the definitions change by the day and by the person
You've got a point here.

I think the overall question is "how can one have a discussion on something without having an overall label slapped on them?"

This is what I *think* Charlamagne is trying to say.

[filghy2]

If you disagree with my defending other people's right to speak - that's fine.
I do have some views on this but I like to LISTEN (a lost art in many ways) to other views first.....

If you are such a good "listener", why do you continually misrepresent what other people have said? Nobody is disputing your right to post other peoples' viewpoints. The question is why you keep posting these seemingly random links without even bothering to explain why you think they matter.

[MrFanti]

The question is why you keep posting these seemingly random links without even bothering to explain why you think they matter.
If the "random links" bother you, keep moving on - it's as simple as that - I'm Black but I'm not your slave to do as you tell me to.

[filghy2]

That said, if a person can leave school and start work and pay taxes at the age of 16, should they also have individual rights not mediated by an adult?

I'm not sure the anti-trans rights people are only saying that minors should not be able to access these treatments without parental consent. In many cases they are saying these treatments should not be available to minors even if their parents and doctor agree. On the face of it, that seems to be what this Charlamagne guy is saying.

[SanDiegoPervySage]

I don't doubt that some people do this, but it seems a gross over-generalisation to say "they" as if it was a general thing among people who advocate for trans rights. I'm pretty sure the percentage of trans who want to impose themselves on others who are not interested is no higher than it is in the rest of the population. What would your reaction be if someone made a generalisation about what black people think or do based on a few instances they had come across?

When it comes to things such as acceptance amongst the dating world, that is a primary concern voiced amongst trans people and activists and the LGBT as a whole, dating them while still being considered straight. And one of the first things people in the trans community will do when talking about dating, or the refusal to date them is to compare it to the black struggle.

But that's pretty much any progressive type group doing the same. If you don't want to date a trans person, a fat person, a disabled person, etc., Immediately compare it to the black struggle, and because black people have more important things to worry about than non blacks not wanting to date us, the black comparison is corny as best.

When it comes to terms and sexuality, there is no universal standard. It's almost as if it's being played by ear. Male/female are different than from man/woman because on one hand, we can biologically be a male but not a man. In the same day, you'll hear people from the same group identity as a female, making it synonyms with identifying as a woman. In that same day as well, you'll hear how the term "female" reduces one down to their genitalia which is toxic and wanting to date a genetic woman for the purpose of wanting your own children is toxic. In the same day, you'll hear being attracted to trans women isn't gay because sex is more than just what's between your legs. In the same day, you'll be labeled gay if you're into trans women AND their genitalia.

Adults can't even keep track of all this stuff but kids are somehow supposed to understand it.

[MrFanti]

When it comes to things such as acceptance amongst the dating world, that is a primary concern voiced amongst trans people and activists and the LGBT as a whole, dating them while still being considered straight. And one of the first things people in the trans community will do when talking about dating, or the refusal to date them is to compare it to the black struggle.

But that's pretty much any progressive type group doing the same. If you don't want to date a trans person, a fat person, a disabled person, etc., Immediately compare it to the black struggle, and because black people have more important things to worry about than non blacks not wanting to date us, the black comparison is corny as best.


Agreed 100%

[filghy2]

When it comes to things such as acceptance amongst the dating world, that is a primary concern voiced amongst trans people and activists and the LGBT as a whole, dating them while still being considered straight. And one of the first things people in the trans community will do when talking about dating, or the refusal to date them is to compare it to the black struggle.

But that's pretty much any progressive type group doing the same. If you don't want to date a trans person, a fat person, a disabled person, etc., Immediately compare it to the black struggle, and because black people have more important things to worry about than non blacks not wanting to date us, the black comparison is corny as best.

That's a lot of generalisations about a large group. What exactly is your evidence base? How many people, to your direct knowledge, have said these things?

I'm pretty sure LGBT people also have more important things to worry about than others not wanting to date them.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/dec/06/us-supreme-court-colorado-gay-rights

[yodajazz]

He is a media personality, that i see on YouTube being interviewed my various other broadcasters. i follow a lot of MSNBC and have seen his name many times. But I have no main idea of what he stands for in general.

[MrFanti]

He is a media personality, that i see on YouTube being interviewed my various other broadcasters. i follow a lot of MSNBC and have seen his name many times. But I have no main idea of what he stands for in general.
--> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlamagne_tha_God

[ELDERGOD]

I’m sorry but I think kids should be kids. When you’re a certain age, talking about an adult then you can live your life how ever you want. But children should be children.

[GroobySteven]

I’m sorry but I think kids should be kids. When you’re a certain age, talking about an adult then you can live your life how ever you want. But children should be children.

So children have to conform to whose idea of being children?
Full fdace coverings/burqas and no freedom of thought would suit you?

[ELDERGOD]

So children have to conform to whose idea of being children?
Full fdace coverings/burqas and no freedom of thought would suit you?
Kids are free to think about what ever the hell they want to. But doing is a whole other thing. I thought about everything under the sun. But I had to wait till I was an adult to live the life I wanted.
I’m a parent, my job is to prepare my child for for the world and everything that comes with it. Equip them with as much as I can so they can find their own way what ever that may be. But part this is not burdening them with adult bull shit.

[MrFanti]

So....
I did see a documentary a few years back about hermaphrodites. The documentary's focus was on adults who felt at birth, their parents made the wrong gender assignment and thus permanently altered their lives.

[GroobySteven]

Kids are free to think about what ever the hell they want to. But doing is a whole other thing. I thought about everything under the sun. But I had to wait till I was an adult to live the life I wanted.
I’m a parent, my job is to prepare my child for for the world and everything that comes with it. Equip them with as much as I can so they can find their own way what ever that may be. But part this is not burdening them with adult bull shit.

I'm a parent also - and I agree with your sentiment, but "part this is not burdening them with adult bull shit.".
Who determines what is adult bullshit and what isn't?

While I disagree with any elective surgeries before 18 - if my child feels like they are trans and want to transition (non-surgical) then it's my place to support them on that.

[ELDERGOD]

I'm a parent also - and I agree with your sentiment, but "part this is not burdening them with adult bull shit.".
Who determines what is adult bullshit and what isn't?

While I disagree with any elective surgeries before 18 - if my child feels like they are trans and want to transition (non-surgical) then it's my place to support them on that.

I respectfully disagree.
If the child feels that they are something different. I think even if it’s non surgical they should wait until they are adults to make the decision. The fact that kids are even focused on this is our fault. Kids should be enjoying being kids. Now they’re dealing with adult issues because we have given them entirely too much access. Enjoy being a kid. When you’re an adult you can take this what ever direction you want. But we are hell bent on robbing them of childhood. By turning them on to shit they shouldn’t even be concerned with.
When I was a kid there were no kids that were concerned about being a girl or a boy. They just wanted to play and have fun.

[GroobySteven]

I respectfully disagree.
If the child feels that they are something different. I think even if it’s non surgical they should wait until they are adults to make the decision. The fact that kids are even focused on this is our fault. Kids should be enjoying being kids. Now they’re dealing with adult issues because we have given them entirely too much access. Enjoy being a kid. When you’re an adult you can take this what ever direction you want. But we are hell bent on robbing them of childhood. By turning them on to shit they shouldn’t even be concerned with.
When I was a kid there were no kids that were concerned about being a girl or a boy. They just wanted to play and have fun.

So you didn't know any kids who were gay when you were a kid?

[ELDERGOD]

Actually I did.
Kid got made fun of because he sucked an older kids dick in the neighborhood. He told me him self he did. He was actually interested in sucking the dick of a friend of mine. By high school he was pretty much letting it be known. He went on to live his life the way he wanted to live it. But ended up killing him self if I’m not mistaken.

[GroobySteven]

Actually I did.
Kid got made fun of because he sucked an older kids dick in the neighborhood. He told me him self he did. He was actually interested in sucking the dick of a friend of mine. By high school he was pretty much letting it be known. He went on to live his life the way he wanted to live it. But ended up killing him self if I’m not mistaken.

Yep - my point exactly.

[ELDERGOD]

Yep - my point exactly.

Please clarify

[MrFanti]

I *believe* this discussion within this thread is exactly what Charlamagne was referring to - having a discussion without an instant label being applied to someone.

[ELDERGOD]

It’s time for real conversations regarding these issues instead of people staying in their corner feeling how ever they feel. But people have to have an open mind to approach this.

[Luke Warm]

Why is this anyone else’s business besides the young trans person, the parents, and their doctors? It’s ridiculous that people think their opinion carries any weight here. Mind your own business, this doesn’t effect anyone else. Just like when bigots said that gay marriage was going to impact M/F marriages (which turned out to be a complete lie) what an individual teen does is not relevant to you whatsoever.

The funniest part is that a lot of these busybodies and meddlers consider themselves “conservatives” who claim to want smaller government, but they want the government to outlaw an individual’s freedom to make decisions about their own personal identity, to take that decision making ability away from the individual and their family. Which just reinforces my opinion that conservatives don’t actually have any principles, they start with the results they want to see (“less trans people”) and then work backwards from there. If the results require “government overreach” it’s not a problem for them.

I don’t give a shit what Howard Stern says about trans people, likewise I don’t give a shit what Charlamagne says about trans people. He’s just jumping on a hot topic trying to get publicity for himself (that’s part of his job, but it doesn’t mean that his opinion has any actual value)

[Luke Warm]

Also, if there any activists abusing the word “transphobic” like the original claim is making, let’s see all the evidence of what a big problem this is. The whole topic is a straw man argument. If you are complaining about trans people, there is definitely a non-zero chance that you ARE transphobic. And criticizing people for making problematic statements is not bad or wrong! If you can’t take a little criticism or defend your problematic statements, that shows what a weak argument you are making.

BOO HOO, they called me transphobic for saying something stupid! Maybe you should talk less and listen more!

[filghy2]

I respectfully disagree.
If the child feels that they are something different. I think even if it’s non surgical they should wait until they are adults to make the decision. The fact that kids are even focused on this is our fault. Kids should be enjoying being kids. Now they’re dealing with adult issues because we have given them entirely too much access. Enjoy being a kid. When you’re an adult you can take this what ever direction you want. But we are hell bent on robbing them of childhood. By turning them on to shit they shouldn’t even be concerned with.
When I was a kid there were no kids that were concerned about being a girl or a boy. They just wanted to play and have fun.

What are you defining as a child? Legally, a person is a child until they reach the age of majority, which is 18 in most countries. Are you suggesting they should be told to suppress any doubts about their gender until they turn 18? Do you think adults should be prevented from discussing these issues with minors? What do you suggest parents should do if their child raises the issue or shows signs of interest in gender fluidity?

You seem to believe that minors will not have doubts about their gender as long as they are not exposed to such ideas. But if no kids expressed such thoughts when you were young is that because it never occurred to them or because they were raised to think such thoughts were abnormal and would result in punishment?

I don't recall coming across anyone recognisably gay in my community when I was young. I'm pretty that's not because there weren't any, but because they knew they could be punished by straight society if they didn't keep their inclinations hidden.

[MrFanti]

Also, if there any activists abusing the word “transphobic” like the original claim is making, let’s see all the evidence of what a big problem this is. The whole topic is a straw man argument. If you are complaining about trans people, there is definitely a non-zero chance that you ARE transphobic. And criticizing people for making problematic statements is not bad or wrong! If you can’t take a little criticism or defend your problematic statements, that shows what a weak argument you are making.

BOO HOO, they called me transphobic for saying something stupid! Maybe you should talk less and listen more!

If I an opinion/view about alcohol consumption, am I an "Alcohol-phobe"?
If I have an opinion about my Black American peers, am I a "Nigga or an Uncle Tom"?

This is what IMHO Charlamagne is trying to get across....

[filghy2]

If I an opinion/view about alcohol consumption, am I an "Alcohol-phobe"?

If I have an opinion about my Black American peers, am I a "Nigga or an Uncle Tom"?

If you make negative generalisations about some group of people that aren't based on good evidence there is a good chance you are a "-phobe". If you refuse to support your opinion when challenged, and hide behind some bluster about free speech, that just about confirms it.

I think the key point that Luke is making is that free speech does not mean the right not to have your opinions challenged.

[ELDERGOD]

What are you defining as a child? Legally, a person is a child until they reach the age of majority, which is 18 in most countries. Are you suggesting they should be told to suppress any doubts about their gender until they turn 18? Do you think adults should be prevented from discussing these issues with minors? What do you suggest parents should do if their child raises the issue or shows signs of interest in gender fluidity?

You seem to believe that minors will not have doubts about their gender as long as they are not exposed to such ideas. But if no kids expressed such thoughts when you were young is that because it never occurred to them or because they were raised to think such thoughts were abnormal and would result in punishment?

I don't recall coming across anyone recognisably gay in my community when I was young. I'm pretty that's not because there weren't any, but because they knew they could be punished by straight society if they didn't keep their inclinations hidden.

I believe kids today definitely have doubts. That’s because topics and everything that use to be for adults is no longer filtered.

If my kid had feelings like that I would be open to sit down for a discussion. I would be open to hear them out. There isn’t anything anyone can do about how you feel. If it changes it will be because you changed it. If it doesn’t change it’s because that’s how you feel.

But to get down to it. Sex operations, changing identities even dressing. Needs to wait till you’re an adult. When you’re grown and taking care of your self you can live your life how you want to live it. There is nothing I can say. I’d support my kid. As for dressing if my son wanted to go to prom in a dress. I’d probably let him and support him. That’s just because he’s up in age and he’s almost an adult. But we aren’t calling you a different name or anything of the sort. You want change all that wait till your adult and go change it.

[swissmuscle]

Ivy , Germany

[MrFanti]

If you make negative generalisations about some group of people that aren't based on good evidence there is a good chance you are a "-phobe". If you refuse to support your opinion when challenged, and hide behind some bluster about free speech, that just about confirms it.

I think the key point that Luke is making is that free speech does not mean the right not to have your opinions challenged.
What's difference between a negative opinion and an opinion that you disagree with?
Charlamagne believes that parents should have a say so when it comes to their minor children - it this a negative opinion that warrants a "phone" label?


Or has society deteriorated to a "disagree with me and I will label you" level now?

[filghy2]

Charlamagne believes that parents should have a say so when it comes to their minor children - it this a negative opinion that warrants a "phone" label?

Is that really what he believes? The quotes in the article you posted make no mention of parents having a say. They seem to be saying that these treatments should not be available to minors even if their parents and doctors agree.

"Multimedia mogul Charlamagne Tha God rejected the premise that it’s “transphobic” to oppose giving medical treatment to children who identify as the opposite gender, calling it a conversation-stopper."

“There’s certain things minors cannot do because they’re minors. So you don’t think something as big as changing your gender, shouldn’t you wait until you’re at least 18? The fact that people can’t even have a conversation about that without labeling somebody transphobic is very, very, very, very strange to me because it’s not like these people are saying, ‘No, we don’t want anybody transitioning,’ you know. Or ‘being trans is wrong.’ They’re simply saying, ‘Hey, let these minors wait until they’re a certain age.’ That’s very worthy of a conversation,” Charlamagne said."

[filghy2]

I believe kids today definitely have doubts. That’s because topics and everything that use to be for adults is no longer filtered.

If my kid had feelings like that I would be open to sit down for a discussion. I would be open to hear them out. There isn’t anything anyone can do about how you feel. If it changes it will be because you changed it. If it doesn’t change it’s because that’s how you feel.

But to get down to it. Sex operations, changing identities even dressing. Needs to wait till you’re an adult. When you’re grown and taking care of your self you can live your life how you want to live it. There is nothing I can say. I’d support my kid. As for dressing if my son wanted to go to prom in a dress. I’d probably let him and support him. That’s just because he’s up in age and he’s almost an adult. But we aren’t calling you a different name or anything of the sort. You want change all that wait till your adult and go change it.

Okay, but what about parents who have a different view? Do you believe these decisions should be left to parents, in consultation with doctors, or should the state override them? Do you believe schools should be banned from any discussion of the issues?

[filghy2]

Or has society deteriorated to a "disagree with me and I will label you" level now?

I could equally ask whether society has deteriorated to a "disagree with me and you are suppressing my right to an opinion" level.

It puzzles me when someone complains about not being able to express certain views when I'm obviously reading about those views. This Charlamagne guy has a media platform for any views he cares to express, and he's hardly going to be deterred by some people labelling him.

Complaints about 'cancel culture' are a massive beat-up. There have always been social and economic pressures against expressing views that mainstream society did not like. What has changed is views on what is socially acceptable. This used to be determined mostly by white, christian, heterosexual men, but now they have to take account of others. I think that's what most of these people are really angry about.

[MrFanti]

I could equally ask whether society has deteriorated to a "disagree with me and you are suppressing my right to an opinion" level.

EXACTLY what else Charlamagne was saying!
Now you're getting it! ;-)

[filghy2]

EXACTLY what else Charlamagne was saying!
Now you're getting it! ;-)

I take it then that you and Charlamagne are equally concerned about things like this?
https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/equality/597215-gov-desantis-spokesperson-says-dont-say-gay-opponents-are/

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’s (R) longtime press secretary Christina Pushaw over the weekend tweeted that she believed educating children about sex leaves them vulnerable to abuse and likened opponents to the so-called Don’t Say Gay bill moving through the state legislature to pedophiles.

“The bill that liberals inaccurately call ‘Don’t Say Gay’ would be more accurately described as an Anti-Grooming Bill,” Pushaw wrote Friday on Twitter.

“If you’re against the Anti-Grooming bill, you are probably a groomer or at least you don’t denounce the grooming of 4-8 year old children,” she wrote in another tweet. “Silence is complicity. This is how it works, Democrats, and I didn’t make the rules.”

[ELDERGOD]

Okay, but what about parents who have a different view? Do you believe these decisions should be left to parents, in consultation with doctors, or should the state override them? Do you believe schools should be banned from any discussion of the issues?
Honestly, I'd love to leave it up to the parents. But that is part of the reason we are in the situation now. I believe that you can have family discussions regarding your kids and how they plan to live their lives. But it should not happen until their adults. Doctors shouldn't have anything to do with it. Schools shouldn't have anything to do with it also. Schools need to focus on education and educating the youth with the truth instead of the bull shit we've been taught.

[MrFanti]

I take it then that you and Charlamagne are equally concerned about things like this?
https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/equality/597215-gov-desantis-spokesperson-says-dont-say-gay-opponents-are/

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’s (R) longtime press secretary Christina Pushaw over the weekend tweeted that she believed educating children about sex leaves them vulnerable to abuse and likened opponents to the so-called Don’t Say Gay bill moving through the state legislature to pedophiles.

“The bill that liberals inaccurately call ‘Don’t Say Gay’ would be more accurately described as an Anti-Grooming Bill,” Pushaw wrote Friday on Twitter.

“If you’re against the Anti-Grooming bill, you are probably a groomer or at least you don’t denounce the grooming of 4-8 year old children,” she wrote in another tweet. “Silence is complicity. This is how it works, Democrats, and I didn’t make the rules.”
Think of it like this.
Most people, regardless of point of view either shut down or get enraged when they are labeled/name called.

The whole point that Charlamagne was trying to establish was simply "can we discuss this like adults without either of us pinning a label on the other?"

[filghy2]

Schools need to focus on education and educating the youth with the truth instead of the bull shit we've been taught.

What are you objecting to specifically? What is your idea of teaching kids the truth in relation to LGBT people?

[ELDERGOD]

What are you objecting to specifically? What is your idea of teaching kids the truth in relation to LGBT people?

I don't know what teaching the truth is with LGBT people.
But I know the truth with Black People has never been taught. The truth with Native Americans hasn't been taught. That's what I'm referring to.

[filghy2]

I don't know what teaching the truth is with LGBT people.

That they exist in significant numbers and are not evil or sick, at least in the view of most people these days?

[ELDERGOD]

That they exist in significant numbers and are not evil or sick, at least in the view of most people these days?

Well clearly they exist cause that movement is the most powerful movement that's going right now.
Any one that thinks their evil is special. As for people that think it's sick. People are always going to feel some type of way about something. They look at fat people in think that's sick. So on and so on. The hell with them.

[Luke Warm]

Is that really what he believes? The quotes in the article you posted make no mention of parents having a say. They seem to be saying that these treatments should not be available to minors even if their parents and doctors agree.

No response to this, that says it all. Nobody needs to care what some talk show host thinks, because it’s none of his business. This is just crass attempt by Charlamagne to get views by adding his 2 cents about a topic he has no insight on, and no connection to. And I don’t think MrFanti understands the article he linked to, he seems to think it’s about “feee speech”. Charlamagne is entitled to say whatever dumbass thing he wants, but I am also entitled to say he doesn’t know WTF he’s talking about.

[Luke Warm]

This is an issue between the young trans person, the parents or legal guardians, and their personal physician. Nobody else. Charlamagne seems to think it’s an issue that should be discussed and decided by society in general. Yeah, that’s a hard no. Yes, it’s bigoted if outsiders think it’s any of their actual business, just like somebody’s abortion is not any of his business.

I would also like to know what kind of trans representation does he have on his show, I’m going to guess it’s near zero. Maybe he had Laverne Cox on once. So it would be like Opie & Anthony discussing black youth and hip hop culture, but they don’t understand the actual topic, and yeah they could probably say something stupid about it and possibly even “phobic”.

Its not “discussion” that is offensive or transphobic, it’s when people with a large platform say stupid shit, and get the issues wrong.

[Luke Warm]

It’s like if Tucker Carlson had a segment about how “Saggy pants on black males should be illegal” and grounds for stop & frisk by police, and then complaining that some people (“activists” is the word that was used) called the discussion racist. If someone wants to have a thoughtful and informed discussion about saggy pants, that’s not automatically racist. If someone wants to have a thoughtful and informed discussion about transgender teens, that by itself not automatically transphobic. The problem is people who really should know better are often saying something stupid, and yes, sometimes it’s transphobic. Since Charlamagne thinks that these personal medical decisions are something that society at large actually needs to decide, not a private matter between the individual and the parents and their doctors, he is therefore saying something stupid.

[ELDERGOD]

You aren't talking about adults. When you speaking about adults your talking about personal business. I totally agree with that. When your speaking on kids it takes a village. Because of that the its not anyone's business isn't totally accurate.

[Fitzcarraldo]

You aren't talking about adults. When you speaking about adults your talking about personal business. I totally agree with that. When your speaking on kids it takes a village. Because of that the its not anyone's business isn't totally accurate.

Why should a village insert itself into the medical business of parents, their child, and a doctor?

https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2018/06/15/gettyimages-2014797_wide-63b7c37d4f468e2e77418b22727b0963281bad24.jpg

[MrFanti]

. Since Charlamagne thinks that these personal medical decisions are something that society at large actually needs to decide, not a private matter between the individual and the parents and their doctors, he is therefore saying something stupid.
Incorrect.
Charlamagne thinks that with minor children, parents should be able to have a say in discussions without being labeled "transphobic".

[filghy2]

Incorrect.
Charlamagne thinks that with minor children, parents should be able to have a say in discussions without being labeled "transphobic".

Produce the evidence. As I noted, the article you linked to says no such thing.

[MrFanti]

You don't follow him. I don't know who he is. Yes, this person I've never heard of is entitled to his opinion, but his opinion has no meaning to me, so "whatever." If you don't follow him, why does his opinion matter to you?
From the article:
“There’s certain things minors cannot do because they’re minors. So you don’t think something as big as changing your gender, shouldn’t you wait until you’re at least 18? The fact that people can’t even have a conversation about that without labeling somebody transphobic is very, very, very, very strange to me because it’s not like these people are saying, ‘No, we don’t want anybody transitioning,’ you know. Or ‘being trans is wrong.’ They’re simply saying, ‘Hey, let these minors wait until they’re a certain age.’ That’s very worthy of a conversation,” Charlamagne said. "

I listen to all views regardless whether I agree or disagree. That's called being non-biased.

[MrFanti]

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/charlamagne-the-god-denounces-violence-against-transgender-people-201699/

[filghy2]

Honestly, I'd love to leave it up to the parents. But that is part of the reason we are in the situation now. I believe that you can have family discussions regarding your kids and how they plan to live their lives. But it should not happen until their adults. Doctors shouldn't have anything to do with it. Schools shouldn't have anything to do with it also. Schools need to focus on education and educating the youth with the truth instead of the bull shit we've been taught.


You aren't talking about adults. When you speaking about adults your talking about personal business. I totally agree with that. When your speaking on kids it takes a village. Because of that the its not anyone's business isn't totally accurate.

So is it the parents' business or the village's business? You are being cryptic about where you stand on some of these issues.

[filghy2]

To clarify what the issue is, the attached article provides a list of legislative proposals in various states to ban gender-affirming care for young people. In many cases, the proposed age limit is 21 or even older. This is not about parental rights - quite the opposite.
https://www.modernhealthcare.com/government/states-anti-trans-bills-legislative-session-texas-utah-tennessee

Will you tell us where you stand on this, Eldergod and Mr Fanti, or are you going to keep dodging around the issue?

[Fitzcarraldo]

From the article:
“There’s certain things minors cannot do because they’re minors. So you don’t think something as big as changing your gender, shouldn’t you wait until you’re at least 18? The fact that people can’t even have a conversation about that without labeling somebody transphobic is very, very, very, very strange to me because it’s not like these people are saying, ‘No, we don’t want anybody transitioning,’ you know. Or ‘being trans is wrong.’ They’re simply saying, ‘Hey, let these minors wait until they’re a certain age.’ That’s very worthy of a conversation,” Charlamagne said. "

I listen to all views regardless whether I agree or disagree. That's called being non-biased.

Yeah, sure.

[Fitzcarraldo]

Why start a new topic for this? You already have a Charlemagne the God topic.

[Stavros]

I think there is a gap between the clinical and social/political commentary on Trans issues. Even within the clinical setting the controversy comes from those who think practitioners are too hasty in their prescribed courses of treatment, raising the question -how long should it take for a patient to begin taking hormones of beginning other forms of treatment? It may be argued that the younger the person, the longer the lead in time to practical therapy.

The danger with the Social and Political commentary is obvious where there is no need to have any clinical or scientific understanding of gender and sexuality, as any opinion will do. The idea that sex is assigned at birth is simple but misleading, for if it were so there would be no Trans issues. It is people like Trump and DeSantis who transform a serious medical and psychological condition into a political weapon that aims to define identity, and indeed, to argue it is the task of Government to define individual identity, thereby undermining their claim to be defending or advancing freedom.

Either all individuals are equal before the law, or they are not, and Government should say so, and list those who are not equal.

[ELDERGOD]

So is it the parents' business or the village's business? You are being cryptic about where you stand on some of these issues.

When it comes to kids it takes a village. Meaning its not just the parents with in the house hold that play a part in raising a child. All of us adults play a part in what we are exposing kids too and so on. Why do you think there is a major difference in the kids today vs us when we were kids. These kids are exposed to alot more then we were. That is not on just the parents. Parents can only do so much. For example when I was a kid you didn't even hear curse words on the radio. But now they are saying every thing under the sun. We've pushed the envelope and the kids are paying the price for adult bull shit.


To clarify what the issue is, the attached article provides a list of legislative proposals in various states to ban gender-affirming care for young people. In many cases, the proposed age limit is 21 or even older. This is not about parental rights - quite the opposite.
https://www.modernhealthcare.com/government/states-anti-trans-bills-legislative-session-texas-utah-tennessee

Will you tell us where you stand on this, Eldergod and Mr Fanti, or are you going to keep dodging around the issue?

I have no issue for care for adult. Ive said this before. Kids it shouldn't be a discussion at all. But no one should deny care for adults

[Lorca81]

The movement in the U.S. to “protect” kids from transitioning before 18 is a manufactured controversy.

First, the people passing legislation banning parents from getting their children transgender medical care are the same people pushing legislation that would ban transgender medical care for adults too. https://19thnews.org/2022/10/transgender-healthcare-adults-limit-restrict/ This demonstrates that this movement was always about hate and never about “protecting children.”

Second, even if you believe such legislation might “protect children” that entire proposition is illogical. After all, parents make medical decisions on their children’s behalf all the time, including having to decide whether their kids should take or forgo medication or undergo unalterable medical procedures.

[Lorca81]

The movement in the U.S. to “protect” kids from transitioning before 18 is a manufactured controversy.

First, the people passing legislation banning parents from getting their children transgender medical care are the same people pushing legislation that would ban transgender medical care for adults too. https://19thnews.org/2022/10/transgender-healthcare-adults-limit-restrict/ This demonstrates that this movement was always about hate and never about “protecting children.”

Second, even if you believe such legislation might “protect children” that entire proposition is illogical. After all, parents make medical decisions on their children’s behalf all the time, including having to decide whether their kids should take or forgo medication or undergo unalterable medical procedures.

[dc_guy_75]

Please stop posting this nonsense. Who cares?

[ELDERGOD]

The movement in the U.S. to “protect” kids from transitioning before 18 is a manufactured controversy.

First, the people passing legislation banning parents from getting their children transgender medical care are the same people pushing legislation that would ban transgender medical care for adults too. https://19thnews.org/2022/10/transgender-healthcare-adults-limit-restrict/ This demonstrates that this movement was always about hate and never about “protecting children.”

Second, even if you believe such legislation might “protect children” that entire proposition is illogical. After all, parents make medical decisions on their children’s behalf all the time, including having to decide whether their kids should take or forgo medication or undergo unalterable medical procedures.

Medicines, Vaccines & Typical Procedures aren’t any where near what we are talking about. It’s not the same at all.
Let children be children. There is a time in a place for all the bull shit that comes with being an adult.

[Fitzcarraldo]

Medicines, Vaccines & Typical Procedures aren’t any where near what we are talking about. It’s not the same at all.
Let children be children. There is a time in a place for all the bull shit that comes with being an adult.

Let parents make decisions for their own children.

[ELDERGOD]

Exact reason why shit is messed up now

[filghy2]

From the article:
“There’s certain things minors cannot do because they’re minors. So you don’t think something as big as changing your gender, shouldn’t you wait until you’re at least 18? The fact that people can’t even have a conversation about that without labeling somebody transphobic is very, very, very, very strange to me because it’s not like these people are saying, ‘No, we don’t want anybody transitioning,’ you know. Or ‘being trans is wrong.’ They’re simply saying, ‘Hey, let these minors wait until they’re a certain age.’ That’s very worthy of a conversation,” Charlamagne said. "

I listen to all views regardless whether I agree or disagree. That's called being non-biased.

You are unbelievable, literally. I take it you have no information on what this guy thinks on this topic other than the quotes in that article, which don't mention parents.

[filghy2]

The movement in the U.S. to “protect” kids from transitioning before 18 is a manufactured controversy.

A sign of their insincerity is that the same people also vehemently oppose any measures to restrict access to guns, no matter how many school shootings occur.

Is there any place where minors can get these treatments without their parents approval? Parental rights seems like a straw man - mostly these people mean that parents should have the right to say no but not yes.

[filghy2]

All of us adults play a part in what we are exposing kids too and so on. Why do you think there is a major difference in the kids today vs us when we were kids.

In the 'good old days' kids were also raised to think that homophobia was normal and acceptable.

[ELDERGOD]

In the 'good old days' kids were also raised to think that homophobia was normal and acceptable.

When I speak of the past I'm speaking about the invisible barrier between adults and kids. You know when you were a young adult and you see something that you seen when you were a kid and then it clicks! Ohhh, that's what they were talking about. That separated grown folks business from children. Now grown ass women and men what talk sexuality with kids and with a straight face want green light kids getting sex changes.
There is a way to talk about acceptance of the LGBT community with out trying to involve kids in a adult business.

[MrFanti]

You are unbelievable, literally. I take it you have no information on what this guy thinks on this topic other than the quotes in that article, which don't mention parents.
If that's the way you feel - more power to you then!
Just as you are allowed your perspectives - so am I.
We don't have to agree with each other.

[filghy2]

The problem isn't your opinions, such as they are. The problem is your consistent refusal to answer questions directly and honestly.

[filghy2]

When I speak of the past I'm speaking about the invisible barrier between adults and kids. You know when you were a young adult and you see something that you seen when you were a kid and then it clicks! Ohhh, that's what they were talking about. That separated grown folks business from children. Now grown ass women and men what talk sexuality with kids and with a straight face want green light kids getting sex changes.

My memory, at least of high school, is that kids were constantly talking about sex. This was way before the digital era. How do you propose to keep kids in a state of innocence when they all have smartphones?

[MrFanti]

The problem isn't your opinions, such as they are. The problem is your consistent refusal to answer questions directly and honestly.
No, your problem is demanding that I be your slave and comply to your requests. Sorry, but I won't be forum slave to you and your 'demands'.
All of my answers have been honest - if you don't like them, then again, that's your issue.

[filghy2]

No, your problem IMHO is demanding that I be your slave and comply to your requests. Sorry, but I won't be forum slave to you and your 'demands'.
All of my answers have been honest, IMHO - if you don't like them, then again, that's your issue.

Haven't you forgotten something? I always enjoy reading your passive-aggressive responses.

[thombergeron]

The thing about the narcissists and bigots asking "why can't we have a discussion" is that the discussion has been going on for several decades now. That's why the major pediatric medical associations have ALL endorsed gender-affirming care. We've been conducting research specifically on gender identity in developing children since at least the 1960s, and this now very large body of evidence demonstrates conclusively that gender-affirming care is safe and appropriate.

If this YouTube guy genuinely cares about the healthy and positive childhood development, then he pretty clearly has a responsibility to educate himself. Instead, he echoes the rhetoric of confirmed bigots, and then shirks any responsibility by claiming he's "just asking questions." It's a disgrace that anyone is entertained by this kind of willful ignorance.

[thombergeron]

When I speak of the past I'm speaking about the invisible barrier between adults and kids. You know when you were a young adult and you see something that you seen when you were a kid and then it clicks! Ohhh, that's what they were talking about. That separated grown folks business from children. Now grown ass women and men what talk sexuality with kids and with a straight face want green light kids getting sex changes.
There is a way to talk about acceptance of the LGBT community with out trying to involve kids in a adult business.

Are you aware that teenagers nowadays are having less sex, fighting less, and consuming drugs and alcohol at lower rates than we did?

[MrFanti]

The thing about the narcissists and bigots asking "why can't we have a discussion" is that the discussion has been going on for several decades now. That's why the major pediatric medical associations have ALL endorsed gender-affirming care. We've been conducting research specifically on gender identity in developing children since at least the 1960s, and this now very large body of evidence demonstrates conclusively that gender-affirming care is safe and appropriate.

If this YouTube guy genuinely cares about the healthy and positive childhood development, then he pretty clearly has a responsibility to educate himself. Instead, he echoes the rhetoric of confirmed bigots, and then shirks any responsibility by claiming he's "just asking questions." It's a disgrace that anyone is entertained by this kind of willful ignorance.
And he's also condemned violence against Trans individuals - how is that the rhetoric of bigots?

[thombergeron]

And he's also condemned violence against Trans individuals - how is that the rhetoric of bigots?

So it's fine to bully and demean people as long as you refrain from physically assaulting them? Are you going to try to say that baselessly and incorrectly asserting that gender-affirming care is somehow dangerous or inappropriate for children is an ethically neutral position?

The problem with this YouTube guy as well as a lot of dudes on this forum is that they're super horny for transwomen, so they have a hard time conceiving of them as real people who have childhoods and lives beyond being a sex object.

[MrFanti]

So it's fine to bully and demean people as long as you refrain from physically assaulting them?
No, it is not fine.
But again, Charlamagne is asking the question of - Why as parents can't we have a discussion about what our children do as minors without being labeled transphobic?
And what is wrong with that question in and of itself?

[ELDERGOD]

Are you aware that teenagers nowadays are having less sex, fighting less, and consuming drugs and alcohol at lower rates than we did?

Maybe in your culture

[filghy2]

But again, Charlamagne is asking the question of - Why as parents can't we have a discussion about what our children do as minors without being labeled transphobic?
And what is wrong with that question in and of itself?

No, the question he actually asked was this:
"So you don’t think something as big as changing your gender, shouldn’t you wait until you’re at least 18?"

It's ambiguous whether he is saying that parents should have the final say on these treatments for under 18s or they should not be allowed at all for under 18s even if parents agree. If you have some other information then why don't you share it?

I don't necessarily think this Charlemagne is a transphobe. More likely he just wants to stir up controversies that appeal to his audience's prejudices, as all shockjocks do.

[thombergeron]

No, it is not fine.
But again, Charlamagne is asking the question of - Why as parents can't we have a discussion about what our children do as minors without being labeled transphobic?
And what is wrong with that question in and of itself?

First of all, don't lie. That's not what he said. He's talking about the public conversations he has on his "show."

Second, implying that nontraditional gender identities are an undesirable outcome that should be avoided as long as possible is, in fact, transphobic. There is nothing wrong, from a health standpoint, with nontraditional gender identities. There is nothing wrong with transitioning to a gender differing from one's biological sex. If you think that there is, you're either ignorant or a bigot. Just like you don't have to be a klansman to be a racist, you don't have to be a psychotic murderer to be a transphobe.

Furthermore, anybody saying "these decisions need to be made after the age of majority" clearly doesn't know shit about normal childhood development. There's very little difference between the brain of a 17-year-old and that of an 18-year-old. Most people don't have a fully mature brain until they're 23 or 24, and some as late as 26. The last part of your brain to develop is the frontal lobe, which is responsible for judgement. The idea that kids are magically able to make better decisions after the age of 18 is not supported by the science.

Also, A LOT of parents don't know what the fuck they're doing. They fuck their kids up all the time. I thought this was a generally agreed upon fact, but I guess now we're making exceptions for masks and LGBT kids.

[thombergeron]

Maybe in your culture

Bruh there's literally no human culture where this is not true: https://twitter.com/NicoleRPrause/status/1612832248230973440?s=20&t=OtQJ5ek_aji7H1pzKcGFxg

You should read a book now and again because your intuition is for shit.

[MrFanti]

First of all, don't lie.

From the article:
“There’s certain things minors cannot do because they’re minors. So you don’t think something as big as changing your gender, shouldn’t you wait until you’re at least 18? The fact that people can’t even have a conversation about that without labeling somebody transphobic is very, very, very, very strange to me because it’s not like these people are saying, ‘No, we don’t want anybody transitioning,’ you know. Or ‘being trans is wrong.’ They’re simply saying, ‘Hey, let these minors wait until they’re a certain age.’ That’s very worthy of a conversation,” Charlamagne said. "

[filghy2]

No, it is not fine.
But again, Charlamagne is asking the question of - Why as parents can't we have a discussion about what our children do as minors without being labeled transphobic?
And what is wrong with that question in and of itself?


From the article:
“There’s certain things minors cannot do because they’re minors. So you don’t think something as big as changing your gender, shouldn’t you wait until you’re at least 18? The fact that people can’t even have a conversation about that without labeling somebody transphobic is very, very, very, very strange to me because it’s not like these people are saying, ‘No, we don’t want anybody transitioning,’ you know. Or ‘being trans is wrong.’ They’re simply saying, ‘Hey, let these minors wait until they’re a certain age.’ That’s very worthy of a conversation,” Charlamagne said. "

And there you go.

Where does the word 'parents' appear in that quote? If he was really just saying parents should have say, don't you think it's odd that he never mentioned them?

This is classic Fanti:
1. Post link to article and misrepresent what it says.
2. When questioned, refuse to explain or respond to the point.
3. Keep repeating incorrect assertion.

Prime example here, if anyone's not familiar with the master's work. UK residents might be surprised to learn they are now living under Sharia law.
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?108494-Sharia-Law-in-the-UK

[filghy2]

Furthermore, anybody saying "these decisions need to be made after the age of majority" clearly doesn't know shit about normal childhood development. There's very little difference between the brain of a 17-year-old and that of an 18-year-old. Most people don't have a fully mature brain until they're 23 or 24, and some as late as 26. The last part of your brain to develop is the frontal lobe, which is responsible for judgement. The idea that kids are magically able to make better decisions after the age of 18 is not supported by the science.

Also, A LOT of parents don't know what the fuck they're doing. They fuck their kids up all the time. I thought this was a generally agreed upon fact, but I guess now we're making exceptions for masks and LGBT kids.

There are two different issues here, and it's important we distinguish between them:
1. Should minors be able to access gender-affirming treatments without requiring parental consent?
2. Should minors be able to access these treatments at all, even with parental (and doctors') consent?
We are talking about non-surgical treatments here. The idea that minors are irreversibly changing their sex is a furphy.
https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/what-gender-affirming-care-your-questions-answered

I don't know where you come from, but in the US this debate is occurring in the context of Republican states introducing laws to block these treatments, even if parents and doctors agree. They want to treat this as 'child abuse'. In many cases the age limit is 21, not 18.
https://www.modernhealthcare.com/government/states-anti-trans-bills-legislative-session-texas-utah-tennessee

Maybe there are some exceptions, but I'm pretty sure the general rule is that minors cannot at present access these treatments without parental consent. I'm sure there are some trans activists who want to change this, but the political debate is really about Republican efforts to block treatments completely. Anyone who says this is just about parents having a say is either misinformed or disingenuous.

The merits of gender-affirming care are a complex issue that I don't claim to have much knowledge of. I would certainly not claim a right to impose my view on anyone else. My inclination is that the status quo (access to some treatments with parental and doctor consent for under 18s) is a reasonable balance of the various considerations. That is in line with the consensus of the medical profession. https://healthmatters.nyp.org/what-to-know-about-gender-affirming-care-for-children-and-adolescents/

[Stavros]

One aspect of this issue is the way in which politics is being introduced in order to 'protect children' -the critics of the medical profession giving young girls breast binding and girls and boys hormone treatment are based in part on the view it is too early in the child's development to engage in such transformative procedures. But it is now also part of a broader attack on 'liberal' policies by those -mostly Republicans- for whom God, Family and Country is their Trinity of Faith, where Family means Mom-Pop-Boy-Girl-Dog-House-Car etc. This citadel of freedom is under assault from the 'radical leftists' and associated demons.

Now consider the history where once in the UK children were working from the age of five or six, and where one critic not only defended child labour and parental rights, but stated

"I would far rather see even a higher rate of infant mortality prevailing.... than intrude one iota on the sanctity of the domestic hearth"
Child protection - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_protection)

Some dubious policy proposals are being smuggled onto the books claiming Child Protection is the motive, as it is hard to argue against the protection of the child. Whether or not an 11 year old can make decisions that will affect them for the rest of their lives is denied because from being workers in a cotton mill in 1823, children are now firmly anchored in the family home and school. Children's lives may have improved considerably since 1823, and it is ironic that the laws that some people want to pass in 2023 are closer in spirit to the 19th century.

So the question might be -who do you want making the laws that decide what your children can be and how they can be treated before they are considered adult enough to make their own decisions? Will the 'Freedom Caucus' in Congress decide it is they who must, and will make the laws that take away the rights of the parent and the child?

[ELDERGOD]

Bruh there's literally no human culture where this is not true: https://twitter.com/NicoleRPrause/status/1612832248230973440?s=20&t=OtQJ5ek_aji7H1pzKcGFxg

You should read a book now and again because your intuition is for shit.

No you should try getting your ass off the computer and go out side for once. No one gives a damn about some study that some chump has done when most studies regarding minorities are screwed up. No one is coming into these communities to do studies. That's a fact yet 100 times a year some study is coming out talking about this and that and people have never been approached or had anything in the mail regarding it. In my community I see the youth first hand more violent more every thing then the ones before them even my generation. But I see this cause I'm OUTSIDE! I'm not a key board warrior.

[Fitzcarraldo]

I'm not a key board warrior.

You sure come across as one.

[ELDERGOD]

You sure come across as one.

Not at all it’s just you two
I’m in my community. I don’t sit in the house all day every day. I’ve lived in type of places you’re scared to drive through. So keep reading your studies. But don’t expect that shit to mean anything to those of us who are actually out here.

[Fitzcarraldo]

Not at all it’s just you two
I’m in my community. I don’t sit in the house all day every day. I’ve lived in type of places you’re scared to drive through. So keep reading your studies. But don’t expect that shit to mean anything to those of us who are actually out here.

Spoken like a true keyboard warrior. You have no idea where I've been, because I don't brag about it like keyboard warriors do. Keyboard warriors also like to challenge others for no reason.

[ELDERGOD]

Spoken like a true keyboard warrior. You have no idea where I've been, because I don't brag about it like keyboard warriors do. Keyboard warriors also like to challenge others for no reason.

lol
I can't do a damn thing about how you take shit. Don't try to flip this into anything but what it is. I'm standing on my statement! It's not a challenge cause I know where i've been. The statement stands take the shit how ever you want. lol

[thombergeron]

From the article:
“There’s certain things minors cannot do because they’re minors. So you don’t think something as big as changing your gender, shouldn’t you wait until you’re at least 18? The fact that people can’t even have a conversation about that without labeling somebody transphobic is very, very, very, very strange to me because it’s not like these people are saying, ‘No, we don’t want anybody transitioning,’ you know. Or ‘being trans is wrong.’ They’re simply saying, ‘Hey, let these minors wait until they’re a certain age.’ That’s very worthy of a conversation,” Charlamagne said. "

Yeah as filghy2 said, this is clearly not YouTube guy saying, "As a parent, I should be able to have these conversations with my kids." He's talking about having willfully ignorant and misinformed public conversations for the entertainment of other ignorant and misinformed people.

And again, this is just narcissism. These conversations have been happening very productively without his participation for decades. YouTube guy just doesn't know anything about gender and can't be assed to find out.

The intellectually honest thing to do is acknowledge your ignorance and give knowledgable people your platform. I understand he had Janet Mock on his show half a decade ago. If this is going continue to be one his favored topics (creepy straight dudes obsessed with transpeople: we see you), he has a responsibility to engage with people who fucking know what they're talking about. He should invite Elle Lett on. He should avail himself of a literal pediatric endocrinologist like Catherine Gordon. But clearly he gets more engagement with his "just asking questions" bullshit.

[thombergeron]

No you should try getting your ass off the computer and go out side for once. No one gives a damn about some study that some chump has done when most studies regarding minorities are screwed up. No one is coming into these communities to do studies. That's a fact yet 100 times a year some study is coming out talking about this and that and people have never been approached or had anything in the mail regarding it. In my community I see the youth first hand more violent more every thing then the ones before them even my generation. But I see this cause I'm OUTSIDE! I'm not a key board warrior.

Well, you certainly present a compelling case for the evidentiary value of sitting on your front porch. But I dunno, man. Should we go with what the CDC/WHO/HBSC says or some rando middle-aged dude who's scared of the kids next door?

[thombergeron]

There are two different issues here, and it's important we distinguish between them:
1. Should minors be able to access gender-affirming treatments without requiring parental consent?
2. Should minors be able to access these treatments at all, even with parental (and doctors') consent?

...

Maybe there are some exceptions, but I'm pretty sure the general rule is that minors cannot at present access these treatments without parental consent. I'm sure there are some trans activists who want to change this, but the political debate is really about Republican efforts to block treatments completely. Anyone who says this is just about parents having a say is either misinformed or disingenuous.


It depends on the state. In some states, children under the age of 18 are able to access gender-affirming care without parental consent. But it's also important to remember that for virtually all gender non-conforming kids under 16, gender-affirming care means emotional support , i.e. respect for chosen names and pronouns. There are currently no states where kids under 18 can access medical transition services without parental consent. This is a great commentary on what is and is not gender-affirming care: https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(22)00503-1/fulltext

We already allow minors to make certain medical decisions without parental consent: Family Planning, STD testing, Mental health treatment and counseling, Pregnancy, Abortion, Drug and alcohol-related problems, HIV/AIDs, Sexual assault, COVID-19 testing, and Child abuse allegations.
For adolescent patients, time alone with a physician during the clinical encounter is the gold standard for pediatric care. We've also been giving puberty blockers to very young cis kids with precocious puberty since the 70s. These issues of parental consent and medication safety and efficacy are completely uncontroversial until you add "trans" to the mix. Wonder why that is.

[filghy2]

Some dubious policy proposals are being smuggled onto the books claiming Child Protection is the motive, as it is hard to argue against the protection of the child.

By far the biggest source of harm to children is that they are born into a disadvantaged family. The same people who claim to want to protect children also want to cut back the limited government programs aimed at helping such families.

[filghy2]

No you should try getting your ass off the computer and go out side for once. No one gives a damn about some study that some chump has done when most studies regarding minorities are screwed up. No one is coming into these communities to do studies. That's a fact yet 100 times a year some study is coming out talking about this and that and people have never been approached or had anything in the mail regarding it. In my community I see the youth first hand more violent more every thing then the ones before them even my generation. But I see this cause I'm OUTSIDE! I'm not a key board warrior.

Well I walk around my neighborhood every day and never see any crime. If the only source of evidence is what individuals can see then which one of these is the true fact?

Most studies are based on either official statistics or surveys of a small percentage of the population. It's hardly surprising that you don't know anyone who has been involved.

[filghy2]

But it's also important to remember that for virtually all gender non-conforming kids under 16, gender-affirming care means emotional support , i.e. respect for chosen names and pronouns. There are currently no states where kids under 18 can access medical transition services without parental consent.

This is the key point. The right-wing narrative is that impressionable teenagers are being pushed into life-changing treatments. Gender dysphoria is not real, but is an anxiety manufactured by people with some agenda. This resonates with many people who are inclined to fear what they don't understand.

[ELDERGOD]

Well I walk around my neighborhood every day and never see any crime. If the only source of evidence is what individuals can see then which one of these is the true fact?

Most studies are based on either official statistics or surveys of a small percentage of the population. It's hardly surprising that you don't know anyone who has been involved.

This is why minorities don't pay attention to a lot of studies. Now you walk around your neighborhood and don't see any crime. What about those of us that can see it?

https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-shooting-near-west-side-adams-street-javion-ivy/12693297/

https://abc7chicago.com/karon-blake-13-year-old-shot-dc-shooting-washington/12685269/

https://www.kmov.com/2023/01/12/18-gunshot-wounds-autopsy-report-reveals-16-year-old-killed-north-city-gas-station-shot-18-times-by-slmpd-officers/

https://www.kmov.com/2023/01/10/man-who-admitted-firing-shots-that-killed-man-i-270-sentenced/

I'm simply saying people come up with stuff to fit their narrative all the time. That includes trying to paint a certain pic of things. But you have to be careful. Cause if you don't live in areas where stuff is going on then it becomes easy to believe that nothing is happening. These stories are just some that around the country.

[filghy2]

This is why minorities don't pay attention to a lot of studies. Now you walk around your neighborhood and don't see any crime. What about those of us that can see it?

This isn't about crime in your neighbourhood or mine. Remember, we only got to this point because you claimed that kids used to be innocent and now they've been messed up by being exposed to adult issues. You pretty much suggested that they only think about gender identity because someone has put the idea in their heads.

[ELDERGOD]

This isn't about crime in your neighbourhood or mine. Remember, we only got to this point because you claimed that kids used to be innocent and now they've been messed up by being exposed to adult issues. You pretty much suggested that they only think about gender identity because someone has put the idea in their heads.

First off don’t try to make my point seem invalid when it’s an answer to another statement that another member made. The quote is below.


Are you aware that teenagers nowadays are having less sex, fighting less, and consuming drugs and alcohol at lower rates than we did?



Second please don’t put words in my mouth. This isn’t about kids being innocent. Once again it’s about kids stuff being separated from adult bull shit. Do you have kids? Why is it that you can’t comprehend the idea shielding kids from adult bull shit. You have all the time in the world for adult crap. You spend more time being an adult then you do a child so enjoy it.
Kids don’t give a F about gender shit till it became a big deal with adults.

[Stavros]

Kids don’t give a F about gender shit till it became a big deal with adults.


There is a lot to unpack from this one sentence, and not enough space to debate it. I think you will agree that adults have been controlling, or trying to control children's lives in all its aspects for centuries, and that for some this is endemic in capitalist societies as well as dictatorships. It may be a good thing to both warn children of the dangers of drink and drugs, and use the law to make it hard for children to access them, but with sex the battlefield is littered with the corpses of good intentions, and bad ones. Indeed, so fraught with dangers is sexuality in children most people prefer not to talk about it, while those who do, either are paedophiles or concerned with it, on the basis that there can be no 'natural' interest in child sexuality, if it involves an adult, and I think most people would agree with this.

Whether or not the interest in trans issues is new or old, I think we can at least agree that social media, which did not exist when I was a child, has and is having a significant impact on the lives young people lead, through the availability of information and images, some of which may worry parents, and cause anxiety in young people as they are uncensored, or censored, or manipulated -perhaps crucially, untrustworthy. One need only think of the material that denies the effectiveness of vaccines to get a perspective on the anarchy of ideas out there.

All I suggest is that we have been here before, whether it is the arguments from the 1930s and later, of Wilhelm Reich, or the controversy over The Little Red School Book of the 1970s, and the current maintenance mostly by elderly white men, of a code of morals that is intended to protect children, often from the sins they have themselves committed in their past, with repression and dictatorship the mode of governance on such things.

I don't have an answer that is satisfactory, other than that medical procedures that cannot be reversed need to be carefully considered before being adopted, while the concern for the anxieties being expressed by the child may need more than drugs and prosthetics, while responsibility in social media cannot be effectively legislated and is the wild card in this topic.

The godfather of the sexual revolution? | BPS (https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/godfather-sexual-revolution)

The Little Red Schoolbook - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Red_Schoolbook)

[filghy2]

Kids don’t give a F about gender shit till it became a big deal with adults.

I can see why you chose your username.

[thombergeron]

...
I'm simply saying people come up with stuff to fit their narrative all the time. That includes trying to paint a certain pic of things. But you have to be careful. Cause if you don't live in areas where stuff is going on then it becomes easy to believe that nothing is happening. These stories are just some that around the country.

Literally every time you scratch a transphobe you find somebody with no comprehension of science or empiricism.

Frequently a total lack of self-awareness also.

[thombergeron]

There is a lot to unpack from this one sentence, and not enough space to debate it. I think you will agree that adults have been controlling, or trying to control children's lives in all its aspects for centuries, and that for some this is endemic in capitalist societies as well as dictatorships.
...


A couple of responses to these points:

Modern conceptions of gender are culturally imposed. Anthropologists have recorded myriad variations of gender identity throughout human history and in some modern non-western cultures. Binary gender identities are an attempt to culturally contextualize distinct physiological features, but as we can see very clearly from people experiencing gender dysphoria, it's an inadequate attempt. In fact, we have good evidence that the imposition of traditional gender norms frequently results in poorer health: https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(21)00196-8/fulltext

Also, I realize that this is going to be difficult for users of this forum to digest, but gender identity and sexual identity are two different things. Providing an accepting space for children to explore their developing identities in no way implies that they should be having sex. People who have a hard time making this very obvious distinction are creepy and should not be trusted around any children.

Finally, there are vanishingly few medical transition procedures that cannot be reversed. A study was released just today showing that transwomen who have undergone hormone therapy can restore spermatogenesis. You can count the number of 16-18 year-olds in the US each year having their gonads removed on one hand. Those kids have qualified for SRS after having already undergone years of less intrusive gender-affirming care. And at this point, gender reassignment clinics all have robust fertility preservation practices.

[ELDERGOD]

There is a lot to unpack from this one sentence, and not enough space to debate it. I think you will agree that adults have been controlling, or trying to control children's lives in all its aspects for centuries, and that for some this is endemic in capitalist societies as well as dictatorships. It may be a good thing to both warn children of the dangers of drink and drugs, and use the law to make it hard for children to access them, but with sex the battlefield is littered with the corpses of good intentions, and bad ones. Indeed, so fraught with dangers is sexuality in children most people prefer not to talk about it, while those who do, either are paedophiles or concerned with it, on the basis that there can be no 'natural' interest in child sexuality, if it involves an adult, and I think most people would agree with this.

Whether or not the interest in trans issues is new or old, I think we can at least agree that social media, which did not exist when I was a child, has and is having a significant impact on the lives young people lead, through the availability of information and images, some of which may worry parents, and cause anxiety in young people as they are uncensored, or censored, or manipulated -perhaps crucially, untrustworthy. One need only think of the material that denies the effectiveness of vaccines to get a perspective on the anarchy of ideas out there.

All I suggest is that we have been here before, whether it is the arguments from the 1930s and later, of Wilhelm Reich, or the controversy over The Little Red School Book of the 1970s, and the current maintenance mostly by elderly white men, of a code of morals that is intended to protect children, often from the sins they have themselves committed in their past, with repression and dictatorship the mode of governance on such things.

I don't have an answer that is satisfactory, other than that medical procedures that cannot be reversed need to be carefully considered before being adopted, while the concern for the anxieties being expressed by the child may need more than drugs and prosthetics, while responsibility in social media cannot be effectively legislated and is the wild card in this topic.

The godfather of the sexual revolution? | BPS (https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/godfather-sexual-revolution)

The Little Red Schoolbook - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Red_Schoolbook)

Great Post

[Stavros]

And this is a good read too, touching on some important issues.

‘A contentious place’: the inside story of Tavistock’s NHS gender identity clinic | Transgender | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jan/19/a-contentious-place-the-inside-story-of-tavistocks-nhs-gender-identity-clinic)

[MrFanti]

13-year-olds are too young to be on social media, US surgeon general says
https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Family/us-surgeon-general-13-year-olds-young-social/story?id=96763885

This IMHO complicates the issue.

[Fitzcarraldo]

13-year-olds are too young to be on social media, US surgeon general says
https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Family/us-surgeon-general-13-year-olds-young-social/story?id=96763885

This IMHO complicates the issue.

But what does Charlamagne Tha God have to say about it?

[Luke Warm]

In half the US states, a person can get married at age 16 with no parental consent. In other states you can get married that young with parental consent. Two states set the minimum age at 15.

I don’t understand how a young person can be old enough to decide to get married at 16 with no parental consent, but they are not considered old enough to decide their own gender even with parental consent?? It’s a contradiction based on bigotry, I believe.

Something else that wasn’t mentioned… telling young people that they need to “wait” before getting medical care like puberty blockers means that they will have worse outcomes from their transitions, by the time states like Florida allow them to to transition. Transitions for these people will be more expensive and more difficult because they will need more surgery to address the changes that could have been prevented. And some changes (broader shoulders etc) are impossible to correct with surgery. So the “just wait” attitude actually permanently harms the trans youth who are clear about their own gender identity, but they are being blocked by the laws in the states where they live.

I heard there are 250 anti-transition laws being proposed around the US. It’s a small amount of youths who want to transition, but their lives are being used as a political football by politicians who are trying to use them to scare the general population and score cheap political points.

I remember it was just a few years ago that the exact same voices were rallying against gay marriage, saying that gay people will want to marry their car, or marry their horse. Here’s an idea… let people determine their own paths in life, and keep the State out of their private decisions.

[Fitzcarraldo]

I heard there are 250 anti-transition laws being proposed around the US. It’s a small amount of youths who want to transition, but their lives are being used as a political football by politicians who are trying to use them to scare the general population and score cheap political points.

This. They're literally the smallest, most-vulnerable minority.

[Stavros]

I heard there are 250 anti-transition laws being proposed around the US. It’s a small amount of youths who want to transition, but their lives are being used as a political football by politicians who are trying to use them to scare the general population and score cheap political points.



Can I suggest these are no longer 'cheap political points' but fundamental to what the Republican Party now believes are essential to the survival of the USA?

But, on these fundamentals, what is found?

Truth, honesty and integrity from a party that gives House Committee positions to election deniers who actively attempted to prevent the legal transition of power from Republicans to Democrats in January 2020.

Claims to be the party of freedom and individual choice that imposes its rigid views on others, from children to adults, dictating what books are acceptable in school libraries, or not; dictating to pregnant women what the outcome of their pregnancy must be.

A party that insists it has the right to ban the free discussion of American history when that history makes it uncomfortable.

A right to life party that believes in, and practices State Executions.

A party that believes Almighty God has decreed there are only two genders, Men and Women, and any other proposal is thus, by definition a rejection of God's authority.

A party that gives firearms to lunatics to kill children, and doesn't care.

On so many fundamental issues, who does this party represent? And if it is only 30% of the general public, should their representation in the Federal and State legislatures not reflect the people's choice?

And how, ultimately, are Rights to be defined, and who has them? For Rights were, and for some still are, the foundations of the USA.