Charlamagne Tha God rejects activists using ‘transphobic’ label

[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/st...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/sho...-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/w...tions-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/gov...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-t...d-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

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/st...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.