Americans are nuts

Any political discussion should go here. This subforum will be moderated differently than other forums.
Forum rules
1.) No personal threats.
2.) No doxxing/revealing personal information.
3.) No spam.
4.) No circumventing press restrictions.
5.) No racism, sexism, homophobia, or derogatory posts.
Message
Author
User avatar
Jamiet99uk
Posts: 29455
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:42 pm
Location: Durham, UK
Karma: 18257
Contact:

Re: Americans are nuts

#21 Post by Jamiet99uk » Thu May 04, 2023 10:14 pm

"Daddy-daughter" balls are extremely creepy. Uuuurgh. Yuck.
There are decades where nothing happens, and there are weeks where decades happen. - Lenin.

User avatar
flash2015
Gold Donator
Gold Donator
Posts: 3200
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:55 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Karma: 1155
Contact:

Re: Americans are nuts

#22 Post by flash2015 » Fri May 05, 2023 10:34 pm

orathaic wrote:
Tue May 02, 2023 10:56 pm
A) No, evidence shows that comprehensivd sex education leads to lower rates of unwanted pregnancy in teens and lower rates of sexual activity in general.

We have multiple countries worth of evidence for this.
You didn't answer my question but answered a different one (for example perhaps we could have discussed the library book issue). I didn't explicitly ask about sex education.

For now let's go with your sex ed narrative. There is sex education and there is sex education. Largely we don't want adolescents having sex. Sex education is a harm minimization strategy which should teach:
- Sexual reproduction
- Contraception...for avoiding teenage pregnancy
- STDs
- Identifying and avoiding sexual predators/sexual assault.
- Mutual consent
- In government schools, it should be as ideologically balanced as possible, presenting different ideas about sexual morality/ideology but not promoting any specific one. The ideology that sex is primarily for procreation as part of marriage is just as valid as the ideology that believes that sex is about personal satisfaction and empowerment.

I believe that the concern from conservatives here is that this is not ideologically balanced, that specific ideological agendas are being pushed in the classroom which conflicts with parental wishes. I believe that is a valid complaint.
B) the evidence i would call for is that LGBTQ+ folks are discriminated against and lack of education and representation in our culture is had for them. The best approach to reduce stigma is early exposure. Whether it is Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, or BIPoC in the Western World, your children are less likely to become bigots and propogate the bullying which results in higher suicide rates when the go to school with and make friends with people from a diversity of backgrounds.
You are right that LGBTQ+ people have been historically discriminated against and that may explain some of the increase. But just because it may explain some of it you can't just assume it explains all of it. If you look at figures for people identifying as LGBTQ across generations in the US we see the rate doubling roughly with each generation. The traditionalists ~1%, baby boomers around ~2%, Gex X 4%, Millenials 10% and Gen Z > 20%. The rate of increase is so steep that Bill Maher joked that "By 2040 everyone will be gay". This is not something you can just wave away.

The more concerning one is the rise in transgenderism as that can involve irreversible medical interventions. The rate of trangenderism in adults is 0.6%, but in children it has been rising rapidly, now roughly 1.4% in the US with some states having up to 3% of kids identify as transgender (one of those states being NY). There are stories of multiple kids in the same class identifying as transgender. Rapid rises in kids on puberty blockers/hormones. Given the stakes we should be careful we don't screw this up. We shouldn't be stifling debate here.
Being gay is not a choice, if it is, then i would like you to choose to be gay right now, for the next year. Just as an experiment.
Are you saying sexual preference is perfectly binary?? That you are either heterosexual or gay and there is no one that could possibly be anywhere in between? That NONE of the 20% of the youngest generation that now identify as gay could not possibly be happy in a heterosexual relationship?

If this is so clear and it being so important shouldn't we be seeing clear evidence in the rates of life satisfaction rising? Suicides dropping?

Again, this is a big point of ideological contention specifically for trans youth. If you believe that once that a child asserts they are trans that this must be 100% true, then anyone that gets in the way must be a bad person. With this ideology, it makes sense for schools to hide this info from parents (they could get in the way!). For those that don't ascribe to this ideology, this is a BIG deal.

User avatar
orathaic
Bronze Donator
Bronze Donator
Posts: 1537
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:20 pm
Karma: 394
Contact:

Re: Americans are nuts

#23 Post by orathaic » Sat May 06, 2023 10:34 am

flash2015 wrote:
Fri May 05, 2023 10:34 pm
orathaic wrote:
Tue May 02, 2023 10:56 pm
A) No, evidence shows that comprehensivd sex education leads to lower rates of unwanted pregnancy in teens and lower rates of sexual activity in general.

We have multiple countries worth of evidence for this.
You didn't answer my question but answered a different one (for example perhaps we could have discussed the library book issue). I didn't explicitly ask about sex education.
I am adressing the idea that not talking about sex or censoring it in all educational contexts is actually any benefit to the children. The evidence shows that places which have a comprehensivd sex ed program get what are considered positive results. (Of course people being in control of their own fertility, including able to use contraceptive is not considered a positive by the Catholic church, and likely a number of other more conservative churches).

Maybe simply mentioning sex, or showing a piece of art with a penis, or a goat fucking creature would have some negative potential consequences in the absence of a comprehensive educational programme. But put everything in that context and suddenly you don't have to worry about one piece of classical art as if it was the same as pornography.
For now let's go with your sex ed narrative. There is sex education and there is sex education. Largely we don't want adolescents having sex. Sex education is a harm minimization strategy which should teach:
- Sexual reproduction
- Contraception...for avoiding teenage pregnancy
- STDs
- Identifying and avoiding sexual predators/sexual assault.
- Mutual consent
- In government schools, it should be as ideologically balanced as possible, presenting different ideas about sexual morality/ideology but not promoting any specific one. The ideology that sex is primarily for procreation as part of marriage is just as valid as the ideology that believes that sex is about personal satisfaction and empowerment.

I believe that the concern from conservatives here is that this is not ideologically balanced, that specific ideological agendas are being pushed in the classroom which conflicts with parental wishes. I believe that is a valid complaint.
I do not believe balance is required. The public needs a consensus but what conservative religious groups want is Dominion, their religious views dominating all aspects of life, educational to governmental, they have a clearly stated goal and this wedge issue is about establishing a Theocracy, which is not compatible with democracy.
B) the evidence i would call for is that LGBTQ+ folks are discriminated against and lack of education and representation in our culture is had for them. The best approach to reduce stigma is early exposure. Whether it is Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, or BIPoC in the Western World, your children are less likely to become bigots and propogate the bullying which results in higher suicide rates when the go to school with and make friends with people from a diversity of backgrounds.
You are right that LGBTQ+ people have been historically discriminated against and that may explain some of the increase. But just because it may explain some of it you can't just assume it explains all of it. If you look at figures for people identifying as LGBTQ across generations in the US we see the rate doubling roughly with each generation. The traditionalists ~1%, baby boomers around ~2%, Gex X 4%, Millenials 10% and Gen Z > 20%. The rate of increase is so steep that Bill Maher joked that "By 2040 everyone will be gay". This is not something you can just wave away.

The more concerning one is the rise in transgenderism as that can involve irreversible medical interventions. The rate of trangenderism in adults is 0.6%, but in children it has been rising rapidly, now roughly 1.4% in the US with some states having up to 3% of kids identify as transgender (one of those states being NY). There are stories of multiple kids in the same class identifying as transgender. Rapid rises in kids on puberty blockers/hormones. Given the stakes we should be careful we don't screw this up. We shouldn't be stifling debate here.
[/quote]
I doubt that many of those figures are anything like accurate. In fact as i have grown up more and more of my adult peers have come out as LGBT+ as it has become more normalised (Ireland voted for marriage equality in ~2018, when most of my peers we're in there mid 30s, so the % out increased, but the total % has not changed).

But neither of us seems to have systematic research to backup our positions.

However, even if you are correct. Who cares? If people are happy and Bill Maher is right, at least 2040s people will be happy.

Trans health care is an issue for patients and their doctors. Not a matter for public debate. They exist whether you decide to debate their existence or not.

Austin diagnosis rates have also massively increased (i wasn't diagnoised until i always 29) and that is going to massively help folks live better lives rather than the opposite.
Being gay is not a choice, if it is, then i would like you to choose to be gay right now, for the next year. Just as an experiment.
Are you saying sexual preference is perfectly binary?? That you are either heterosexual or gay and there is no one that could possibly be anywhere in between? That NONE of the 20% of the youngest generation that now identify as gay could not possibly be happy in a heterosexual relationship?
[/quote]
I said nothing at all to suggest sexual preference is binary.
If this is so clear and it being so important shouldn't we be seeing clear evidence in the rates of life satisfaction rising? Suicides dropping?

Again, this is a big point of ideological contention specifically for trans youth. If you believe that once that a child asserts they are trans that this must be 100% true, then anyone that gets in the way must be a bad person. With this ideology, it makes sense for schools to hide this info from parents (they could get in the way!). For those that don't ascribe to this ideology, this is a BIG deal.
I never suggested a child must know 100% that they are trans. But it costs nothing to allow a prepubescent child to socially transition, to use a gender neutral name or let them explore their gender presentation.

Likewise , puberty blockers can delay the onset of puberty so children don't have to undergo irreversable changes to their bodies. Giving them time to decide for themselves. The fact that most people who go on puberty blockers end up on hrt and transitioning in adult life is liekly a sign of how unusual it is for puberty blockers to be prescribed, and how careful doctors are before prescribing. Again, i can only speak to my experiences in Ireland, but the medical establishment is very conservative (small C) in prescribing, i know friends who have been ón hrt for years who have been refused a prescription because they were not deemed 'trans enough'.

This idea that doctors are pushing more people to transition is weirdlynalien to me.
1

User avatar
Jamiet99uk
Posts: 29455
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:42 pm
Location: Durham, UK
Karma: 18257
Contact:

Re: Americans are nuts

#24 Post by Jamiet99uk » Sun May 14, 2023 7:17 pm

My personal view is that the majority of people are bisexual, its just that a lot of them don't realise, or aren't willing to admit it.
There are decades where nothing happens, and there are weeks where decades happen. - Lenin.

Octavious
Posts: 3844
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:16 pm
Location: The Five Valleys, Gloucestershire
Karma: 2605
Contact:

Re: Americans are nuts

#25 Post by Octavious » Mon May 15, 2023 6:59 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote:
Sun May 14, 2023 7:17 pm
My personal view is that the majority of people are bisexual, its just that a lot of them don't realise, or aren't willing to admit it.
I suspect that there may be an element of truth in this. But I also suspect that the majority of bisexuals will have a more satisfying and enriching life if they live it predominantly or totally straight
I eat cookies to improve my snacking experience

User avatar
Jamiet99uk
Posts: 29455
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:42 pm
Location: Durham, UK
Karma: 18257
Contact:

Re: Americans are nuts

#26 Post by Jamiet99uk » Mon May 15, 2023 7:21 pm

Octavious wrote:
Mon May 15, 2023 6:59 pm
Jamiet99uk wrote:
Sun May 14, 2023 7:17 pm
My personal view is that the majority of people are bisexual, its just that a lot of them don't realise, or aren't willing to admit it.
I suspect that there may be an element of truth in this. But I also suspect that the majority of bisexuals will have a more satisfying and enriching life if they live it predominantly or totally straight
Why do you think that?
There are decades where nothing happens, and there are weeks where decades happen. - Lenin.

Octavious
Posts: 3844
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:16 pm
Location: The Five Valleys, Gloucestershire
Karma: 2605
Contact:

Re: Americans are nuts

#27 Post by Octavious » Mon May 15, 2023 8:31 pm

Being something of an old romantic, I am firmly wedded to the belief that people are better off in monogamous long term relationships.

The difference between a bisexual person in such a relationship with someone of the opposite sex and a straight person is essentially none, much as the difference between a bisexual person in such a relationship with someone of the same sex and a gay person is essentially none. So it is fair to say that bisexuality only has significant meaning when the bisexual is in a period of flux, as far as relationships go.

And obviously straight couples have a massive advantage over gay couples when it comes to having a family. It's certainly possible for gay couples these days, but not without overcoming significant hurdles.

I don't believe in notions such as love at first sight, or the ridiculous idea that there's a single soul mate for you in the universe. Love is real but it has to grow. So it seems that a bisexual who focuses their efforts on people of the opposite sex will likely have as much luck finding a long term love as if they focused on both sexes, and a different sex couple has the aforementioned family advantages.

Obviously for people who are looking past a certain age for whatever reason these advantages no longer apply and it doesn't make a blind bit of difference, and similar might be argued for younger folk who aren't yet interested in anything long term.
I eat cookies to improve my snacking experience

User avatar
orathaic
Bronze Donator
Bronze Donator
Posts: 1537
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:20 pm
Karma: 394
Contact:

Re: Americans are nuts

#28 Post by orathaic » Tue May 16, 2023 10:47 am

Interesting that you would assume monogamous relationships make ppl better off.

Do you mean socially, financially, emotionally or spiritually?

Because i would doubt that a majority of humans are inherently (ie biologically programmed to be) monogamous. Cheating exists and has always existed as long as we have expected monogamy.

And i would argue that cheating is actually bad. Both socially and emotionally. It is only required in a society which romanticises monogamy and presumed this is the default (otherwise such extra-marrital affairs could be just that, affairs without blame or wrong doing).

Octavious
Posts: 3844
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:16 pm
Location: The Five Valleys, Gloucestershire
Karma: 2605
Contact:

Re: Americans are nuts

#29 Post by Octavious » Tue May 16, 2023 1:26 pm

Ora, virtually every successful modern society has valued monogamous relationships. Even if you disregard the clear survival of the fittest evidence, it is obvious enough from first principles. To raise a family requires stability, and in a non-monogamous relationship that is far harder to achieve. People have favorites, and with that comes jealousy and betrayal and pain. The ideal of monogamy is a single significant partner for life, but where that fails (and humans are only human) monogamy dishes out blame which eases the pain. If a monogamous wife in cheated on by her husband she is given sympathy and her husband condemnation. In a non-monogamous system a favoured wife is expected to just accept falling out of favour, smile, and get on with it. All the powerful emotions are still there, but no sense of justice, no sense of fairness.

So what is your preference for relationships, ora? And how does that compare to how you actually live?
1
I eat cookies to improve my snacking experience

User avatar
flash2015
Gold Donator
Gold Donator
Posts: 3200
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:55 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Karma: 1155
Contact:

Re: Americans are nuts

#30 Post by flash2015 » Tue May 16, 2023 3:26 pm

First part of the response
orathaic wrote:
Sat May 06, 2023 10:34 am
I am adressing the idea that not talking about sex or censoring it in all educational contexts is actually any benefit to the children. The evidence shows that places which have a comprehensivd sex ed program get what are considered positive results. (Of course people being in control of their own fertility, including able to use contraceptive is not considered a positive by the Catholic church, and likely a number of other more conservative churches).

Maybe simply mentioning sex, or showing a piece of art with a penis, or a goat fucking creature would have some negative potential consequences in the absence of a comprehensive educational programme. But put everything in that context and suddenly you don't have to worry about one piece of classical art as if it was the same as pornography.
You have created a strawman, a caricature here. There may be some small minority of people that don't want sex at all mentioned in an education context but most people are not arguing this, I am certainly not arguing this.

Almost all teens receive some form of sex ed (and most parents support some form of sex ed taught in schools):

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db44.htm

Here is a real example of a conservative concern, not the strawman you have created: https://www.tuscaloosanews.com/story/op ... 169401007/
I do not believe balance is required. The public needs a consensus but what conservative religious groups want is Dominion, their religious views dominating all aspects of life, educational to governmental, they have a clearly stated goal and this wedge issue is about establishing a Theocracy, which is not compatible with democracy.
So you rightly point out that indoctrination is bad...and there have been fights going back decades over it (e.g. prayer in school debate).

But then go on to argue since religious indoctrination is bad it is OK if we do indoctrination.

You don't see the hypocrisy in this "its OK if we do it" argument? I know you believe it is OK because you are right...but the religious extremists also believe they are right too.

User avatar
flash2015
Gold Donator
Gold Donator
Posts: 3200
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:55 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Karma: 1155
Contact:

Re: Americans are nuts

#31 Post by flash2015 » Tue May 16, 2023 4:54 pm

Part two:
orathaic wrote:
Sat May 06, 2023 10:34 am
I doubt that many of those figures are anything like accurate. In fact as i have grown up more and more of my adult peers have come out as LGBT+ as it has become more normalised (Ireland voted for marriage equality in ~2018, when most of my peers we're in there mid 30s, so the % out increased, but the total % has not changed).
The numbers come from here:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/389792/lgb ... ks-up.aspx
But neither of us seems to have systematic research to backup our positions.
So you are telling me you have absolutely none no research then? You have nothing to backup your position? How are you even coming to your position then?

I have looked for this population level data and haven't found anything that suggests we are actually improving mental health. If anything suicide rates are going up:

https://health.ucdavis.edu/news/headlin ... gh/2021/04
However, even if you are correct. Who cares? If people are happy and Bill Maher is right, at least 2040s people will be happy.
Who cares? At a personal level I don't care. Whatever floats your boat.

But at a society level we certainly do care. If a society doesn't have children, that society disappears.

Child birth rates fell below replacement a while ago and continue to fall. We have known this problem coming for at least a couple of decades. The former Australian treasurer Peter Costello said families should have "one child for the father, one for the mother and one for the country".

Demographics decline will start having big effects this decade. The French pension protests are only the first skirmish. Some countries already are well and truly f*** (e.g. Germany). Peter Zeihan's thesis is all about how demographic decline will reshape the world.
Trans health care is an issue for patients and their doctors. Not a matter for public debate. They exist whether you decide to debate their existence or not.

Austin diagnosis rates have also massively increased (i wasn't diagnoised until i always 29) and that is going to massively help folks live better lives rather than the opposite.
The idea that "health care is just an issue between patients and doctors" is of course nonsense. Medical associations and the government have a duty to ensure that doctors are actually providing care that is beneficial and does not cause harm. Governments around the world are also some of the largest funders of medical care and have a duty to ensure that these funds are used efficiently. Medical interventions are debated all the time. Trans health care should be treated no different than any other medical intervention.

I am not sure who you are referring to when you are saying "They exist whether you decide to debate their existence or not". You are creating a strawman here. I am certainly not saying that.
I said nothing at all to suggest sexual preference is binary.
You said "Being gay is not a choice". It seemed pretty clear that was what you were saying...but if you are backing away from that assertion now that is fine.
I never suggested a child must know 100% that they are trans. But it costs nothing to allow a prepubescent child to socially transition, to use a gender neutral name or let them explore their gender presentation.
You say that it "costs nothing"...but this is an incredibly serious matter with potentially life changing consequences if followed through to its conclusion (hormones + surgery). We shouldn't be encouraging **any** social transitioning without the family AND medical mental health professionals being involved.

This is a big point of debate here. In the US, many schools are socially transitioning children (with no medical professional involvement) and keeping this from parents. This is causing OUTRAGE...and I believe it is justified.

I can understand potentially keeping this information from parents if there is actual evidence of past abuse. Outside of these extenuating circumstances it is incredibly wrong what schools are doing.

User avatar
flash2015
Gold Donator
Gold Donator
Posts: 3200
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:55 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Karma: 1155
Contact:

Re: Americans are nuts

#32 Post by flash2015 » Tue May 16, 2023 5:43 pm

orathaic wrote:
Sat May 06, 2023 10:34 am
Likewise , puberty blockers can delay the onset of puberty so children don't have to undergo irreversable changes to their bodies. Giving them time to decide for themselves. The fact that most people who go on puberty blockers end up on hrt and transitioning in adult life is liekly a sign of how unusual it is for puberty blockers to be prescribed, and how careful doctors are before prescribing. Again, i can only speak to my experiences in Ireland, but the medical establishment is very conservative (small C) in prescribing, i know friends who have been ón hrt for years who have been refused a prescription because they were not deemed 'trans enough'.

This idea that doctors are pushing more people to transition is weirdlynalien to me.
Your framing of puberty vs. puberty blockers is activist propaganda. Puberty is a fundamental stage in any human's life which leads to sexual maturity. Blocking this is an incredibly drastic step which should only be taken in the most extreme of circumstances.

I understand the logic of trying to block puberty. If it is believed that a child is truly trans, it logically makes sense that if interventions are started before puberty it will make it more likely that the person will be passable as the opposite gender. But it has purely massive implications like loss of fertility, never being able to reach orgasm...and likely many other side effects that we don't fully understand yet (e.g. like the permanent loss of bone density).

Puberty blocker and hormone therapy for kids has more than doubled in the last five years in the US...so at least in the US it isn't as "rare" as you claim:

https://abcnews4.com/news/nation-world/ ... -data-says

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/sp ... outh-data/

I think what you are missing here is that there are big differences in the guardrails here for this type of treatment in Europe vs the US. European countries and the UK have increased the guardrails for trans medical interventions for children (especially after scandals like Tavistock) while the US has not. I am not sure who has the right guardrails for this treatment, but we should be discussing this MORE rather than less. Activists in the US actively try and shut down all debate on the topic...even in media which is highly sympathetic to their cause (e.g. the NYT).

User avatar
orathaic
Bronze Donator
Bronze Donator
Posts: 1537
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:20 pm
Karma: 394
Contact:

Re: Americans are nuts

#33 Post by orathaic » Tue May 16, 2023 5:46 pm

flash2015 wrote:
Tue May 16, 2023 4:54 pm
I said nothing at all to suggest sexual preference is binary.
You said "Being gay is not a choice". It seemed pretty clear that was what you were saying...but if you are backing away from that assertion now that is fine.
Sorry, being gay is not a choice. What does that have to do with sexual preference being a binary?

You seem to be making to background assumptions about my thinking.

User avatar
orathaic
Bronze Donator
Bronze Donator
Posts: 1537
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:20 pm
Karma: 394
Contact:

Re: Americans are nuts

#34 Post by orathaic » Tue May 16, 2023 5:53 pm

flash2015 wrote:
Tue May 16, 2023 5:43 pm
orathaic wrote:
Sat May 06, 2023 10:34 am
Likewise , puberty blockers can delay the onset of puberty so children don't have to undergo irreversable changes to their bodies. Giving them time to decide for themselves. The fact that most people who go on puberty blockers end up on hrt and transitioning in adult life is liekly a sign of how unusual it is for puberty blockers to be prescribed, and how careful doctors are before prescribing. Again, i can only speak to my experiences in Ireland, but the medical establishment is very conservative (small C) in prescribing, i know friends who have been ón hrt for years who have been refused a prescription because they were not deemed 'trans enough'.

This idea that doctors are pushing more people to transition is weirdlynalien to me.
Your framing of puberty vs. puberty blockers is activist propaganda. Puberty is a fundamental stage in any human's life which leads to sexual maturity. Blocking this is an incredibly drastic step which should only be taken in the most extreme of circumstances.

I understand the logic of trying to block puberty. If it is believed that a child is truly trans, it logically makes sense that if interventions are started before puberty it will make it more likely that the person will be passable as the opposite gender. But it has purely massive implications like loss of fertility, never being able to reach orgasm...and likely many other side effects that we don't fully understand yet (e.g. like the permanent loss of bone density).

Puberty blocker and hormone therapy for kids has more than doubled in the last five years in the US...so at least in the US it isn't as "rare" as you claim:

https://abcnews4.com/news/nation-world/ ... -data-says

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/sp ... outh-data/
Rare, like did you just reference about 15,000 people out of 40 million?

That is incredibly rare. Doubling from a tiny number to another tiny number still remains rare, even if you decide to take the provocative title and not mention the absolute numbers in the exact data you are referencing.

User avatar
flash2015
Gold Donator
Gold Donator
Posts: 3200
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:55 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Karma: 1155
Contact:

Re: Americans are nuts

#35 Post by flash2015 » Tue May 16, 2023 6:51 pm

orathaic wrote:
Tue May 16, 2023 5:46 pm
flash2015 wrote:
Tue May 16, 2023 4:54 pm
I said nothing at all to suggest sexual preference is binary.
You said "Being gay is not a choice". It seemed pretty clear that was what you were saying...but if you are backing away from that assertion now that is fine.
Sorry, being gay is not a choice. What does that have to do with sexual preference being a binary?

You seem to be making to background assumptions about my thinking.
If you are saying that being gay is not a choice for anybody, then yes you are saying it is binary. You either are or you aren't == binary.

User avatar
flash2015
Gold Donator
Gold Donator
Posts: 3200
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:55 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Karma: 1155
Contact:

Re: Americans are nuts

#36 Post by flash2015 » Tue May 16, 2023 6:53 pm

orathaic wrote:
Tue May 16, 2023 5:53 pm
Rare, like did you just reference about 15,000 people out of 40 million?

That is incredibly rare. Doubling from a tiny number to another tiny number still remains rare, even if you decide to take the provocative title and not mention the absolute numbers in the exact data you are referencing.
Define "rare" then. When does it become not "rare"?

So are you trying to say "nothing to see here"?

User avatar
flash2015
Gold Donator
Gold Donator
Posts: 3200
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:55 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Karma: 1155
Contact:

Re: Americans are nuts

#37 Post by flash2015 » Tue May 16, 2023 6:58 pm

And it tells you in the article that these numbers are likely undercounted:

"This tally and others in the Komodo analysis are likely an undercount because they didn’t include treatment that wasn’t covered by insurance and were limited to pediatric patients with a gender dysphoria diagnosis. Practitioners may not log this diagnosis when prescribing treatment."

User avatar
orathaic
Bronze Donator
Bronze Donator
Posts: 1537
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:20 pm
Karma: 394
Contact:

Re: Americans are nuts

#38 Post by orathaic » Tue May 16, 2023 10:47 pm

flash2015 wrote:
Tue May 16, 2023 6:51 pm
orathaic wrote:
Tue May 16, 2023 5:46 pm
flash2015 wrote:
Tue May 16, 2023 4:54 pm


You said "Being gay is not a choice". It seemed pretty clear that was what you were saying...but if you are backing away from that assertion now that is fine.
Sorry, being gay is not a choice. What does that have to do with sexual preference being a binary?

You seem to be making to background assumptions about my thinking.
If you are saying that being gay is not a choice for anybody, then yes you are saying it is binary. You either are or you aren't == binary.
First, no, sexuality can change over time, but not by choice, you can't simply choose to be gay. But that doesn't mean it isn't a spectrum.

It also isn't binary in the sense that you are either gay or not gay. And those are the only possible ways to be born, there is (as with most things in biology) a lot of diversity. There is an asexuality spectrum, gray ace and demi-sexual folks, aswell as a romance/sexual attraction divide (some people are bi-romantic asexuals, or homo-romantic bi-sexual... Or a whole host of other possible configurations of the biology of attraction).

So no, on multiple counts.

User avatar
orathaic
Bronze Donator
Bronze Donator
Posts: 1537
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:20 pm
Karma: 394
Contact:

Re: Americans are nuts

#39 Post by orathaic » Tue May 16, 2023 10:49 pm

flash2015 wrote:
Tue May 16, 2023 6:58 pm
And it tells you in the article that these numbers are likely undercounted:

"This tally and others in the Komodo analysis are likely an undercount because they didn’t include treatment that wasn’t covered by insurance and were limited to pediatric patients with a gender dysphoria diagnosis. Practitioners may not log this diagnosis when prescribing treatment."
Being red headed is also rare. But even with under counting, that doesn't amount to a close to 40% population coming out when 1-2% of the population as trans seems to be the upper limit. Being that red hair is also ~1% of the population... This seems rare. But just because it isn't common doesn't mean we should make people's lives worse by allowing discrimination to continue.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 80 guests