PF5
Deputy
you're kidding, right?! you cannot possibly be that naive...
The Death Spiral
- Thread starter RxCowboy
- Start date
- Status
PF5
Deputy
neither is basically calling someone a prick...but I digress...the real reason I wanted to post, is to ask why you have this fascination of a girl wandering the streets of OKC with her AR15?! LOL
Its not a "fascination". Its an example story of a girl that I saw strutting through Plaza District (near my house) with two other guys all carrying ARs on a Saturday afternoon with lots of people around. They were clearly doing it to make people uncomfortable and to "exercise their rights". Making people uncomfortable is a stupid way to advance or support your ideals among the majority of our population. It just makes you look like a moron.
I'm using the example, because I'm a big 2A supporter, but feel that such actions (strutting around with ARs in a densely populated area) do more harm than good, just like I think your meme does more harm than good for the topic at-hand.
PF5
Deputy
you mean this one?!
it was more for a cheap laugh, but I totally agree with it!! I just don't care for homophobes! That's all...
Now you have gone from misrepresenting what I said to completely making things up. If simply disagreeing with you is "being a prick" then it just goes to show "being nicer" is not effective.
Either way, I'm not interested in continuing a conversation where straw mans keep on being rolled out.
I'm saying that the meme itself is unnecessarily harmful, and people who share things like are being pricks. Being annoying isn't a great launch point for convincing people of what is good, and that's still true even of people that may feel uncomfortable with LGBTQ+. What you seem to miss is that many good and reasonable people are uncomfortable with all kinds of things in the world, because they haven't encountered them in real life. Being a prick about the issue to those people is not going to help them understand the issue.
For those familiar with and hostile towards the issue, its just going to make them even madder. Even then....what's the point of that? Why would you deliberately try to piss people off, even if you disagree with them? It just doesn't make sense to me.
Isn't calling someone a prick because of the meme they shared hostile? Why don't you approach @PF5 in a more kind way?
Maybe I should have been more kind, you're right. But I did try to understand the point in the beginning, before everyone took it down a different path.
Maybe the people trying to "provoke" a response have tried the understanding dialog path and it didn't work so now they have switched their approach. You did that in the course of a dozen posts. Imagine what it is like for people that have to deal with bigotry on daily basis.
There's no good in STARTING a conversation off by being divisive. There's no positive outcome of that. Once I stirred up the hornet's nest and triggered a few folks, it became a different situation. I'm wondering why people would feel the need to provoke responses in the first place. What good does it do? What good did it do in this scenario?
C'mon man. He posted the meme as bait. Backin82 took the bait. Then the crapshow started and here we are. Nobody's mind changed. 82 is right, the meme just made the divide even wider. Let's just agree that anyone who isn't flying the gay pride flag all month is a raging homophobe and move on.
cybercowboy
New member
Thanks for a perfect example of the death spiral.
Yes they absolutely do exist in a large part of our population. Yes they do exist in a large part of our government officials. At least 17 states have passed anti-trans/trans discriminatory bills in the last year.
I never said it’s the only way….and I never said anything about force. You continue to try to equate a meme wishing homophobes an uncomfortable month with armed conflict. Stop it. You look stupid doing that.
Your argument is wrong. Simple as that. And I’m not addressing “cartoonish extreme” oppression….that’s something you’ve made up in your own head.
- A federal judge blocked parts of Florida's new law prohibiting hormone treatments for trans minors.
- Judge Robert Hinkle said 'gender identity is real' and endorsed medical treatment for trans kids.
- The ruling is a temporary victory for civil-rights groups, but the broader law remains in effect.
Judge Robert Hinkle issued a preliminary injunction and said three transgender children could continue receiving treatment. The lawsuit challenges the law Gov. Ron DeSantis signed shortly before announcing his presidential run.
"The elephant in the room should be noted at the outset. Gender identity is real. The record makes this clear," Hinkle wrote in his ruling, adding that even a witness for the state agreed. Transgender medical treatment for minors was increasingly under attack even though it had been available for more than a decade and was endorsed by major medical associations, Hinkle said.
The law bans treatment with "GnRH agonists, known as puberty blockers, and cross-sex hormones" for minors. Hinkle wrote that the "treatments at issue are GnRH agonists, colloquially known as 'puberty blockers,' and cross-sex hormones."
"The overwhelming weight of medical authority supports treatment of transgender patients with GnRH agonists and cross-sex hormones in appropriate circumstances," Hinkle wrote. He said the plaintiffs would likely prevail as "qualified professionals have properly evaluated the children's medical conditions and needs in accordance with the well-established standards of care."
Hinkle issued a preliminary injunction against the defendants, writing that "the preliminarily enjoined parties must not take any steps to prevent the administration of GnRH agonists or cross-sex hormones" for the three children.
Hinkle said those who believed gender identity was a choice "tend to disapprove all things transgender and so oppose medical care that supports a person's transgender existence."
Banning treatment ignored risks to patients, Hinkle said. "There are risks attendant to not using these treatments, including the risk — in some instances, the near certainty — of anxiety, depression and even suicidal ideation," he wrote.
Hinkle said hormone treatments and puberty blockers were often used to treat non-transgender children, which meant that the law allowed their use for some but not others.
Hinkle said the three children in the lawsuit would "suffer irreparable harm" without treatment. Conversely, he wrote, "The treatment will affect the patients themselves, nobody else, and will cause the defendants no harm."
A spokesman for the governor's office did not immediately reply to a request for comment.
The injunction is a victory for civil-rights groups who argue the law discriminates against transgender people. But the ruling was narrowly focused on the three children, leaving the law in place for now. A trial is set for mid-2023.
Ron DeSantis loses big in court as judge issues scathing ruling on his anti-trans healthcare law: 'Gender identity is real'
Federal Judge Hinkle blocked parts of Florida's trans minor care ban, affirming "Gender identity is real," marking a temporary civil-rights victory.
So at what age do you think it would be inappropriate to start giving a child puberty blockers?A federal judge on Tuesday temporarily blocked portions of a new Florida law that bans transgender minors from receiving puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, ruling that the state had no rational basis for denying patients treatment and saying that "gender identity is real."
- A federal judge blocked parts of Florida's new law prohibiting hormone treatments for trans minors.
- Judge Robert Hinkle said 'gender identity is real' and endorsed medical treatment for trans kids.
- The ruling is a temporary victory for civil-rights groups, but the broader law remains in effect.
Judge Robert Hinkle issued a preliminary injunction and said three transgender children could continue receiving treatment. The lawsuit challenges the law Gov. Ron DeSantis signed shortly before announcing his presidential run.
"The elephant in the room should be noted at the outset. Gender identity is real. The record makes this clear," Hinkle wrote in his ruling, adding that even a witness for the state agreed. Transgender medical treatment for minors was increasingly under attack even though it had been available for more than a decade and was endorsed by major medical associations, Hinkle said.
The law bans treatment with "GnRH agonists, known as puberty blockers, and cross-sex hormones" for minors. Hinkle wrote that the "treatments at issue are GnRH agonists, colloquially known as 'puberty blockers,' and cross-sex hormones."
"The overwhelming weight of medical authority supports treatment of transgender patients with GnRH agonists and cross-sex hormones in appropriate circumstances," Hinkle wrote. He said the plaintiffs would likely prevail as "qualified professionals have properly evaluated the children's medical conditions and needs in accordance with the well-established standards of care."
Hinkle issued a preliminary injunction against the defendants, writing that "the preliminarily enjoined parties must not take any steps to prevent the administration of GnRH agonists or cross-sex hormones" for the three children.
Hinkle said those who believed gender identity was a choice "tend to disapprove all things transgender and so oppose medical care that supports a person's transgender existence."
Banning treatment ignored risks to patients, Hinkle said. "There are risks attendant to not using these treatments, including the risk — in some instances, the near certainty — of anxiety, depression and even suicidal ideation," he wrote.
Hinkle said hormone treatments and puberty blockers were often used to treat non-transgender children, which meant that the law allowed their use for some but not others.
Hinkle said the three children in the lawsuit would "suffer irreparable harm" without treatment. Conversely, he wrote, "The treatment will affect the patients themselves, nobody else, and will cause the defendants no harm."
A spokesman for the governor's office did not immediately reply to a request for comment.
The injunction is a victory for civil-rights groups who argue the law discriminates against transgender people. But the ruling was narrowly focused on the three children, leaving the law in place for now. A trial is set for mid-2023.
Ron DeSantis loses big in court as judge issues scathing ruling on his anti-trans healthcare law: 'Gender identity is real'
Federal Judge Hinkle blocked parts of Florida's trans minor care ban, affirming "Gender identity is real," marking a temporary civil-rights victory.www.yahoo.com
I'm not a doctor. I don't know.
I do know that Doctors have proven that Gender Identity issues are a VERY REAL thing and a VERY Real medical condition.
I also know that 40% of children diagnosed by a medical professional with Gender Identify issues WILL ATTEMPT Suicide.
That said, I think the Govt has zero business in this issue. It is a Medical issue between a patient and their Doctor and their Parents. Which I think the Govt has NO business being involved in that decision making process based on legit medical diagnosis and care.
A wide casting ban on this care for ALL children will result in kids attempting and some succeeding in committing suicide for not getting the medical treatment they actually need. The unintended consequences of banning all care will result in Children killing themselves.
That's a decision best left to the child, their parents, and the doctors involved.
What age you, @Polds4OSU, or anyone else thinks is appropriate is completely irrelevant to the question.
Last edited:
- Status
