House committee in Florida passes 'Don't Say Gay' bill

No, it's not overwhelmingly supported by evidence. It's overwhelming supported by the only information you are willing to listen to. Ignoring all the other evidence that would disagree with you, pretending it doesn't exist, then claiming all the evidence overwhelmingly supports you is disingenuous, and shows you to live in a self induced vacuum. Science does not, has not, never, and never will fully support the narrative. Making it so you cannot hear the ones that don't isn't the same thing as them approving of and agreeing with it.

And there is no such thing as "scientific consensus" anywhere in any field. Your efforts into studying any field of science begin and end with what you read from places like Washington Post.

Have you read ANY academic papers on this?

Several, and I do not limit myself to an echo chamber. I also have a degree in mechanical engineering, minored in biology, and put about a dozen hours per week studying more on the topics of paleontology, anthropology, evolution, language, culture, and astronomy. And currently work in electronics and programming.

But you are an extremely intellectually disingenuous individual. Whenever a discussion or conversation isn't going your way, you use the same appeal to authority argument to try to shut it down. The claim that all science believes a certain thing is in it's very nature anti science. It almost ALWAYS gets paired with the "no true Scot" fallacy as well to continue to pretend science is this sort of monolith that you can continue to worship and pretend your ideologies are actually based in something more altruistic than they really are. I'm starting to think some of you truly would have a psychotic breakdown if you ever allowed yourself to realize you're no less intolerant to opposing viewpoints than the staunchest bible thumper.

Every time you make that fallacy of yours, I know it's because you're in over your head on the discussion, and you need that appeal to authority to shut it down. The very nature of science is that it can be, is, and always will be challenged and question. No field of science ever deals in absolutes. There's no hierarchy, or monarchy dictating what is truth. Maybe you should use some of that free college to actually pick a field of interest, and get involved. Stop waiting for Washington post to tell you what to think.

Watching youtube does not count as academic papers...

Also, you clearly do not know what scientific consensus means, based on that comment. Scientific consensus doesnt mean unanimous acceptance. But it means what is generally accepted by experts in their relevant field. Because we are discussing linguistics and language in this case. That is why I am using the scientific consensus.

Seriously, if they werent valid, there wouldnt be piles of papers written about them that pass peer review.

But yes, I am sure Eoten, the guy who flat out went on a tirade against peer review and evidence based policy is a pro-science individual... not.

If you were paying attention to my argument, you would realize the reason I use scientific consensus in this case because we are discussing systems of classification and description. These systems ONLY work if everyone is speaking the same language, otherwise they fall apart.

Several, and I do not limit myself to an echo chamber. I also have a degree in mechanical engineering, minored in biology, and put about a dozen hours per week studying more on the topics of paleontology, anthropology, evolution, language, culture, and astronomy. And currently work in electronics and programming.

I have no words. :D

Watching Youtube? ROFLMAO. Yeah, anyone who disagrees with your narrative must be watching Youtube and nobody on Youtube has any facts because only politicized tribalist media owned by billionaires are credible sources of information, right? If you're not backed by a Bezos or a Zucker you can't possibly have anything valid to say.

Does that sound about right to you?

And propaganda reviewed by their peers at a corporate funded agency is no less bullshit. I mean for **** sake, recent polls showed over 40% of people identifying as being Democrat actually believed half of people who catch Covid end up in the hospital. Must be all that peer reviewed fact based science you're getting courtesy of your chosen media outlets that hasn't all been filtered through the lens of corporate interests.

In case anyone is curious about my positions, this is just one of the many papers I base my view expressed in this thread on,

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328057475_Untangling_the_Gordian_Knot_of_Human_Sexuality_What_Is_the_Biologic_Basis_of_Variations_in_Sexual_Phenotype

With this being one of the most notable quotes

“The view that the world’s population can be separated into a clearly defined dyadic unit of male and female is defunct; not only clinical observations, but molecular biology has established that sexual identity is on a continuum, with an enormous potential for variance”

Given the huge variance between individuals even within the same species, not even the gamette definition to define sex is nowhere near as objective as people might like to think. Because gender identity tends has far less variations, and far fewer ifs and buts. I would argue it is the superior choice for defining a man and woman. Far more consistant too.

Needless to say, given that schools should teach medically accurate information. And the fact that the binary model people used to define men and women with clearly isnt working. I say sex ed class to reflect that. One of the most interesting cases found in biology is found in some flies, where there are 3 males with 3 different gamete sizes, with one of the gametes even being larger than the female gametes.

Edit: xD Now that you had your little tirade against the peer review process again, why dont you go on another rant against evidence based policy making? I can't find your old post, so it would be nice to have a new rant of yours to provide me with the lulz.

You ranting about political tribalism is extremely rich. Its almost like you have no introspection. And why do you keep bringing up the media when I am CLEARLY talking about Academic papers? No one here is citing the media.

Tell me, how many papers have you read that make the counter point? Post some, I'd like to read them.

@Maroxad:Given the huge variance between individuals even within the same species, not even the gamette definition to define sex is nowhere near as objective as people might like to think. Because gender identity tends has far less variations, and far fewer ifs and buts. I would argue it is the superior choice for defining a man and woman. Far more consistant too.

A bit confused by the bolded. Unless you're saying there are only 3 gender identities, man, woman, or non-binary?

According to many activists, there are more than 100 gender identities, which would far exceed the options for human sexual dimorphism such as male, female, and those with intersex conditions. Which, by the way can still be classified by gametes. Those with Klinefelter syndrome (XXY) for example is not a third sex, as they can still produce small gametes, etc. Funny enough, I know a guy with this very condition, and he REALLY hates being cited as proof of the existence of more than 2 sexes.

Thankfully, Sex Reassignment Surgery exists. Thanks to some very advanced scientific procedures.

Which, regardless of the name, doesn't actually change someone's sex, but merely alters the appearance of secondary sex characteristics.

As far as medicine is concerned, I would strongly disagree with your assertion that gender identity is the more useful piece of information.

While not common yet, scenarios like the following can, and do happen, because even health care professionals in some places can be labelled as "bigot" or "transphobe" for not respecting the answer they are given to the "what is your sex?" question on a medical form. Even if it's completely obvious.

A trans woman is able to schedule a pregnancy test/ultrasound, because they list their gender identity as female/woman.

A trans woman who has had bottom surgery complains of bleeding, and is convinced it's a menstrual cycle.

There are no conditions out there that affect only those of a certain "gender identity", but there most certainly ARE conditions that only affect males, or those that only affect females.

You may counter with "well, listing one's gender identity as a trans woman could let them know about what hormones you may be taking". Which would be valid, except we've always been asked to disclose whatever medications one is on, if not already known to the doctor.

@HoolaHoopMan

It's just more bullsh*t from the evangelical right. They can't use any academia to bolster their arguments. It always boils down to the same old bigoted common denominator.

Are you claiming it's only the "evangelical right" who is opposed to this sort of stuff being taught in schools?

Not that I'll get an answer from the right on this question but what exactly is being taught and where.

WTF!? LMAO! Please be trolling!

And all this because Oxford Dictionary, a source a conservative here used earlier, said otherwise. 🤣 Sex and Gender are different, are children in FL to believe dictionaries are wrong? No wonder Trump's base is one of the lowest educated in history.

He hasn't read any academic papers on anything. He's wrong on the biggest sciences topics.

We can both agree that those activists who insist on 100+ genders are crackpots. It is a model that is effectively useless.

I merely suggest we go by the model popular among sexologists today. Which does not look like the one activists hold.

Which, regardless of the name, doesn't actually change someone's sex, but merely alters the appearance of secondary sex characteristics.

As far as medicine is concerned, I would strongly disagree with your assertion that gender identity is the more useful piece of information.

While not common yet, scenarios like the following can, and do happen, because even health care professionals in some places can be labelled as "bigot" or "transphobe" for not respecting the answer they are given to the "what is your sex?" question on a medical form. Even if it's completely obvious.

A trans woman is able to schedule a pregnancy test/ultrasound, because they list their gender identity as female/woman.

A trans woman who has had bottom surgery complains of bleeding, and is convinced it's a menstrual cycle.

There are no conditions out there that affect only those of a certain "gender identity", but there most certainly ARE conditions that only affect males, or those that only affect females.

You may counter with "well, listing one's gender identity as a trans woman could let them know about what hormones you may be taking". Which would be valid, except we've always been asked to disclose whatever medications one is on, if not already known to the doctor.

It changes their sexual characteristics to the extent that it far more closely resembles the sex it is meant to resemble than the sex they transitioned from.

To which point it is fair to call it what it is.

You are taking niche applications and applying to day to day situations. A transwoman being a woman is far more relevant to day to day situations than the occational visit to the hospital.

@Maroxad: "It changes their sexual characteristics to the extent that it far more closely resembles the sex it is meant to resemble than the sex they transitioned from."

Thanks for that, so you do understand that a transwoman isn't a real woman, see it wasn't that hard.

@Maroxad:You are taking niche applications and applying to day to day situations. A transwoman being a woman is far more relevant to day to day situations than the occational visit to the hospital.

I guess we'll agree to disagree on this one. When "TWAW" is taken seriously, it directly impacts the following:

Women's sports/scholarships

Safety of Women's prisons

Women's rape crisis shelters

Women's change rooms/bathrooms

Crime statistics, as some law enforcement agencies are now recording crimes committed by trans women as crimes committed by women. When in reality, many crimes have a very clear pattern based on biological sex, rather than gender identity. Now, if a police precinct were to record gender as "trans woman" instead, I think that would be fine, because that conveys both a gender identity, AND biological sex with one term.

Some are even describing suspects based on their chosen gender identity only. Which works out great for any male trying to escape justice when nobody is actually looking for a male.

@Maroxad:I get your passion for this subject but my problem with the current set up is that in some instances it's unfair to biological women. Women as we know still face an uphill battle in some quarters based on their sex. In fairness to everyone we need to pump our brakes a bit and come up with fair and equitable solutions for everyone. I personally don't care what people want to identify with. That's fine. But we can't go too far that we hurt others.

Also is anyone else having problems the last two days with posting in the forums?

In mathematical terms, a woman is a union of Ciswomen and transwomen.

Your No True Scottsman fallacy does not apply.

It already is taken seriously in Academic circles. And what goes on is academic circles is what we should teach.

And a good chunk of those already happen. Transwomen are already in women's sports and have been in for a long while. Transwomen are sent to female prisons nadh ave been for a long while. Gendered bathrooms are not even a thing over here, and in many cases in the US, transmen and women already go to the bathroom of the gender they identify as. Same with changing rooms over here.

What you are seeing is not transmen and women pushing for the right to go to the bathroom of the gender they identify as. No, what you are seeing is republicans, using the culture wars, to farm votes. This time, by pushing for restrictive, punitive laws targeted at transmen and women.

Yes, posting in this forum has been extremely frustrating as of late. Really glitchy.

All I am arguing for is that schools should teach what is accepted in academic circles. Which the validity of transgender people is.

Sex ed should cover medical health, which includes psychiatry.

@Maroxad: "a woman is a union of Ciswomen and transwomen."

🤣 I guess you want me to take this seriously, but I can't even for a split second.

US doesn't teach sex ed until middle school I believe and it's poorly done IMO.

You missed something important

"In mathematical terms, a woman is a union of Ciswomen and transwomen."

I was obviously talking about subsets and sets.

You tried, I will give you that.

As I dont live in the US, I will take your word on it.

In sweden we usually start in 5th grade. I went to a private school however, and started in 4th grade.

@Maroxad: Sorry, but that "important" part doesn't change a thing. Now if you'll please let me continue to 🤣 at this nonsense without distractions please.

Ahh, so basically you didn't take a course in introductory mathematics. Gotcha.

A union in Set Theory is a collection of elements in a greater set. The set in this case being woman, and elements being transwomen and ciswomen.

No, that's not what I'm saying insofar as this specific topic is concerned. It's obvious that certain things aren't appropriate for kindergarten child e.g. Advanced calculus. Combined with a school year limited by time, certain topics are more important than others.

What is OK though, is having good conversations and teaching them (when appropriate or brought up via questions), the topics of homosexuality, transgenderism, sex etc. You can speak and talk to these items without putting them through a curriculum per say. There is a huge difference between the two. Even then, I see nothing wrong with teaching kids sexual orientation, gender identity, in grade school. Kids are smart enough to know. I grew up with sex ed starting around age 10 which is pre-puberty. There's nothing wrong with that.

But that's even a bit of a tangent. This bill is saying we can't even talk about it if brought up. That is some regressive sh*t, not even allowed to acknowledge these people exist, which may be someone else's parents or friends.

@Maroxad: 🤣 Give me a second, I need to go grab my calulator to figure out what a real woman is. 😂

@Maroxad: what about this for a hypothetical. I'm teaching a class of 3rd graders sex ed.

A kid brings up transgenderism and asks me what it is.

I then tell them, yes there is a very small percentage of people that do not identify with the sex they were born as. This is a mental disorder where a male is born with a penis or a female is born with a vagina, but in their head they "feel" like the opposite. This is a mental disorder and many with this mental disorder will even get elective surgeries to remove thier genitalia so that thier body reflects how they feel. So a male born with a penis who identifies as a woman in his head can get this surgery. We refer to this person as a trans woman. Would that be appropriate enough?

@vfighter: Biology, and the rest of all sciences are built on mathematics. Laugh all you want, but all you are showing us is how ill equipped you are to discuss scientific topics.

@sargentd: Are you referring to people with Gender Dysphoria? That is a mental illness. But transmen and transwomen who do not have gender dysphoria, are not mentally ill. And if you are trying to assert otherwise you are trying to pass medically incorrect information. Which is not appropriate.

https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/transgender

A psychological state is considered a mental disorder only if it causes significant distress or disability. Many transgender people do not experience their gender as distressing or disabling, which implies that identifying as transgender does not constitute a mental disorder. For these individuals, the significant problem is finding affordable resources, such as counseling, hormone therapy, medical procedures and the social support necessary to freely express their gender identity and minimize discrimination. Many other obstacles may lead to distress, including a lack of acceptance within society, direct or indirect experiences with discrimination, or assault. These experiences may lead many transgender people to suffer with anxiety, depression or related disorders at higher rates than nontransgender persons.

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), people who experience intense, persistent gender incongruence can be given the diagnosis of "gender dysphoria." Some contend that the diagnosis inappropriately pathologizes gender noncongruence and should be eliminated. Others argue that it is essential to retain the diagnosis to ensure access to care. The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) is under revision and there may be changes to its current classification of intense persistent gender incongruence as "gender identity disorder."

@Maroxad: You've proven to be ill equipped very early on as you can't even properly define what a women is. You had already lost the argument then, now it's just how far off the deep end are you willing to go posting absolute nonsense over and over again. The nicest thing I can do is continue to 🤣 at it.

@Maroxad: Gender Dysphoria or Gender Identity Disorder: Gender dysphoria (GD) is the distress a person feels due to a mismatch between their gender identity—their personal sense of their own gender—and their sex assigned at birth.

If you are transgendered you have gender

dysphoria.

This is not medical disinformation. It's a mental disorder.

BTW this is not transphobia, idc if people have this disorder, I don't think they should be bullied or harassed, I think they should be allowed as an adult to get what ever elective surgeries they want. But what you are calling "misinformation" is the truth so I take issue with that.

So you take issue with what I said in my hypothetical? Why? I'm not the one wanting any of the this to be taught in elementary schools anyway. But if a teacher were to teach it and present it to children in this way, why do you take offense to it? What is YOUR preferred way of teaching transgenderism to elementary school kids???

Teaching kids transwomen are real woman or females is just incorrect. They are transwomen. They are men who have gender dysphoria and now identify as a woman. This would be a tramswoman.

You are playing games here. You can't just define all this stuff as social construct.

Where does this stop? What's stopping us from saying race is nothing more than a social construct, what's stopping white people from identifying as African American or Asians from identifying as Latino.

If it's all about how you feel in your mind and not what you are physically born as??

What's stopping furrys from being classified as the animals they identify as??

Eventually you have to stop playing games just because you want to make people feel better about their disorder.

It starts breaking down the language and reasoning to the point where anyone can be what ever they want to be as long as that's what they think in their head.

You are clearly working backwards from your conclusions, it is very common among the transgender denier crowd.

Transitioning is a TREATMENT for gender dysphoria. That is why Physicians ascribe it to people. It... isnt... hard... to... understand.

Even the link I sent you explained it to you why you are wrong. The fact that you clearly ignored it, in favor of your crumbling narrative, makes me think you are being obtuse on purpose. The APA is one of the most respected psychological organizations.

And no, IN SEVERAL Relevant fields of study, transwomen are considered women. You are literally just disagreeing with virtually every expert within relevant fields, and trying to push your terminology over theirs... I am sorry, but it just doesnt work that way. What you are asserting is contradicted by virtually every single reputable medical and psychiatric organization.

If you read my responses, you would have known that my position primarily revolves around them answering questions if asked. And questions about gender dysphoria will come up.

@sargentd: Being transgendered is not a mental disorder and there is little in the way of academia or health institutions that will support this assertation.

This is the same text book bullsh*t brought about with homosexuality decades ago when the medical field reclassified it outside of mental disorders because *SHOCK* it was an incorrect diagnosis to begin with. Once again, you are showing how little you know about the subjects you have such strong opinions on.

@Maroxad: "Transitioning is a TREATMENT for gender dysphoria. That is why Physicians ascribe it to people. It... isnt... hard... to... understand."

I know, it isn't hard to understand. If you are transgendered you have gender dysphoria.

You are the one not understanding this.

It is a mental disorder. We shouldn't be changing language to make people with a mental disorder feel better about it. I don't have to erase reality because other people have a mental disorder that does not conform to reality.

Transwomen are not Women. They are transwomen.

Rachel Dolezal is not African American.

And Elizabeth Warren is not a native American.

Doesn't matter what you think In your own head. You don't get to just change the meaning of words we have used for thousands of years to appease people with a mental disorder.

A woman is a real thing with physical traits, they are real women, not Ciswomen. You are letting more modern subjective theory on the subject take over linguistics we have been using for thousands of years.

Your "experts" are psudoscience jerk offs.

No it doesnt, read the definition of gender dysphoria again.

Gender dysphoria: A concept designated in the DSM-5 as clinically significant distress or impairment related to a strong desire to be of another gender, which may include desire to change primary and/or secondary sex characteristics. Not all transgender or gender diverse people experience dysphoria.

Transmen and women who transition may no longer feel that distress or impairment after they transition outright eliminating the key part of that text. Which is why virtually every medical organization recommends transitioning as the go-to treatment.

And now you are just repeating your narrative again, once again without anything to support it while your opposition has cited several experts and leading organizations. It is not I who "changed" these terms, we have used these forever, people just didnt realize it until our celebrity obsessed culture freaked out after some celeb transitioned. It is a political issue because SOME people were freaking out over turning it into a political issue to farm votes.

If you want to be left behind that is your right. But academia, and society as a whole will move forward, as they always have, even if you dont like their conclusions.

And that is why, going back to the topic. Teachers should bring it up in Sex Ed if they are asked. And not be threatened to get fired if they say something politically incorrect.

Those "pseudoscience jerk offs" are literally the people developing our modern healthcare system. Not just that, some of them (neurologists) are also the reason we are having AI as advanced as we do. These people are so far ahead of us engineers.

@HoolaHoopMan: Being transgendered is not a mental disorder and there is little in the way of academia or health institutions that will support this assertation.

Gender dysphoria is though, and if one is not experiencing gender dysphoria, where their sense of gender does not align with birth sex, how/why would one be trans gender?

I mean, here is the definition from psychiatry.org, and it still doesn't make sense to me. Which trans gender people are they talking about that aren't trans because of significant distress related to a strong desire to be another gender? Doesn't this imply that there are some trans people who don't experience any distress or strong desire to be of another gender?

Gender dysphoria: A concept designated in the DSM-5 as clinically significant distress or impairment related to a strong desire to be of another gender, which may include desire to change primary and/or secondary sex characteristics. Not all transgender or gender diverse people experience dysphoria.

Gender dysphoria, from what I have read, historically affected somewhere around 0.6% of the population. Many times we saw it in the past, but referred to these individuals as "transsexual", "transvestite", "cross dresser", etc. It's a real condition, that does impact some kids from a young age. The problem is, we don't really understand WHY or HOW it affects them yet. Is it something present in the brain from birth? Can it be influenced by cultural forces? A mix of both?

I have utterly zero problem with, and never have had a problem with this 0.6% of the population. They've never impacted my life, or my kids lives.

But what does concern me, is that it seems that because of this proven 0.6% of the population, there is suddenly an explosion of kids identifying as trans gender, with no actual diagnosis for gender dysphoria.

This is the same text book bullsh*t brought about with homosexuality decades ago when the medical field reclassified it outside of mental disorders because *SHOCK* it was an incorrect diagnosis to begin with.

To be honest, the whole idea of mental illness, or mental disorder is entirely up to what we as a society decide to consider as "abnormal". If we really want to de-stigmatize all of it, we need to not allow certain mental illnesses to be "beyond discussion", or gatekept to a select few, while others can be discussed freely.

The reason there is so much push back against teaching this sort of stuff to kids, is because the impact of being wrong can be far more severe in the case of transgenderism.

If a few kids think they might be gay, bi curious, whatever, and later realize they were wrong, there really isn't any harm done.

On the other hand, if a kid believes they are "trapped in the wrong body" as some advocates like to say, and hear that they have a massively increased risk of suicide if they are not affirmed, this can lead to permanent changes to the body if they follow the social transition -> puberty blockers -> cross sex hormones path. Cross sex hormones actually lead to sterilization in the end, whereas being gay does not. Anything that has even the slightest potential, however small, of leading to sterilization will be guaranteed to alarm parents. That's a feature, not a bug. Add in the fact that many schools are now implementing policies that allow children to hide this fact from their parents with teachers, and you can see why the sudden "moral panic" from parents.

Right now, there is somewhere around a 4400% increase in adolescent girls identifying as trans gender, which hasn't been explored for any other causes other than simply the fact that "society is more accepting".

Except this is the same highly suggestible demographic that previously engaged in the following behavior way more than any other:

Self harm (cutting)

Develops serious body issues during puberty

Develops anorexia nervosa

What is OK though, is having good conversations and teaching them (when appropriate or brought up via questions), the topics of homosexuality, transgenderism, sex etc. You can speak and talk to these items without putting them through a curriculum per say. There is a huge difference between the two. Even then, I see nothing wrong with teaching kids sexual orientation, gender identity, in grade school. Kids are smart enough to know. I grew up with sex ed starting around age 10 which is pre-puberty. There's nothing wrong with that.

I don't really have a problem with most of this being taught, but in sex eduation when kids are actually beginning puberty. Prior to that, it seems highly inappropriate.

I would limit it to discussing that yes, not everyone is attracted to the opposite sex. Some are attracted to the same sex, and others experience limited or no sexual attraction at all. All of these things are within normal distributions for humans. There are also boys who conform to way more traditionally "feminine" stereotypes, and girls who conform to way more "masculine" stereotypes, and neither of these is abnormal, and has existed pretty much forever. Some people refer to this phenomenon as being trans gender, and feel strongly enough about it that they'd prefer to just be referred to as the other gender. We still don't know exactly why or now this phenomenon occurs.

Tomboy was the phrase we used to use for some gender nonconforming girls, and wasn't really looked down upon as far as I can tell. Unfortunately, the same can't really be said for feminine presenting males, who often went through utter hell from other males for simply being who they are. Which is a shame, because many of our most creative and brilliant men exhibit a lot of "feminine" stereotypes.

Kids are smart enough to know.

Well, if this were true, then nobody would ever grow up religious. Given that adults have much disagreement about the concept of trans genderism, it doesn't seem appropriate to be teaching it to kids before they have any of the mental faculties in place to think critically about it. In fact, the opposite is encouraged, to just accept it without questioning it.

In order to become more inclusive, the common reaction to a kid coming out as trans now, is celebration, cheers, high fives, maybe even a party. Congratulations on having a much harder life coming to you than anyone else? Acceptance sure, but celebration and accolades for doing it?

So until we actually have conclusive evidence as to what actually can cause it, I'd remain 100% against teaching younger kids about it.

Dysphoria is something separate from simply being trans. That is a huge part of the issue, where you need to understand terms and how they work together. Being transgender is not a mental disorder. But living a life not identifying with your state of being can lead to dysphoria. Ironically, it's bills like this that would help lead people to developing dysphoria.

In this same vein, someone can be homosexual but live a life in the closet where they also develop negative psychological traits as a result.

Being trans or being gay or not indicative of a mental disorder, full stop. By stating that it is he is wrong.

@HoolaHoopMan: Dysphoria is something separate from simply being trans. That is a huge part of the issue, where you need to understand terms and how they work together. Being transgender is not a mental disorder. But living a life not identifying with your state of being can lead to dysphoria. Ironically, it's bills like this that would help lead people to developing dysphoria.

I agree being trans itself isn't a mental disorder. But this still leaves the question unanswered. Why do people transition if they feel no distress having their gender associated with their birth sex? Does that not point to another reason for transitioning? Whatever this other reason is, it absolutely MUST be uncovered before ever proceeding to the second step of the social transition -> puberty blockers -> cross sex hormones path. Ideally before one even begins down that path.

Otherwise we may be irresponsibly sending people who had other issues down a path leading to sterilization.

There a multiple reasons people may want to transition. If you're jumping to the ethics surrounding when a person should begin transition, that is a wholly different topic. One that I'm not fully educated on to be honest. However, that discussion is beyond what Sargent and our ignorant Florida Republicans are proposing here.

@HoolaHoopMan: being trans is a mental disorder. Gender Dysphoria is basically a pre requisite to being trans... These people cutting off their genitalia because in their mind they see themselves as in the wrong body, not supposed to have these body parts. But they do have those body parts, they were born either a man, woman or amaphradite.

Your treatment is to appease what they feel in their mind by removing body parts/ performing operations so that how they feel in their mind is reflected on their body to help improve their mental health. But you say that's not a mental disorder??? Really???

That is a mental disorder, I'm not talking about gay, that's about woman being sexually attracted to woman vice versa with men or being Bi.

That is a different discussion compared to chopping off body parts to reflect how someone thinks they should be in their mind when reality does not match that perception in their brain.

To try and group gay and bi people in this conversation is disengenuous.

It is not. You've been shown repeatedly how it is not.

@HoolaHoopMan: agree to disagree I guess you have proven nothing to me 👍

Ah yes, leaving the conversation when you can't back up with assertions with evidence. Interesting how this always works.

'Agree to disagree that the Earth is round' - Flat Earther.

@HoolaHoopMan: There a multiple reasons people may want to transition. If you're jumping to the ethics surrounding when a person should begin transition, that is a wholly different topic. One that I'm not fully educated on to be honest. However, that discussion is beyond what Sargent and our ignorant Florida Republicans are proposing here.

Yes, and the REASON that someone may want to transition, if not because they have gender dysphoria, is what needs to be uncovered imo.

For example, I already know that there is a % of males want to transition, because they have a condition called Autogynephilia. It's a condition where one is aroused by the thought of himself as a female.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22005209/#:~:text=Autogynephilia%20is%20defined%20as%20a,%2Dfemale%20(MtF)%20transsexualism.

I have no problem with this, until we start coercing or forcing others to accept it. Such as Bill C-16 in Canada, where University Profs, government employees etc, are required to use the pronouns an individual chooses.

Except, if one is required to use "she/her" pronouns on an individual like this, then are they not technically being required to participate in someone else's paraphilia/sexual fetish?

Some kids, especially the younger ones, are discovered to have had some sort of other misdiagnosed trauma. A typical one is when you have a parent who is clearly misandrist, and is much kinder to a female over a young male sibling. Young boys can DEFINITELY express an interest in being the other gender if they believe it will cause their parent to love them the same as a female sibling.

Bolded: No, it's a form of respect that if asked you call someone with their preferred pronouns. It's not coercing you to indulge in some fantom fetish. Lay off the Jordan Peterson podcasts. If someone asks you to call them a name it's not going to kill you to do so. Would you have the same reaction to someone who changed their name from Bob to Steve in court?

God forbid you do the simplest of task and say 'she/her/he/him/they/them and show a little decency. Labeling it as indulging in some made up sexual fetish just makes you look like an asshole. I've heard the same crap from people complaining about homosexual relationships and acknowledgement of ones sexuality.

As I said before, same old arguments against homosexuality with a fresh new coat of paint.

@HoolaHoopMan: Do you not think it's important to fully uncover any reasons that may exist besides gender dysphoria before encouraging, or allowing a kid to begin transitioning then?

We can agree to disagree on the autogynephilia example.

Religion in general is dangerous, just look how the US has turned out.

As I said before, I'm not totally educated on the issue. If someone wants to transition they should have every right to do so. However, with children it gets murky due to age of consent, stuff like that.

@THUMPTABLE: Religion in general is dangerous, just look how the US has turned out.

I don't think it's religion specifically, just any beliefs not based in reality that CAN be dangerous. But not necessarily ALL.

If you believe that god will reward you in the afterlife for being kind to others, I have a hard time seeing how that could possibly be a bad/dangerous thing.

If on the other hand, you believe God has commanded you to kill people who disrespect him/her, then that's indeed dangerous.

Is it religion that is dangerous? Blind devotion to an ideology, perhaps. We've seen radical anti-religious movements see to the massacre of tens of millions of people throughout the first half of the 20th century alone. So, blaming religious people for all your problems is just being bigoted, and intolerant as an alternative to putting any effort into understanding the problem.

We have to be careful to avoid that "any beliefs not based in reality" mindset though. Because what one person sees as reality often changes by what one was taught, or what they read. For example, some people actually believe police drive around looking for blacks to shoot, and half the people who catch Covid end up in the hospital (it's actually less than 1%). But to them, those beliefs are based in reality, and anything counter to that are not. So if we used that as a measure to disregard and marginalize others, we end up in the very same situation.

You don't mind that?

Seems like this low IQ nonsense in those examples. Just like the CRT bills.

Is that because they are right winger fruit cakes that you defend them?

my 5 year old already asks me if girls are allowed to marry girls. kids are curious. it can be taught at age appropriate levels.