LGBT in schools vs religious parents

[Pickman's model]

No. I'm arguing that an LBGTQ "activist" is not a suitable person to impartially judge the guilt or innocence of someone who has expressed LBGTQ critical opinions ON THE TOPIC OF THOSE OPINIONS, to the extent that it affects their job; in the same way that I'd argue that a tub-thumping born again Christian shouldn't sit on a panel judging an LBGTQ person regarding anti-religious views.

The fact that you're arguing otherwise outlines the reality gap that's going on here.

you're outspoken on numerous subjects. which ones do you think you could judge impartially?

 

[Spymaster]

you're outspoken on numerous subjects. which ones do you think you could judge impartially?

Pedantry.

I reckon I'd be pretty good on coffee, and curry too.

 

[InArduisFouette]

The whole point is that she's being judged on whether or not her stated views are viciously homophobic to the point that they'd cause harm, or whether her firing breaches her own protected characteristic and freedom of speech.

A "trans activist" (note the quotes) is not likely to be unbiased, which is why they were, quite correctly, binned.

oh look you are using the Scare Quotes again the problem is the CLC while they would want ot self identify as " christain Activists" are by any objective measure hate filled and genocide promoting bigots who are resistant to acknowledging evidence and actual Basic Sciences ahead of theiur superstittions and delusions

 

[Magnus McGinty]

object objective measure heate filled

 

[Aladdin]

He's right though - "for centuries this biggest obstacle to that in this country at least has been (the church)". The brutalisation and murder of Catholics by the BfE doesn't change that. The whole thing's fucked.

Not the Monarchy?
Eta this is not a reply to you Sweet FA

more to SpookyFrank
I mean..over here the old Irish Christian Church was not a power mad money grabbing institution. It was groups of monks and itinerant priests travelling the countryside. Often holding mass at a mass rock. Brutalised by the British because Catholicism was deemed radicalisation. There were priests helping the revolutionary cause.. priests could preach about revolution and equal rights.. earlier than that the early Catholic church in Ireland had married priests and was very different to the current Roman Catholicism. It was around from 4th century right up to the Great Famine.
But after 1845 the British government sought to control Christianity in Ireland. They decided to stop Irish priests training in France lest they become radicalised to revolt. They actively built Maynooth and placed people in that monstrosity of a place to educate priests in the way they wanted...a place that would provide a rigid training for priests....killing off any sense of individuality in the process and creating systems that would further the potential for religious orders to brutalise children physically emotionally and sexually.
The new Irish state went alomg with this and did not change things... this unwarranted sense of reverence for these priests and Religious orders persisted. Not all orders were this way...some were very different..particularly those influenced or led by French religious groups..for example the nuns of the FCJ who were trained in France and had a much kinder outlook because their own training was to expand the person..not clap them in irons or narrow views of the world.
But make no mistake. Certain religious groups..the Christian Brother's and Sisters of Mercy were 100% used by the state and the rotten culture that emanated from Maynooth transferred to the priests who trained there and in turn to the Bishops and in turn to nuns.. apart from those who challenged this... The priests who questioned or challenged any of the very rigid theology taught there..were treated very badly.
All if this was deliverately done to control the people in Ireland

So its not as simple as SpookyFrank pointing a finger and blackening all Christians. He does no favours to himself as an educator and as an educated person to not dig a little deeper.
Maybe try to see the world for what it is. People in general just want to live one day at a time in peace with themselves and their neighbours. But there are others who are enthralled by and in the hold of power and greed. These are the people who will do and say anything to gain power over others. These are the leadets who set people against each other for their own purposes.

We are all a collection of atoms and energy and many believe our potential for consciousness. We are here for a short time. We are all deserving of the freedom to live and think and feel the way we wish and if we wish to have a belief in a God, then we have this freedom also.

 

[InArduisFouette]

even if it's only Grammar , either ACAB or the only good nazi is a dead one depending on whether you lean to the grammar policing or the grammar fascism

 

[Rob Ray]

You actually typed out and posted "I always knew loads of anarchists couldn't really care less about workers, and this pretty much confirms it"
That is your usual "the left, the left, oh the horror" bullshit which IS laughable. Then you go on to call me childish

Tbf there definitely are anarchists towards the individualist end of the spectrum who are quite sneery about "workerism" or whatnot, but this has been the case for about 150 years now and there's no shortage of people on basically every part of the left, centre and right who are likewise. I know of plenty of supposedly Marxist and Leninist academics who'll merrily cross university picket lines, for example. The biggest criticism of that kind of line is more that it's redundant.

 

[smokedout]

No. I'm arguing that an LBGTQ "activist" is not a suitable person to impartially judge the guilt or innocence of someone who has expressed LBGTQ critical opinions ON THE TOPIC OF THOSE OPINIONS, to the extent that it affects their job; in the same way that I'd argue that a tub-thumping born again Christian shouldn't sit on a panel judging an LBGTQ person regarding anti-religious views.

The fact that you're arguing otherwise outlines the reality gap that's going on here.

Is going on a one day training course with Stonewall enough to qualify someone as a trans activist equivalent to a tub thumping born again Christian who can't be trusted to be objective?

What do you think people are learning on a one day Stonewall training course that forever corrupts their judgement in this way?

 

[Spymaster]

Is going on a one day training course with Stonewall enough to qualify someone as a trans activist equivalent to a tub thumping born again Christian who can't be trusted to be objective?

Yes.

What do you think people are learning on a one day Stonewall training course that forever corrupts their judgement in this way?

Dog grooming.

 

[smokedout]

Yes.

Tht's because you've immersed yourself in gender critical conspiracy theories and believe that a relatively small charity whose views are not particularly radical or outside of both current law and public sentiment have vast influence and the power to control people's minds even by just a glancing association.

Dog grooming.

You don't know do you. You're just parroting shit you've read online.

 

[Spymaster]

Tht's because you've immersed yourself in gender critical conspiracy theories and believe that a relatively small charity whose views are not particularly radical or outside of both current law and public sentiment have vast influence and the power to control people's minds even by just a glancing association.



You don't know do you. You're just parroting shit you've read online.

I'm just bored of you and I've got the cricket on now.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

even if it's only Grammar , either ACAB or the only good nazi is a dead one depending on whether you lean to the grammar policing or the grammar fascism

Given the medium, it doesn't harm to spend a few more seconds checking it isn't gobbledygook. There's plenty of tools to assist.

 

[brogdale]

You're just parroting shit you've read online.

Harsh, tbf I don't think he's "parroting" shit; it's all his own work.

 

[Sweet FA]

Not the Monarchy?

I mean..over here the old Irish Christian Church was not a power mad money grabbing institution. And was around from 4th century right up to the Great Famine.
But after 1845 the British government sought to control Christianity in Ireland. They decided to stop Irish priests training in France lest they become radicalised to revolt. They actively built Maynooth and placed people in that monstrosity of a place to educate priests in the way they wanted...a place that would provide a rigid training for priests....killing off any sense of individuality in the process and creating systems that would further the potential for religious orders to brutalise children physically emotionally and sexually.
The new Irish state went alomg with this and did not change things... this unwarranted sense of reverence for these priests and Religious orders persisted. Not all orders were this way...some were very different..particularly those influenced or led by French religious groups..for example the nuns of the FCJ who were trained in France and had a much kinder outlook because their own training was to expand the person..not clap them in irons or narrow views of the world.
But make no mistake. Certain religious groups..the Christian Brother's and Sisters of Mercy were 100% used by the state and the rotten culture that emanated from Maynooth transferred to the priests who trained there and in turn to the Bishops and in turn to nuns.. apart from those who challenged this... The priests who questioned or challenged any of the very rigid theology taught there..were treated very badly.

So its not as simple as you pointing a finger and blackening all Christians. You do yourself no favours as an educator and as an educated person to not dig a little deeper.
Maybe try to see the world for what it is. People in general just want to live one day at a time in peace with themselves and their neighbours. But there are others who are enthralled by and in the hold of power and greed. These are the people who will do and say anything to gain power over others. These are the leadets who set people against each other for their own purposes.

We are all a collection of atoms and energy and many believe our potential for consciousness. We are here for a short time. We are all deserving of the freedom to live and think and feel and if we wish to have a belief in a God, then we have this freedom also.

Thanks for taking the time to patronise the shit out of me with all that

Also I've noticed you doing this before - making stuff up then arguing against it - you did it earlier on the thread and it was irksome then. I specifically said 'the church', not "all Christians".

I also gave you the respect that you could do your job effectively despite your beliefs. I'd appreciate the same respect. I don't particularly think you "do yourself favours as an educator" by believing in a god but I hope you keep it out of your teaching. As an educated person, you could probably "dig a little deeper" yourself.

You've mentioned several times about wishing to have a belief in a god; nobody on the thread has said you can't. On the other hand, you seem pretty touchy about others thinking it's a load of old superstitious bollocks.

 

[Aladdin]

Thanks for taking the time to patronise the shit out of me with all that

Also I've noticed you doing this before - making stuff up then arguing against it - you did it earlier on the thread and it was irksome then. I specifically said 'the church', not "all Christians".

I also gave you the respect that you could do your job effectively despite your beliefs. I'd appreciate the same respect. I don't particularly think you "do yourself favours as an educator" by believing in a god but I hope you keep it out of your teaching. As an educated person, you could probably "dig a little deeper" yourself.

You've mentioned several times about wishing to have a belief in a god; nobody on the thread has said you can't. On the other hand, you seem pretty touchy about others thinking it's a load of old superstitious bollocks.

Sorry.. my post was actually for SpookyFrank I did edit to show that a good while ago... you might have missed that. I edited a couple of times.. apologies for the error.

AS for my post being patronising I just thought that it was important to put the truth out there about Christianity in Ireland. Specifically the Catholic Church from 1845 onwards... because there was reference made toi"My Lot" by spooky when he said
" For centuries this biggest obstacle to that in this country at least has been your lot, so I'd knock the high-horsery on the head if I were you".
My "lot" being Catholics/ Christians.

Not my intention to upset anyone on this thread. I just wanted to have facts straight.

 

[InArduisFouette]

I'm just bored of you.

doesn't change the fact you are parroting wank-addled pornsick guff

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Tht's because you've immersed yourself in gender critical conspiracy theories and believe that a relatively small charity whose views are not particularly radical or outside of both current law and public sentiment have vast influence and the power to control people's minds even by just a glancing association.

I don't think that is true. Stonewall strongly advocates 'gender-affirming' approaches for treating pre-pubescent children with gender dysphoria. I don't think that's particularly mainstream with public sentiment.

 

[Pickman's model]

Pedantry.

I reckon I'd be pretty good on coffee, and curry too.

yeh i've seen you send back both. tho i don't suppose the kitchen expected to see cappucino curry

 

[Spymaster]

... i don't suppose the kitchen expected to see cappucino curry

Try everything once except incest and morris dancing.

 

[smokedout]

I don't think that is true. Stonewall strongly advocates 'gender-affirming' approaches for treating pre-pubescent children with gender dysphoria. I don't think that's particularly mainstream with public sentiment.

It's pretty mainstream medical opinion although it has been misrepresented by some with an agenda. As Stonewall themselves say:

Gender affirming therapy is a patient-centred and patient-led approach to supporting individuals who are experiencing gender dysphoria, other forms of gender questioning, or who seek to transition socially, legally and/or medically. Gender affirming therapy starts from the premise that there is no predetermined expectation and that the patient has autonomy to explore and know their own gender identity, to decide on how they wish to live their lives in accordance with their gender, and to request and seek treatment in line with their own stated needs.

I don't think many people would disagree with that unless they had an existing prejudice towards trans people.

 

[Rob Ray]

I think there may be some people who see the word "affirming" and get overexcited on the grounds that means every time a teenager says they hate their body they'll be dragged into surgery toot sweet.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't think many people would disagree with that unless they had an existing prejudice towards trans people.

It's not prejudice towards trans people to question that approach when dealing with young children, whose knowledge and understanding of things like gender, sex and sexuality is going to be limited.

 

[smokedout]

It's not prejudice towards trans people to question that approach when dealing with young children, whose knowledge and understanding of things like gender, sex and sexuality is going to be limited.

So would you propose a form of conversion therapy which views being trans as a negative outcome and denies the child autonomy over their gender expression? You were talking about pre-pubescent kids, which means merely changing their names and pronouns and how they dress. Do you think the approach should be to try and prevent that even if it's what the child articulates that it's what they want? What about "Gender affirming therapy starts from the premise that there is no predetermined expectation" do you find problematic?

 

[Rob Ray]

It's not prejudice towards trans people to question that approach when dealing with young children, whose knowledge and understanding of things like gender, sex and sexuality is going to be limited.

Okay, let's play the scenario out a bit. Young boy (say 6) says "I want to be a girl." Everyone else says "sure go for it" and they dress/interact like a girl. If (for the sake of argument) they are in fact doing it as a phase, they get told what being trans is and what it entails, and at some point they stop asking and go back to how they were before. If they aren't, and continue feeling gender dysphoria consistently, they get support and their experience is validated rather than repressed.

That's the whole of it through the early years. No drugs are allowed until the age of 16 - that'd be ten years of making the full effort to live as a girl under this scenario - and surgery is banned until 18. Getting to either stage is a heavily monitored process.

What's the part you're questioning?

 

[InArduisFouette]

I don't think that is true. Stonewall strongly advocates 'gender-affirming' approaches for treating pre-pubescent children with gender dysphoria. I don't think that's particularly mainstream with public sentiment.

do you understand what Gender affirming care is for prepubescent children ?

do you understand what Tanner Stages are ?
Gillick competeny ?
what a GnRH analogue is and howoften they are adminstered ot cisgender children, and for how long ?

 

[InArduisFouette]

I think there may be some people who see the word "affirming" and get overexcited on the grounds that means every time a teenager says they hate their body they'll be dragged into surgery toot sweet.

meanwhile the reality is 7 years and 5 months into a care pathway that is supposed to last 2 - 3 years an adult is typically 2 + years away from Gender Affirming surgery

 

[InArduisFouette]

It's not prejudice towards trans people to question that approach when dealing with young children, whose knowledge and understanding of things like gender, sex and sexuality is going to be limited.

Thanks for coming out as a Conversion Therapy proponent , as it;s abundanently clear you do not understand what an Affirming model of care looks like and have swallowed the lies of transphobes

 

[InArduisFouette]

I see spymaster is laughing and showing his true colours about asking whether someone who is advocating torturing children with proven to be harmful approaches to Gender Incongruence such as conversion therapy actually understands the Basic Sciences and the clinical evidence on a topic

 

[kebabking]

Thanks for coming out as a Conversion Therapy proponent , as it;s abundanently clear you do not understand what an Affirming model of care looks like and have swallowed the lies of transphobes

I see spymaster is laughing and showing his true colours about asking whether someone who is advocating torturing children with proven to be harmful approaches to Gender Incongruence such as conversion therapy actually understands the Basic Sciences and the clinical evidence on a topic

I've no idea who you are, but the two people you've singled put are two of the most humane, decent people on this board - and littlebabyjesus and I agree on almost nothing.

It's a pity this debate is so toxic, though one begins to wonder if it's the subject, or the protagonists...

 

[Spymaster]

I see spymaster is laughing and showing his true colours about asking whether someone who is advocating torturing children with proven to be harmful approaches to Gender Incongruence such as conversion therapy actually understands the Basic Sciences and the clinical evidence on a topic

I'm laughing at your lack of awareness of this place. LBJ is totally sound and would probably be a strong ally of yours if you weren't such a fucking rod.

Your characterisation of him as "advocating torturing children" has probably just blown away any support you may have had among other posters.