"Cancel Culture" Opinions?

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, Dazey said:

What wonderful people you follow on Twitter.  

  

 

 

 

I don't believe I follow him. 

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

I don't believe I follow him. 

You ARE him!?!?

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

You ARE him!?!?

Well he supports Newcastle for a start and I don't even like football, so back to the drawing board with that.

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Who cares what one student thinks? Oh yeah, people on the far right who are creating strawmen to fight.

 

[Ace Nova]

3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

So what you are saying is that up til the age of 7-8 parents should dress their kids in gender-neutral clothes, give them gender-neutral names and address them gender-neutrally, because otherwise they would be "reinforcing" a child's orientation at a time when no one would know it?

Huh?  Uhm no.

The vast majority of kids 97%+ will end up being heterosexual.  You dress them up accordingly until (at least) well after puberty and even then, let them be kids.   You don't need to step in as a parent and act like your child is "identifying" as anything until well after puberty, imo.

 

[action]

12 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

So what you are saying is that up til the age of 7-8 parents should dress their kids in gender-neutral clothes, give them gender-neutral names and address them gender-neutrally, because otherwise they would be "reinforcing" a child's orientation at a time when no one would know it?

how about dressing a boy as a boy, and a girl as a girl?

come come, let's not make things overly complicated.

[SoulMonster]

6 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Well he supports Newcastle for a start and I don't even like football, so back to the drawing board with that.

 

Oh Diesel, when you reposted something about cancel culture coming after science I actually thought you meant they would try to change something important in science and not just what we call stuff 

1 minute ago, action said:

how about dressing a boy as a boy, and a girl as a girl?

come come, let's not make things overly complicated.

But Ace said we don't know if a girl identifies as a girl at the age of 7-8, so by following his logic we shouldn't do that because it is child abuse.

[action]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

 

But Ace said we don't know if a girl identifies as a girl at the age of 7-8, so by following his logic we shouldn't do that because it is child abuse.

the gender is officially observed by a doctor, at birth, and is documented in the birth certificate.

so my advice to parents in doubt: check your kid's birth certificate.

[SoulMonster]

6 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

Huh?  Uhm no.

The vast majority of kids 97%+ will end up being heterosexual.  You dress them up accordingly until (at least) well after puberty and even then, let them be kids.   You don't need to step in as a parent and act like your child is "identifying" as anything until well after puberty, imo.

But this means that 3 % don't turn out heterosexual. Are you really okay with parents abusing 3 % of the kids by dressing a child with women parts as a girl?! By following your logic we should dress all kids gender-neutrally so as to avoid child abusing those 3 % who we would "reinforce" into the wrong gender by dressing them up wrongly.

[action]

child abuse is enforcing the kids wrong look on their gender. if there is the illusion that the kid thinks they have a different gender than their birth certificate, then it is child abuse when the parents go with their illusion. The child should then be taken away from the parents, and be helped in a stable environment, under controlled conditions.

the parents, locked up with the pedophiles

Edited August 17, 2020 by action

[Ace Nova]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

 

But Ace said we don't know if a girl identifies as a girl at the age of 7-8, so by following his logic we shouldn't do that because it is child abuse.

No, child abuse would be stating that your 7 year old child identifies as something other than what he/she was naturally born as.  97% of children will be just that.  You use nature as a guide until the child has gone through puberty. 

And even then, you let the child come to his/her determination without your interference.   The reason so many of these kids come out so late in life is because they really "don't know" until much later in life.  So you don't need to step in as a parent telling them, "you must be identifying as something else" since you dressed up as the opposite sex one day when you were 7.

 

[SoulMonster]

Just now, action said:

the gender is officially observed by a doctor, at birth, and is documented in the birth certificate.

so my advice to parents in doubt: check your kid's birth certificate.

But Ace weren't talking about biological gender, he was talking about kids who grow up to identify as another gender. And his argument was that we shouldn't go along with small kids who dress up differently than their biological gender because it might just be a phase and if doing so we would be wrongfully reinforcing a wrong gender on them (=child abuse). My question is, if 3 % turn out to later identify as another gender, aren't we running the risk of abusing them by dressing them up according to their biological gender? Or are you guys really saying it is wrong to abuse gender-normative by playing along with their cress-dressing as children, but okay to abuse the few children who will self-identify different than their bioloigical gender by dressing them up according to their biological gender?

I am shocked!

Here's how I see it. Dress kids up as they want to be dressed. No kids is actually abused from this. They will sooner or later figure out what is correct and the worst thing that can happen is that they decide to change. But then it is their choice.

Jeez.

[soon]

The conversation is about gender expression via clothing. And suddenly that got labeled in reference to sexual orientation "Heterosexual."  Thats how you know when youre getting quality commentary 

[action]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

But Ace weren't talking about biological gender, he was talking about kids who grow up to identify as another gender. And his argument was that we shouldn't go along with small kids who dress up differently than their biological gender because it might just be a phase and if doing so we would be wrongfully reinforcing a wrong gender on them (=child abuse). My question is, if 3 % turn out to later identify as another gender, aren't we running the risk of abusing them by dressing them up according to their biological gender? Or are you guys really saying it is wrong to abuse gender-normative by playing along with their cress-dressing as children, but okay to abuse the few children who will self-identify different than their bioloigical gender by dressing them up according to their biological gender?

I am shocked!

Here's how I see it. Dress kids up as they want to be dressed. No kids is actually abused from this. They will sooner or later figure out what is correct and the worst thing that can happen is that they decide to change. But then it is their choice.

Jeez.

I don't agree with the premise, that there is a difference, or even that there "needs" to be a difference, between biological gender and "gender identity".

the last part is completely imaginary.

having a certain gender is not a right. your gender is determined officially by the government, it is regulated by law and has legal consequences. it's a matter of public order.

Just now, soon said:

The conversation is about gender expression via clothing. And suddenly that got labeled in reference to sexual orientation "Heterosexual."  Thats how you know when youre getting quality commentary 

I apologise if I am not entirely familiar with transgender jargon. We can't all be experts about everything.

[Ace Nova]

7 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

But Ace weren't talking about biological gender, he was talking about kids who grow up to identify as another gender. And his argument was that we shouldn't go along with small kids who dress up differently than their biological gender because it might just be a phase and if doing so we would be wrongfully reinforcing a wrong gender on them (=child abuse). My question is, if 3 % turn out to later identify as another gender, aren't we running the risk of abusing them by dressing them up according to their biological gender? Or are you guys really saying it is wrong to abuse gender-normative by playing along with their cress-dressing as children, but okay to abuse the few children who will self-identify different than their bioloigical gender by dressing them up according to their biological gender?

I am shocked!

Here's how I see it. Dress kids up as they want to be dressed. No kids is actually abused from this. They will sooner or later figure out what is correct and the worst thing that can happen is that they decide to change. But then it is their choice.

Jeez.

What?

Did you completely miss the part in my original post saying that “it’s normal for kids to dress up as other people”  and that kids have been doing it for “thousands of years”??

 

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

No, child abuse would be stating that your 7 year old child identifies as something other than what he/she was naturally born as. 

But that is NOT what you said. Here's what you said:

"My biggest issue with that type of stuff is when you see a 7 or 8 year old "identifying" as "this" or "that".  For starters, from a psychological perspective, no one at that age "Knows" his/her "orientation" yet.  So for parents to "reinforce" that type of "coming out" at that age is borderline child abuse, imo."

You are stating that no 7 or 8 year-old knows their real gender/orientation and hence we shouldn't "reinforce" kids who self-identify differently than their biological gender, and you refer to it as child abuse to do so. Presumably the child abuse lies in being guilty of not correcting the child's behaviour so that when the child eventually realizes it dressed wrongly it will be spared the shame (?) of having to change back and enduring images of it as a child wearing clothes for the wrong gender and having to endure insults at school and so for changing clothes and self-identify by going "back" to its biological gender.

Okay. But then according to you about 3 % of kids will later identify differently than their biological sex. Isn't it then child abuse to "reinforce" their dressing in normative clothes resulting in them later having to change clothes to reflect their (real) self-identification?

Why is it only child abuse if it is a "normative" kid who has to change back to clothes reflecting the biological sex, and not if it is a kid who has been dressed normatively but then comes to realize that this was wrong? It seems to me you are not treating these kids the same. The logical outcome of your statement is to dress all children gender-neutrally.

8 minutes ago, action said:

I don't agree with the premise, that there is a difference, or even that there "needs" to be a difference, between biological gender and "gender identity".

But then this discussion isn't for you, is it? 

[action]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

 

But then this discussion isn't for you, is it? 

why?

[SoulMonster]

3 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

What?

Did you completely miss the part in my original post saying that “it’s normal for kids to dress up as other people”  and that kids have been doing it for “thousands of years”??

Not at all. But if they want to dress up differently than their sex you are saying parents shouldn't support them because that is child abuse. BUT if they want to dress up according to their sex, that is entirely okay, even if it means 3 % of them will regret this later and go through exactly that same troubles as the other.

[Ace Nova]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

But that is NOT what you said. Here's what you said:

"My biggest issue with that type of stuff is when you see a 7 or 8 year old "identifying" as "this" or "that".  For starters, from a psychological perspective, no one at that age "Knows" his/her "orientation" yet.  So for parents to "reinforce" that type of "coming out" at that age is borderline child abuse, imo."

You are stating that no 7 or 8 year-old knows their real gender/orientation and hence we shouldn't "reinforce" kids who self-identify differently than their biological gender, and you refer to it as child abuse to do so. Presumably the child abuse lies in being guilty of not correcting the child's behaviour so that when the child eventually realizes it dressed wrongly it will be spared the shame (?) of having to change back and enduring images of it as a child wearing clothes for the wrong gender and having to endure insults at school and so for changing clothes and self-identify by going "back" to its biological gender.

Okay. But then according to you about 3 % of kids will later identify differently than their biological sex. Isn't it then child abuse to "reinforce" their dressing in normative clothes resulting in them later having to change clothes to reflect their (real) self-identification?

Why is it only child abuse if it is a "normative" kid who has to change back to clothes reflecting the biological sex, and not if it is a kid who has been dressed normatively but then comes to realize that this was wrong? It seems to me you are not treating these kids the same. The logical outcome of your statement is to dress all children gender-neutrally.

Ha.   No, that’s not what I was referring to.  Let me clarify.  It’s “child abuse” if you go around telling everyone that your child is identifying as something other than being a child before puberty.   
 

I was using the example of how some parents literally make social media posts exclaiming how their pre-pubescent child is identifying as “this” when in reality, the child is just being a child. 

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Not at all. But if they want to dress up differently than their sex you are saying parents shouldn't support them because that is child abuse. BUT if they want to dress up according to their sex, that is entirely okay, even if it means 3 % of them will regret this later and go through exactly that same troubles as the other.

 No.  I’m saying parents should support them acting as “kids”.  That includes dressing up, etc. 

What parents should not do is assume the child is “identifying” as something other than just being a child. 

[DieselDaisy]

Call me old fashioned but If a son of mine started wearing a dress - well it simply wouldn't happen. He is going to get the piss pulled out of him.  

Edit, unless it was a kilt of course.

Edited August 17, 2020 by DieselDaisy

[SoulMonster]

Just now, Ace Nova said:

Ha.   No, that’s not what I was referring to.  Let me clarify.  It’s “child abuse” if you go around telling everyone that your child is identifying as something other than being a child before puberty.   

I don't understand this sentence. "As something other than being a child before puberty"? 

Let us do a test:

1. Is it child abuse to play along with dressing up your 8-year old son in girl clothes if it turns out later that he actually self-identifies as a man?

2. Is it child abuse to play along with dressing up your 8-year old son in boy clothes if it turns out later that he actually self-identifies as a woman?

Are both of these examples of parents abusing their children, noen of them, or just one of them?

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Call me old fashioned but If a son of mine started wearing a dress - well it simply wouldn't happen. He is going to get the piss pulled out of him.  

How do you pull the piss out of someone?

5 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

I was using the example of how some parents literally make social media posts exclaiming how their pre-pubescent child is identifying as “this” when in reality, the child is just being a child. 

And I agree with this. I find it ridiculous. It is the "child abuse" part I was having trouble with.

[Ace Nova]

3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I don't understand this sentence. "As something other than being a child before puberty"? 

Let us do a test:

1. Is it child abuse to play along with dressing up your 8-year old son in girl clothes if it turns out later that he actually self-identifies as a man?

2. Is it child abuse to play along with dressing up your 8-year old son in boy clothes if it turns out later that he actually self-identifies as a woman?

Are both of these examples of parents abusing their children, noen of them, or just one of them?

How do you pull the piss out of someone?

 Neither would be child abuse.

Child abuse would be telling everyone, including the child, that he/she must be identifying as “this” because the child wanted to play dress-up one day.  

Edited August 17, 2020 by Ace Nova

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, Ace Nova said:

 Neither would be child abuse.

Child abuse would be telling everyone, including the child, that he/she must be identifying as “this” because the child wanted to play dress-up one day.  

Aha  Then I agree fully.

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

How do you pull the piss out of someone?

?

I mean you are not the brightest person in the world but I would've thought you would have some knowledge of the art of piss-pulling!

[SoulMonster]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

?

I mean you are not the brightest person in the world but I would've thought you would have some knowledge of the art of piss-pulling!

Seems like something that would happen naturally and if it doesn't, pulling doesn't seem like the logical thing to attempt. I suppose it works with udders but that is different. 

But anyway, tell us what you would do to that imaginary son of yours who dressed as a girl?

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Seems like something that would happen naturally and if it doesn't, pulling doesn't seem like the logical thing to attempt. I suppose it works with udders but that is different. 

But anyway, tell us what you would do to that imaginary son of yours who dressed as a girl?

You really require a point-by-point description, with no doubt notes, annotated sources and full bibliography, on what entails piss-pulling? Then you are a bigger fool than I thought if you believe I am going to provide it.