Hey, look, another right-wing conservative policy goes down in flames.
What's amazing is that Utah is only the 19th state to ban such anti-science crap. Let's be clear, gay conversation therapy doesn't work and has never worked because you can't change somebody's God-given sexuality.
But conservatives, particularly religious conservatives, sure want to try.
The question is, why are there still 31 states (assuming my math is correct) that HAVEN'T banned this medieval practice?
Oh, I know, because religious conservatives still believe it actually works.
Support this 100%.
Just as I support banning any hormone therapy or surgery to effect a "gender change" before the age of consent (typically 18).
(I'm a conservative, too, and don't know a single one that supports such "therapy". Your final statement, then, is about as false as it can be - perhaps you should change it to "religious whackos" or some other insult rather than "conservative".
I changed it to "religious conservatives" per your suggestion. However, this is something of a logic question.
It tends to be conservatives who champion this stuff. Just because they are "religious whacko" conservatives does not mean they aren't still conservatives. I see the policies of whacko liberals lumped in with the policies of regular liberals all the time. Like, you know, socialism. We're all hit with that label.
In regards to you not allowing therapy prior to the age of consent. I agree with this, just like I agree not allowing religious exemptions for basic medical treatment, which happens all the time, but is allowed by law. You should not be able to force your children to get conversion therapies just as you should not be allowed to deny them basic medial treatment when they are sick.
Thats okay. It is also okay to point out that liberals are encouraging the murder and rape of LGBT persons by preventing them from owning guns for self defense.
Just because they are liberal whackos does not mean they are not liberals.
What a dumb response. Owning guns is legal. There's also not a shred of proof that owning a gun prevents murder and rape with any effectiveness.
Also, not the subject of this forum. Maybe you believe in conversion therapy?
I was commenting on your illogical statement about conservatives. It dumb.
If you have not read anything about the prevention of violence by guns, it is available through the CDC.
Conversion therapy is legal in 31 states, pushed by religious conservatives. Owning guns is legal.
I think you are both off base by bringing up this as a sidebar to the real discussion, BUT... I've been called a liberal in the forums, however, I consider myself a middle-of-the roader. My personal experience has been that owning a gun and flashing it at the right time when I was home alone at night prevented a break in TWICE. I think the first time, in Lubbock, Texas, may have been just a peeping Tom and perhaps I wasn't in real danger, I just don't know, but I'm glad he left. But the second time, in Little Rock, Arkansas, the prowlers came back earlier the next night while I was at work. They burglarized and ransacked the house and left my house cat out in the snow. I found him terrorized and shivering, afraid to come back inside although they left the back door wide open. Owning a gun may have saved my life in this instance, so I don't have to look up the statistics. I am FOR gun ownership, but I don't see the need to own military-style weapons or bump stocks. And that's the view of this alleged liberal.
No it isn't. Only the prevention of GUN violence - reducing the number of guns hasn't proved a reduction in homicides anywhere in the world.
The effectiveness of guns has nothing to do with the subject of this forum. It's still true that the vast majority of guns owned for protection are never used for it and that many of them end up being used in accidents that result in injuries to the gun owners.
That said, the fact that some guns are used successfully to thwart criminals and that some guns end up killing their owners in accidents does not characterize the effectiveness one way or the other. It would be nice if the NRA lobbied for studies on such things because I think those would be important data points.
Here's an interesting study that does suggest gun control reduces violent crime in certain situations:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10 … 6816670457
Thank you - this is what I've been preaching ever since investigating the question.
" Results indicate that gun control laws generally show no evidence of effects on crime rates, possibly because gun levels do not have a net positive effect on violence rates."
I think our stance on guns is probably quite close. If I'm characterizing your position correctly, I do agree that gun control by itself is useless unless the other aspects of violence are also addressed. There's a whole litany of things associated with violence, including movies, video games; etc. To put the whole responsibility solely on gun ownership is not accurate.
However, if you look at that study, there are conclusions I do agree with that the NRA opposes, like banning gun sales for criminals, violent offenders, and people who are receiving psychiatric help and/or drugs. What the study concludes is that banning gun sales for citizens who follow the rules and have always followed the rules does not result in any drop in violence because those people were not violent in the first place and are not prone to be violent gun or not.
And I should say "ban". "Control" would be a better word, but just in the instances the study shows would make a difference.
I really detest guns altogether except very rarely. It's the only weapon that could force me to be raped by, otherwise I am a world class fighter. Submit is better than being killed. Afterwards I can legally hunt down that person, than imprison him or if luckier her.
I think every State christainity tries secretely to convert gays. Banning it is a good start, concidering gays is still illegal in almost 80 countries. About 5000 species of mammals have shown there is same sexaul intimacy relationships, meaning it is more of a natural gene than a man-made God gene.
Yes, we had two black male cats, brothers from the same litter and they were neutered. However, we often caught one performing a gay act on his brother. Maybe we should have given him gay conversion therapy.
I think you can baptized your pet, than gay conversation them, to keep it all legal with God.
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Or if I don't feed my pet for a week, I become Jesus.lol.
"There's also not a shred of proof that owning a gun prevents murder and rape with any effectiveness."
Outside of a handful of people that successfully fought off an attacker with a gun, this is true.
Just as it is true that there is not a shred of proof that fewer guns in a society produces fewer murders (rapes I haven't looked at but suspect it is even more true).
Crank, I couldn't have said it better, especially your last statement. Remember the case of the teenager (I believe he was 16, but I'd have to look it up.) who went to court to override his parents' objections when he wanted to be vaccinated? These religious wackos and anti-vaxers aren't just jeopardizing their family's health, but public health as well. Personally, I don't see conversion therapy at any age, much less on someone below the age of consent. But then this is a country of free choice, or supposed to be anyway. Seems kind of ironic that the same people who want to force this on children are the same ones who want to take away a grown woman's right to make her own choices. And they use the same reasoning to do it.
Well, I guess I'm guilty here - I DO lump all liberals (recognizing that there is a tiny portion of ANY group that holds differing positions) together with socialism. Probably because I've never spoken to a liberal that wasn't big on the redistribution of wealth (freebies of all kinds taken from their neighbors and friends). Whether it's free school lunches for poor kids, subsidized housing for the poor and needy, or free cell phones rather than cheaper land lines, liberals seem to be all over anything they can give away to those that have insufficient resources to obtain it themselves. If that doesn't fit you, I apologize and will recognize that there truly ARE some that aren't generally in favor of the modern socialism of giving near total support to the poor.
But if it upsets you, if you find it derogatory, wouldn't a better path be not to use the same thing on others?
But just for clarity, though I suspect there is no misunderstanding, I meant no treatments to create or start a gender change before 18. Not conversion therapy; work to proceed the other direction.
Most civil societies try to take care of their less fortunate. I support common sense solutions to that end.
The poor do not need free cell phones. This is one of many examples of such things going way too far.
I think society does far too much in simply giving things away as opposed to training people to be self-sufficient. Again, religion factors into this. If we would provide free birth control, we'd substantially reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. Barring that, which I know people oppose, simply telling people that having tons of children is a terrible idea would be a start. We need to teach people how expensive having a child can be. If we held fathers more responsible for pregnancies they caused, that would also be a start.
This relates to the subject of this forum well, because religious conservatives generally oppose common sense measure around sex that would reduce unwanted pregnancies.
Crankalicious, I agree 100% with what you just said. I guess then by Wilderness' definition, I'm not a liberal. I just oppose most of the conservatives attitude of "let them eat cake." I also oppose the misogyny of fundamentalist Christians who make up most of the conservative base. I think that society should take care of its most vulnerable citizens, but that doesn't include the lazy.
I also believe this:
"If they paid women equally to men, half the poverty in the U.S. would be wiped out overnight."
This reminds me of the Flat-Earth Society and how people today believe they can have their truth. There is this significant growth of distrust in what is known and what people want to believe. I just watched someone as the question (edited to show intent) "Will you say what I believe or will you be a cowardly shill for the evil people I don't trust."
I'm surprised 19 states outlawed this nonsense.
There was this dog that lived in the house next to us. Every day it would come over and bark at a squirrel in our yard, and every day the stone squirrel did nothing, but that dog refused to believe its barking wouldn't move that stone squirrel.
I am horrified by the thought of conversion therapy, but when it comes to kids who say they are transgender, I think there are problems with these laws. For example, if a girl is sexually abused and subsequently declares she is actually a transgender boy, it may be because she finds safety in presenting herself as a boy as it helps her feel less vulnerable to male abusers. Another example is effeminate boys and masculine girls who are same-sex attracted. If they are bullied or shamed for being same-sex attracted or for being "butch" girls or "sissy" boys, these kids may self-identify as transgender as they could view it as a solution to their dilemma – if they are the opposite sex then they are no longer gay, which eliminates the source of their shame and bullying. Another situation is a very young child whose teacher reads the "I Am Jazz" children's book to their kindergarten class. In the book, written by reality TV's transgender teen Jazz Jennings, it says Jazz is a transgender girl because although Jazz was born a boy, Jazz prefers the color pink and princess dresses. Children of this age are very literal and suggestible and a little boy who has this book read to him may come to believe he is transgender if he, too, likes pink and princess dresses.
So if a parent takes one of the above kids to a therapist, are the therapist's hands tied as far as suggesting to the child that they may not really be transgender, that they may be identifying as the opposite sex in order to cope with trauma? Or in the case of the kindergartner, are the therapist's hands tied as far as telling the child they are misunderstanding what it means to be transgender, that it is perfectly fine for little boys to like pink and princess dresses and this does not mean they have a "girl brain in a boy body" (as the book states)?
Personally, I would like to see a separate law specifically for gender identity. I do not think it is wise to lump gender identity in with sexual orientation because sexual orientation does not involve irreversible and/or dangerous medical treatments such as powerful and harmful puberty blockers, opposite-sex hormones or surgeries. Kids who self-identify as transgender may do so for various reasons and kids who are not actually transgender will be seriously harmed if they undergo medical treatment or are encouraged to believe they are transgender when they are not. These kids need therapists who are not bound by laws which prevent them from suggesting a child might not actually be transgender and helping to guide the child out of the belief that they are.
"These kids need therapists who are not bound by laws which prevent them from suggesting a child might not actually be transgender and helping to guide the child out of the belief that they are."
Your statement sounds reasonable on the surface, as long as it doesn't go so far as to include conversion therapy, which usually includes an extreme form of coercion, not not mere suggestions to give a child or young person food for thought.
Unfortunately the state laws do not specify that in order to be considered conversion therapy, the therapy must include an extreme form of coercion, or even any level of coercion at all. The laws are way too vague IMHO. Their wording could be interpreted as anything that is not taking a child's declaration that they are gay or transgender at face value. Which again, if a kid believes they are gay, is not such an issue if the child later realizes they were just confused as they were growing up and learning about themselves. But for a girl who grows up to realize she is not transgender, that she was simply trying to find a way to survive and cope after being raped, if she was given a double mastectomy and put on testosterone at 13, 14, or 15, she is now going to be traumatized a second time as she comes to terms with her damaged body and possible irreversible infertility.
It may not be directly to the topic, but in checking out this Gay Conversion thing I came across a phrase that I really like and think accurately describes the LGBTQ 'condition':
"LGBTQ identities are a normal variant of human nature."
Sounds right to me. Maybe, instead of trying to normalize it this should be a direction that should be pushed harder—yes, it is a variant of human nature, but it is a normal variant.
I would probably accept the LGB as a "normal variant" but very highly doubt that the T occurs often enough, and severe enough (to the point of using surgery, say), to be considered "normal" at all. Never did understand what the Q is, so won't comment on that.
That works. It doesn't alter the concept.
I don't think one's personal opinion about what constitutes "normal" is relevant. Transsexualism is identifiable throughout history, so it's very likely a normal variant that occurs at a low rate. Whether it occurs often enough is simply not relevant. The issue of "choice" has always factored into these labels. It's a fact that people are born with chromosomes that do not match their genitalia.
This is news to me, that there are people with genes that do not match genitalia. Certainly the XYY combination results in a male, usually one that can reproduce. What would the genetic structure be that produces a penis and testis but is not the male genetic structure?
As far as "normal"; I don't agree here. If something happens one in 10,000 we would not usually consider it "normal". For instance, Down's Syndrome is not considered "normal" in a child, yet the frequency of such births is around 1 in only 800. Similarly, it is not "normal" to be born a genius, but the odds are only 1 in 140.
Are we just trying to define what the term "normal variant" means?
I was going to bring up these situation as possibly being defined as aberrations, but we could suggest that about anything outside a majority. Most people are not born homosexual, but clearly some are. I don't think "normal" is necessarily a valid term. Perhaps natural? Is it natural for somebody to be born homosexual? I would say yes. I would also say the same about transsexuality. Is it scientifically explainable or a person's choice? And perhaps it's the result of trauma of some sort. Honestly, I don't know enough about the topic, but tend to side with the idea that there is a wide variety of sexual outcomes for humans that occur naturally.
Normal or not, one could just say that these things are a variant of human nature.
Oh, I would most definitely define it as "natural"...with "natural" being defined as an event without intentional intervention by humans.
Homosexuality has a long history in the species, and in other species as well. Transsexuality, to the point of undergoing irreversible surgery to transform into something that is neither male nor female in order to feel more comfortable in society, is not. Celibacy has been a staple, for instance, but not castration, but even celibacy has never been considered "normal" and castration was either forced or considered to be actual insanity.
Yes, there is certainly a wide - very wide - variety of sexual outcomes for humans. And there is no doubt, IMHO, that we as a people need to learn that and to accept it. We've done so with many other variations, from physical deformity (not normal!) to mental illness to simple retardation. The only real difference is that we are SO hung up on sex, to the point that one could almost consider entire cultures and societies as perverted somehow. Including our own - when we view our own God given body as intrinsically evil because we possess a reproductive system we have a problem.
It's a very tough topic. I think I've given this example before, but when my son was in preschool, there was a child who dressed as a girl but was biologically a boy. From what I could tell, the mother was behind this. Regardless, that is really early to be pushing sexuality, of any kind, on a child. Given how the brain develops, it's hard to understand the possible ramifications of this.
Now, did I respect the decision? Well, I have to. Also, I didn't know all the details. That said, it's just really early in a person's life to allow them to decide they're not their biological sex. Of course, a lot of people in that position say they knew very early on, but still, it's so early in life.
Not saying I know the answer but I respect the person who's concerned about making that kind of decision for a child or encouraging it one way or the other.
Yes, it's a very tough subject to actually get into and understand.
But I do have a problem when a parent or guardian supports and encourages a child's decisions that will have a huge negative impact on their life - on the one had we declare that children are incapable of making such decisions (consider child sexual abuse and rape laws) and on the other declare that they ARE competent.
My tentative opinion is that they are not. Children have tons of irrational desires and make poor decisions with insufficient thought or understanding. It is far too likely that choosing a gender at such a young age is just another one of them.
I agree mostly. And, in fact, in the situation I described, that was precisely my reaction. Children have gender identity issues in infancy and adolescence all the time. Most parents don't have the slightest idea how to cope with a wide variety of issues. There's no reason to think that most parents have any clue what to do in some of these complicated situations.
I am far from convinced that anyone, parent or not, trained psychologist or not, has any real clue what to do. It strikes me that for every psychologist that would recommend working with a child to define a childs gender different than their sex you would find 2 more that would say never to do that.
I think a far more reasonable solution is to help the child deal with their feelings and fit in as well as possible. When they are older and more capable of making lifelong decisions they can do so. I just have a really hard time thinking it is a good thing to help a child turn themselves into a laughingstock of their peers (children are NOT known for being understanding in such circumstances and can be incredibly cruel, sometimes without even meaning to be).
I agree. The parent should do his/her best to support his/her child in whatever ways they need, but try to get to that point where, as an adult, that child can make a decision for him or herself. That is totally reasonable.
"Children have tons of irrational desires and make poor decisions with insufficient thought or understanding."
I agree completely. Kids who believe in Santa and the tooth fairly are being told by parents, teachers, doctors, therapists, and other adults that when boys don't like "boy stuff" and girls don't like "girl stuff," then they were "born in the wrong body," and of course kids believe this, too.
The information at this link https://fairplayforwomen.com/which/ explains how kids who more closely fit the sex stereotypes of their opposite sex as preschoolers (age 2.5 to 5) are more likely than other kids grow up to be gay or lesbian adults. This tells me that rather than tell these kids they are transgender and have the wrong brain, put them on puberty blockers and hormones and start getting them psyched up for inevitable surgery at 13-17, they should be allowed to grow up and determine as adults what sort of body modifications (if any) are appropriate or needed.
Jazz Jennings seems to be the poster child for this. Jazz was diagnosed with gender identity disorder at age three after only one visit with a psychologist. Ever since that day, Jazz was told he is a girl in a boy's body -- conditioned since age three! No wonder he believes it. Today, he has undergone three genital surgeries, surgeons never seeming to be able to get it right because his genital growth was so stunted by the hormone blockers, meaning the surgeons have very little tissue to work with. Jazz is permanently sterilized and says he has never experienced orgasm. His brain has never undergone the brain growth and changes puberty brings -- and no one is sure if this is a concern for these kids or if it makes no difference in their intellect and mental health. But there is a study showing a drop in IQ may be associated with kids who have been treated with puberty blockers.
It is all a huge scandal, IMHO. While therapists should not be allowed to use coercion or aversion in an attempt to stop kids from believing they are the wrong sex, it is just as dangerous to simply take their word at face value and start them on the road to sterilization and extreme body modification when they are too young to understand exactly what they are getting into and all they are giving up.
Now that is something that I hadn't considered - the effect of puberty blockers of any kind. There are massive changes that occur in a child's body during puberty, changes in both the brain tissue and the body. To think that none of these, especially the hormonal swings and changes, have no effect on IQ or other brain functions is ludicrous.
by Scott S Bateman 3 years ago
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 … ouseholds/
by Credence2 4 years ago
I have always wondered what makes progressives (liberals if you like) different from conservatives. When both are witness to the same events, yet each group has a different take on what is or what should be done.This is a lot like the gold or blue dress controversy of a couple of months ago. Who...
by Ralph Deeds 9 years ago
The phrase is being used as shorthand by some prominent conservatives for a kind of closed-mindedness in the movement, a development they see as debasing modern conservatism’s proud intellectual history. First used in this context by Julian Sanchez of the libertarian Cato Institute, the phrase...
by Jack Lee 2 years ago
As a conservative, this is one thing that I have not comprehended as much as I try...Please answer this question.With all the failings of so many government programs, and abuses, and corruption and miss managements...why do we want more of it?I wish someone will give a justification or at least an...
by Mr. Happy 7 years ago
A question for people who are against gun control: does the fact that 'the founding fathers" wrotethat the 2nd amendment shall not be infringed lead them to believe that gun laws will never change? With this kind of thinking, should Italy return to Roman laws and should Egypt re-enact the laws...
by crankalicious 7 years ago
My unbiased description is this: liberals turn to government to solve their problems. Conservatives turn to business to solve their problems.
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|