Christian school teacher used AI and yearbook photos to make child pornography: Police

[OlNate]

So what's your position on LGBT pride, racial pride, women's pride, and celebrations of such pride?

You can go back through the thread for a more detailed explanation, I've already made the distinction, but those are not examples of pride simply about identity, but rather what they've had to overcome as a result of their identity, even if that means just being ok with who they are in the face of long standing societal messaging to the contrary.

 

[OlNate]

or from qualities or possessions that are widely admired.

It's obvious you can't understand. You try hard but you're failing.

No, we're back to the start of this merry go round that you've taken us on, the failure is all yours, bud.

So, now that we've established what pride means, what are you proud about?

Good grief, you require a lot of patience.

 

[Hello My Son]

You can go back through the thread for a more detailed explanation, I've already made the distinction, but those are not examples of pride simply about identity, but rather what they've had to overcome as a result of their identity, even if that means just being ok with who they are in the face of long standing societal messaging to the contrary.

My apologies--I didn't realize it had already been discussed, but thank you for answering the question again. I get where you're coming from on that representing a certain kind of pride in overcoming adversity.

 

[Ganondagan]

No, we're back to the start of this merry go round that you've taken us on, the failure is all yours, bud.

So, now that we've established what pride means, what are you proud about?

Good grief, you require a lot of patience.

No, we're not back to anything. This has been a straight line of disagreements over what pride is and what it's based on. You've insisted that it's based on accomplishments and nothing else. You're wrong.

Pride can also come from an understanding of your self worth, confidence in your values, the blessings of your relationship to God, and living a moral life. This may be rejected by non-believers but that doesn't concern me. You may stick to your belief that pride can only be based on achievements, but you are objectively wrong. My place in the world and my relationship with God is the source of my pride, not accomplishments.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Your statistics actually show that Christianity is beneficial to slowing the rate of sexual abuse. Take this stat, for instance, from your source:

View attachment 67499876

The rate of sexual abuse of women in the general population is 50%

View attachment 67499877

So by your source, and my source, it would seem a woman is 14 times more likely to be sexual abused outside of the Church than in the church.

Most of the high statistics in your source don't differentiate between consensual and non-consensual sexual contact.

I would also venture to say that how the study defines "extramarital affair" and how the average pastor would define it are different.

While I think the SNOWFLAKE's argument is highly flawed, this one is as well.

Most sexual violence occurs in the home or school and/or on the part of members of the victim's family or close friends to the victim's family. People are often in church no more than 1 hour a week. You are trying to compare one hour a week to sexual violence that occurs in homes, schools, and workplaces where people spend the majority of their week. Point being, 7 out of 400 women experiencing sexual violence in a place they spend an hour a week in on average, is a much higher rate of sexual violence than you will find in most places where women spend similar amounts of time.

To compare the rates of sexual violence in the church to the rates in school, home, and the workplace, you have to normalize the time between them first.

 

[jmotivator]

While I think the SNOWFLAKE's argument is highly flawed, this one is as well.

Most sexual violence occurs in the home or school and/or on the part of members of the victim's family or close friends to the victim's family. People are often in church no more than 1 hour a week. You are trying to compare one hour a week to sexual violence that occurs in homes, schools, and workplaces where people spend the majority of their week. Point being, 7 out of 400 women experiencing sexual violence in a place they spend an hour a week in on average, is a much higher rate of sexual violence than you will find in most places where women spend similar amounts of time.

To compare the rates of sexual violence in the church to the rates in school, home, and the workplace, you have to normalize the time between them first.

You argument is actually the one that is flawed. It's not the time you spend in the presence of men that is the deciding factor, it's rate at which those men around you are sexual predators.

Your assertion would assume that given enough time around any man he will rape you.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Your assertion would assume that given enough time around any man he will rape you.

I think some people actually believe this, and it really wouldn't surprise me if some of those people populate this forum.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

You argument is actually the one that is flawed. It's not the time you spend in the presence of men that is the deciding factor, it's rate at which those men around you are sexual predators.

Your assertion would assume that given enough time around any man he will rape you.

No, that isn't my assertion.

If you assume that a given percentage of the population is predisposed to sexual misconduct, time is a factor in that because they need opportunity. This is why rates are very high in school, the military, and in homes. People spend a lot of time in proximity to each other in schools, the military and homes. Thus, lots of opportunity.

I don't know if the rate of sexual misconduct is higher or lower in churches than it is in other places. What I do know, is that you cannot directly compare sexual violence in a place like a church, where people on average spend 1 hour of their time a week, to places like a workplace where people spend an average of 40 hours of their time a week. Before you did that, you would have to normalize for time spent there, for gender composition, ages and so on.

The point being that I have no idea from the date you quoted whether churches have lower or higher rates of sexual misconduct because the data is not there to make that comparison.

Think of it this way. If you visit a dangerous neighborhood 1 hour every week, are you more or less likely to be a victim of violence than if you visited a dangerous neighborhood, 8 hours every day?

 

[jmotivator]

No, that isn't my assertion.

If you assume that a given percentage of the population is predisposed to sexual misconduct, time is a factor in that because they need opportunity. This is why rates are very high in school, the military, and in homes. People spend a lot of time in proximity to each other in schools, the military and homes. Thus, lots of opportunity.

I don't know if the rate of sexual misconduct is higher or lower in churches than it is in other places. What I do know, is that you cannot directly compare sexual violence in a place like a church, where people on average spend 1 hour of their time a week, to places like a workplace where people spend an average of 40 hours of their time a week. Before you did that, you would have to normalize for time spent there, for gender composition, ages and so on.

The point being that I have no idea from the date you quoted whether churches have lower or higher rates of sexual misconduct because the data is not there to make that comparison.

Think of it this way. If you visit a dangerous neighborhood 1 hour every week, are you more or less likely to be a victim of violence than if you visited a dangerous neighborhood, 8 hours every day?

Except that with the Catholic Church you ARE talking about kids in regular weekly school and women who work and volunteer with the Church. And the rate amount women and children who go to school and work in and around the church is lower than it is in the general public.

 

[btthegreat]

When you talk about using the images of purely fictional individuals, such as Bart and Lisa Simpson, I have to agree with you that there is no victim, save maybe in the copyright area. Or when the character is not based on any real person or face. However, once you start taking an actual person and use their likeness to generate porn, even if the person themselves does not model for it, it is still at a minimum sexual exploitation, and still potential harmful to them, if in no other way than having false information out there about them. This would not be any different than someone taking your face and using AI to put you in an image of sexually assaulting a child. You didn't do it, but it would still harm you.

This seems a little loosy goosy. Its full of maybes and ifs and to show a compelling state interest sufficient to punish the creation or access of free and unfettered speech for 'Maybe' victims. You don't need to use actual photos or images of living children. You can create generic children's faces, or use unidentified children's faces from photos in 1914, long since dead.

 

[OlNate]

No, we're not back to anything. This has been a straight line of disagreements over what pride is and what it's based on. You've insisted that it's based on accomplishments and nothing else. You're wrong.

Pride can also come from an understanding of your self worth, confidence in your values, the blessings of your relationship to God, and living a moral life. This may be rejected by non-believers but that doesn't concern me. You may stick to your belief that pride can only be based on achievements, but you are objectively wrong. My place in the world and my relationship with God is the source of my pride, not accomplishments.

Good grief.

So, from a theological perspective (my background is a lifetime in the Lutheran church, since you're now trying to win this debate by attempting to suggest i can't understand because I'm not a believer), pride is NOT a part of the equation. In fact, pride goeth before the fall, and humility is talked about so often that one would have to pretty much ignore the Bible entirely to come away with that assertion. The entire premise of being saved by faith through grace means that we have nothing to be proud about from a religious perspective. So, once again, even in this context, you are wrong.

But fine, whatever, be proud of your faith, despite the fact that doing so makes you contrary to it. You also talked about being white, male, and straight as things to be proud of. These are all arbitrary traits you receive at birth. Back to, you might as well say you're proud of your big toe.

Look, I'm sure that you've accomplished things in your life worth being proud of. I'm not trying to suggest otherwise. But while you're initial comment may be a great dog whistle to put on a meme or a t-shirt, clearly it doesn't stand up to scrutiny in a debate forum.

If you're still game to try to put together an actual response that makes sense in the context of the definition of the word, here's the question again, slightly revised for clarity:

What about simply being white makes you proud?

What about simply being straight makes you proud?

What about simply being a man makes you proud?

Hint: if it's something not exclusive to being white, straight, or a man, it is outside of the scope of your initial statement.

Or you can just run away, i wouldn't blame you at this point.

 

[OlNate]

My apologies--I didn't realize it had already been discussed, but thank you for answering the question again. I get where you're coming from on that representing a certain kind of pride in overcoming adversity.

That's the whole story, bud. You can really only claim pride in identity if preserving / establishing it was / is an accomplishment. And of course people who have never had to do so can't understand.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

Good grief.

So, from a theological perspective (my background is a lifetime in the Lutheran church, since you're now trying to win this debate by attempting to suggest i can't understand because I'm not a believer), pride is NOT a part of the equation. In fact, pride goeth before the fall, and humility is talked about so often that one would have to pretty much ignore the Bible entirely to come away with that assertion. The entire premise of being saved by faith through grace means that we have nothing to be proud about from a religious perspective. So, once again, even in this context, you are wrong.

But fine, whatever, be proud of your faith, despite the fact that doing so makes you contrary to it. You also talked about being white, male, and straight as things to be proud of. These are all arbitrary traits you receive at birth. Back to, you might as well say you're proud of your big toe.

Look, I'm sure that you've accomplished things in your life worth being proud of. I'm not trying to suggest otherwise. But while you're initial comment may be a great dog whistle to put on a meme or a t-shirt, clearly it doesn't stand up to scrutiny in a debate forum.

If you're still game to try to put together an actual response that makes sense in the context of the definition of the word, here's the question again, slightly revised for clarity:

What about simply being white makes you proud?

What about simply being straight makes you proud?

What about simply being a man makes you proud?

Hint: if it's something not exclusive to being white, straight, or a man, it is outside of the scope of your initial statement.

Or you can just run away, i wouldn't blame you at this point.

I would suggest there are those who, while boasting about having pride, are nevertheless willing to make fools of themselves on debate forums. That doesn't say much for their pride - in my opinion

 

[OlNate]

I would suggest there are those who, while boasting about having pride, are nevertheless willing to make fools of themselves on debate forums. That doesn't say much for their pride - in my opinion

Generally speaking, and without trying to be smug or hateful, a lot of times when you hear the word pride in connection with identity, it's to counter feelings of imposed inferiority, either real or perceived. Straight pride, for example, is a response to gay pride, there was no such thing prior to it. It appears to me that it's not really about being proud of being straight, it's a rebuttal, a response to feeling threatened by a demographic that used to be easy to pick on and descriminate against.

Following the same example, there would be no need for statements of gay pride, had there not been such a long period of actual imposed inferiority.

The problem with admitting this is that it specifies the grievance, which opens the grievance to scrutiny. This is problematic because while the gay person can clearly demonstrate imposed inferiority, the straight person can only point to the gay person's attempt to throw off that imposed inferiority as the source of their imposed inferiority. With that being the case, most reasonable people would come to the conclusion that the gay person's grievance is far more substantial than the straight person's. For some people this is a very troubling shift of power.

So, rather than open themselves up to that scrutiny, they engage in some of the behaviour we see here and everywhere else. The same old talking points, the same old tactics. It's not about pride, it's about ego, which is why it is difficult to defend in a debate forum without talking in circles and attempting to do everything but address the issue, while somehow acting condescendingly towards their opponent for "not getting it".

That's my theory, anyway, who knows, I could be full of shit... but that's the way it looks to me, and whenever I say so I generally get insulted rather than get anyone arguing the point directly.

 

[maquiscat]

This seems a little loosy goosy. Its full of maybes and ifs and to show a compelling state interest sufficient to punish the creation or access of free and unfettered speech for 'Maybe' victims. You don't need to use actual photos or images of living children. You can create generic children's faces, or use unidentified children's faces from photos in 1914, long since dead.

I don't see where there is anything loose about it. The closest it comes to that is which crime is committed if the AI is used from a picture or other source. If the child themselves were never actually exposed, then it can't be sexual assault. I did provide sexual exploitation as a possibility. But regardless of what crime is applied, the use of an actual person for such pornography is still wrong. Whereas a completely fictional person based on no one actual harms no one.

 

[Northern Light]

While allowing or encouraging children to undergo medical procedures that suppress or change hormones, or physical appearance may or may not be a good thing to occur ( case by case basis). It no where comes close to pedophilia.

Not informing parents again may or may not be a good thing. There are plenty of parents who throw their children to the streets if they come out as LGTBQ. Certainly in those cases not informing the parents is in the best interest bof the child.

I never said that those direct things were pedophilia. I said they are gateways to grooming. The reason is that "children can consent" has become blended with TQ+ activism such that now children are being openly exposed to adult sexual themes in ways that were universally frowned upon less than 10 years ago, in the name of: medicine, education, and activism.

I wholeheartedly disagree that overriding parental consent is okay in anything other than outright neglect or violence that we all understand as necessary reasons for involving CPS. Controversial issues such as "gender affirming care" are not settled science and the states allowing parental overrides are eventually going to be defeated by tidal waves of lawsuits, as is currently happening.

However, we are now blending different topics together. My main original points were:

Does the TQ+ movement uphold ideologies that could be gateways to pedophilia? Yes.
Has protection of children from adult themes declined, enabling possible pedophilia? Yes.
Is the TQ+ movement vulnerable to infiltration by pedophiles, more now than previously? Yes.

None of the posts are meant to indicate all Christians are pedophiles, it would be nice if Christians stopped calling all LGBTQ people pedophiles. After all evidence indicates that Christians especially religious leaders have a higher incidence rate, and that it has actively been covered up and concealed ( ie Catholic church)

I have already said more than once in this thread that stereotyping any group is wrong and that I am only critical of the enablement of pedophiles, as well as anyone who places ideology over evidence or controversy that may enable pedophiles.

It is wrong to persecute any group based on the actions of a few. I do not think all LGBTQ+ people are pedophiles. It goes without saying, but pedophiles are a fringe minority in both Christianity and LGBTQ+. Even if you added up all the priests found guilty of pedophilia, they are way, way fewer than the total number of priests in the church. What is unacceptable, and is the reason I am no longer Catholic, is that the church covered it up and enabled it to continue -- just as queer theorists continue to enable pedophilia in their lectures and writing. I am against these people.

I am against enabling in any way. You don't agree with my examples above about "children can consent" in the TQ+ movement. That's fine. I believe the TQ+ contains enabling philosophies. I can provide you with quotes from all of the major queer theorists, the bedrock of the TQ+ movement, making comments in their speeches or literature that are enabling of child grooming, if you wish.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Don't be obtuse.

Oh, so they aren't taking the moral low-ground.

You'll have to specify what moral ground they're on, then.

 

[uptower]

You had me at Christian schoolteacher....

 

[maquiscat]

I never said that those direct things were pedophilia. I said they are gateways to grooming. The reason is that "children can consent" has become blended with TQ+ activism such that now children are being openly exposed to adult sexual themes in ways that were universally frowned upon less than 10 years ago, in the name of: medicine, education, and activism.

What sexual themes are they being exposed to? It can't be about same sex relationships, because they've been exposed to opposite sex relationships, and either both are sexual exposure or neither are. What is there sexual about being transgender or queer? Neither is even about who you would want to have sex with. Right now, there seems to be a conflation fallacy in play here.

I wholeheartedly disagree that overriding parental consent is okay in anything other than outright neglect or violence that we all understand as necessary reasons for involving CPS. Controversial issues such as "gender affirming care" are not settled science and the states allowing parental overrides are eventually going to be defeated by tidal waves of lawsuits, as is currently happening.

We do have cases where neglect or violence happens upon the child when they do come out and claim to be anything LBGT+. Further, if the child is exhibiting suicidal ideation, do we let the parents' decision ride, and wait for the minor to actually attempt or commit suicide? I admit that I am of mixed feeling with the whole thing. For the most part, the parent should be the final word until the minor can make decisions for themselves. However, just as we would not let the parents' decision be the final one in say refusing to allow medical care for flu or pneumonia or a broken or fractured bone, why should we let them be the final word when the doctor determines that the minor is likely to harm to terminate themselves without treatment? I am perfectly fine in delaying treatment if the professional decision of the doctor is that the minor does not have sufficiently severe symptoms to warrant immediate medical intervention and suggest the start of therapy only.

Before I get to the next part, I am going to point out that you are using the term pedophilia incorrectly. Pedophilia is a disorder. It exists in a person who has it, whether or not they have sexually assaulted a pre-pubescent child. Further child sexual assault occurs by individuals who do not have pedophilia. Nothing leads to pedophilia, or is a gateway to it. It either exists in a person or it doesn't. It can't be cured only treated, just like so many other thing with humans can't be cure, but only treated.

Does the TQ+ movement uphold ideologies that could be gateways to pedophilia? Yes.

No, or at least no more so than any religious movement upholds ideologies that could be gateways to child sexual assault.

Has protection of children from adult themes declined, enabling possible pedophilia? Yes.

Yes, and mostly in the area of cis gender heterosexualadult themes. So ultimately this is a red herring to the topic. The other two, while I disagree with them, at least are not red herrings to the topic.

Is the TQ+ movement vulnerable to infiltration by pedophiles, more now than previously? Yes.

Not more so now than previously. And it is no more vulnerable to infiltration by pedophiles, and those who would commit child sexual assault than say the Scouts or any other youth organization, or schools or religious organizations where pre-pubescent children would be regularly present.

I am against enabling in any way. You don't agree with my examples above about "children can consent" in the TQ+ movement. That's fine. I believe the TQ+ contains enabling philosophies. I can provide you with quotes from all of the major queer theorists, the bedrock of the TQ+ movement, making comments in their speeches or literature that are enabling of child grooming, if you wish.

Are they really the bedrock of the LBGT+ community, or is that just a claim by opponents? Opponents love to claim that John Money is one of the heroes of the transgender community, when in reality we see him for the abusive perverted arse that he was. We don't revere or even like him for the most part.

 

[Northern Light]

What sexual themes are they being exposed to? It can't be about same sex relationships, because they've been exposed to opposite sex relationships, and either both are sexual exposure or neither are. What is there sexual about being transgender or queer? Neither is even about who you would want to have sex with. Right now, there seems to be a conflation fallacy in play here.

There's no conflation fallacy at work. You're assuming there is one before you've even asked me for specific examples. Please don't.

Examples include, content in classrooms, which I ironically can't post or link to here because I would be banned under the porn rule. Teaching kids about same-sex intercourse, blowjobs, toys, porn, etc. These books are well known now. The TQ+ has fought intensely for those books to remain in classrooms, feigning "discrimination" (an actual conflation fallacy). The general public has way less of a problem with TQ+ itself than it does certain content.

There's nothing inherently sexual about being trans or queer. Again, that is baiting and switching. I love drag but there are certain types of performances that are not acceptable for kids. Also, there is an issue with drag queens as role models. They may do "kid friendly" performances but once those kids look them up on social media they can find all sorts of other sexualized content. What else?... how about bringing kids to pride, where there are nude marches and kink displays? There is no attempt by pride societies to delineate which aspects of pride are kid friendly or not.

As a side note... I think the drag story hour thing at the library is a totally bizarre political hill to die on.

We do have cases where neglect or violence happens upon the child when they do come out and claim to be anything LBGT+. Further, if the child is exhibiting suicidal ideation, do we let the parents' decision ride, and wait for the minor to actually attempt or commit suicide? I admit that I am of mixed feeling with the whole thing. For the most part, the parent should be the final word until the minor can make decisions for themselves. However, just as we would not let the parents' decision be the final one in say refusing to allow medical care for flu or pneumonia or a broken or fractured bone, why should we let them be the final word when the doctor determines that the minor is likely to harm to terminate themselves without treatment? I am perfectly fine in delaying treatment if the professional decision of the doctor is that the minor does not have sufficiently severe symptoms to warrant immediate medical intervention and suggest the start of therapy only.

This is a bait and switch. I'm not talking about the coming out process itself. I'm talking about medical consent.

I would hope you know just as well as I do that the diagnosis process has become incredibly flimsy in many parts of America, to varying degrees: 1) They receive no comprehensive assessment when they say they think they might be trans, just an instant green light for hormones, sometimes in the first appointment; 2) They not only receive no assessment, they may actually have the diagnosis suggested to them; 3) Kids with other issues (like autism) are being routinely misdiagnosed as trans and given life altering medical interventions. 4) Kids that are given a "comprehensive assessment" may only be given one through a pro-progressive network of carefully selected doctors, which creates huge biases in diagnosis.

In some states, like WA, if the parents protest, CPS may be get involved. This is abhorrent.

As far as the TQ+ is concerned, any talk of this is bigotry or discrimination -- this is their blind spot that has enabled dangers. It means that anyone can self-declare and enter related safe spaces, without qualification.

 

[Northern Light]

Before I get to the next part, I am going to point out that you are using the term pedophilia incorrectly. Pedophilia is a disorder. It exists in a person who has it, whether or not they have sexually assaulted a pre-pubescent child. Further child sexual assault occurs by individuals who do not have pedophilia. Nothing leads to pedophilia, or is a gateway to it. It either exists in a person or it doesn't. It can't be cured only treated, just like so many other thing with humans can't be cure, but only treated.

There is no incorrect use of terms because I am not talking about the origins of pedophilia, I am talking about philosophies, ideologies and cultural attitudes that enable pedophiles, which, yes, includes child grooming.

No, or at least no more so than any religious movement upholds ideologies that could be gateways to child sexual assault.

Right... pedophiles are everywhere, we agree on that. However, different areas of society enable them differently. That's what I have been talking about this whole time. Saying that they are everywhere does not excuse the specific ways that the TQ+ enable them. We could just as easily talk about how the Church enabled them. I could go on and on about that too.

Yes, and mostly in the area of cis gender heterosexualadult themes. So ultimately this is a red herring to the topic.

So while we agreed above that pedophiles are everywhere and each community is responsible for debunking its own enabled behaviors, you then say here that cishet communities bear way more of the responsibility. So it doesn't seem like you're actually interested in debunking enabling behaviors in the TQ+ community. Got it.

Not more so now than previously. And it is no more vulnerable to infiltration by pedophiles, and those who would commit child sexual assault than say the Scouts or any other youth organization, or schools or religious organizations where pre-pubescent children would be regularly present.

You keep switching the goal posts.


For the upteenth time: pedophiles are everywhere, but the way they infiltrate communities is specific to the enabling behaviors of each community. The way pedophiles groom children in the TQ+ communities is going to look different than the way they do it in the church. Bringing up all those other examples, while important, is irrelevant to what we're specifically talking about here.

Are they really the bedrock of the LBGT+ community, or is that just a claim by opponents?

The LGB aspect has absolutely nothing to do with this. Besides parental rights, children were not a big feature of the LGB movement. We're talking about the TQ+.


And yes, they are the bedrock. John Money's study of n=1 on David Reimer, and how children can be raised seamlessly as the opposite sex, was where "sex doesn't equal gender" originated.

 

[Northern Light]

Opponents love to claim that John Money is one of the heroes of the transgender community, when in reality we see him for the abusive perverted arse that he was. We don't revere or even like him for the most part.

Queer theorists aren't going to directly mention John Money anymore because we all know how cringe he was. However, they still built upon the results of his study to forward their own theories. I am not hung up on John Money... I could state the theories of several contemporaries who are just as terrible. It's all part and parcel in the bunk ideology.

Putting aside the ethical problems, Money's study conclusion was incorrect. He stated that Deimer (a male) fully accepted a girl identity and was raised "successfully" as a girl, which meant that gender is taught and has no tie to physical biology. Meanwhile, Deimer grew up to have a wife and adopted children, identifies as a man even though he lost his penis at birth, and completely cast off the forced girl identity.

How does this relate to child grooming? "Children can consent" to medical intervention and body modification, regardless of what their parents say; and "children can consent" to do drag and be in adult venues (footage everywhere online, and I have also seen it in person); and "children can consent" to learning ideology that may expose them to adult themes they are not ready for... means that adults can manipulate children into turning them into what they want them to be, including more compliant with adult themes, and the parents are less able to protect their children from it because "trans rights."

PLEASE note the subtle distinction I'm making here (I don't have faith you will see it, but I'll try anyway). I'm NOT (repeat NOT) saying that all TQ+ people are child groomers. I am saying that IF a child groomer WANTED to access children via the TQ+, the above loophole is how they would do it. And if anyone questions it, the pedo just has to feign discrimination and bigotry and the whole TQ+ comes to their defense.

The TQ+ is so political weary of being attacked by the right that they will not accept any critique whatsoever. THIS is enabling to child groomers.

I'll remind you: we are discussing ENABLING behaviors. If the TQ+ really wants to do their part to stop enabling behavior IN THEIR COMMUNITY, they should close this loophole asap.

Here's a famous example from Canada. The school board and human rights commission defended this human piece of garbage's right to flaunt huge prosthetic breasts in front of children. Probably an autogynephile and not even a real trans person, but they still got to feign bigotry when the community protested. This individual had no proof of diagnosis, no psychiatric assessment, no nothing. They just waltzed into class one day, said they were trans/a woman, and had carte blanche to wear lewd clothing and huge tits in front of children. The TQ+ philosophy of all-or-nothing enables this shit. When the parental community protested outside of the school board, TQ+ counter-protestors came to defend this human garbage.

Basically, we are never allowed to say no, "because discrimination." If no longer means no, then that is a HUGE gateway to child grooming.

The TQ+ needs to change its PR campaign badly. They need to begin separating autogynephiles from trans from autism from every other diagnosis. Self-declaration + forced institutional compliance "or else" needs to be put away asap (lawsuits are gradually fixing this). There needs to be more qualification of who's who and stop this single-minded obsession with gathering allies no matter who they are, just based on somebody's word. Some of these allies are definitely pedophiles and absolutely child groomers. They need to stop treating everything as the same when the world is incredibly complicated and also has a dark side.

 

[Jason Warfield]

Nice little rant. You sound like an angry man.

Angry that the right has subverted the teachings of Jesus and the direction of God to their own selfish and immoral ends and political gains?

You bet buddy.

 

[stealthycat]

NOT a Christian ..... said he was but wasn't


not uncommon, people lying