A Pattern Is Emerging: trans activist after trans activist after trans activist turns out to be sexual assaulters of children.

submitted by Chipit from grahamlinehan.substack.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ActuallyNot 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

I question the pattern a little bit.

In round numbers 200,000 US children (under 18s) are raped each year, and 1,000,000 are sexually assaulted.

Mostly in the 14-17 year age bracket, but maybe 100,000 in the 2-13 year old bracket are sexually assaulted.

So there must be a lot of people doing those 100,000 sexual assaults.
Is the fact that 3 are trans-activists really indicative of a trend?

(Numbers extrapolated from here)

[–]Questionable 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

Not all sexual deviants are trans, but all trans are sexual deviants. You're numbers are meant to hide this. As you well know.

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

Okay you've made a few mistakes.

First we're talking about child rape. "Sexual deviancy" includes fetishism, frotteurism, voyeurism, sexual masochism, sexual sadism and other paraphilias. They are not, to my knowledge, related to identifying as transexual.

Second the three people in the article were not transexual.

Third my numbers are to question whether three people can be called a trend in a country with about 999,997 people not known to be supportive of inter-gender or transgender people.

[–]Questionable 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

Right. Because you define what a sexual deviancy is. And it's important to point out the difference between a trans activism that push the agenda as apposed to a trans person. And you are arguing the numbers, where as I am pointing out the flaw in you base logic.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Right. Because you define what a sexual deviancy is.

Not at all. The term has a definition. Sexual deviancy

And it's important to point out the difference between a trans activism that push the agenda as apposed to a trans person.

Agreed.

And you are arguing the numbers, where as I am pointing out the flaw in you base logic.

You haven't done that very clearly yet. What is the flaw in my base logic?

[–]Questionable 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

You haven't done that very clearly yet. What is the flaw in my base logic?

The flaw in your base logic, is that you believe mutilating the genitals of children (transgenderism), and pumping them full of hormones, and puberty blockers, is a normal thing to do. You believe this is not a form of sexual deviance.

As for what you agreed with. You agreed with my statement on your own flawed point of view. As it was meant as an extension of the previous sentence. It should have read as follows:

"Right. Because you define what sexual deviancy is, and you feel it's important to point out the difference between a trans activist that pushes the agenda as apposed to a trans person."

Please forgive my typos. The flaw is, you neither understand sex, or what it means to be a deviant. Because you support sexual deviants. You support the sexual abuse of both children, and the mentally frail.

"Sexual deviancy" includes fetishism, frotteurism, voyeurism, sexual masochism, sexual sadism and other paraphilias."

Those things take place between consenting adults. Transgenderism is pushed on children and those with mental problems. "Sexual Deviance" is two words, not one, and those words are not defined by you.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

The flaw in your base logic, is that you believe mutilating the genitals of children (transgenderism), and pumping them full of hormones, and puberty blockers, is a normal thing to do.

Nope. That's not my position.

Also it's not an example of an application of logic. Logic is the reasoning process to reach a conclusion given the premises. You're objecting to the premise. (Also one that I don't have, which is flawed logic. Specifically an erroneous argument by the straw man fallacy.)

Those things take place between consenting adults.

Many of them, yes.

Transgenderism is pushed on children and those with mental problems.

No, transgenderism refers to the broad spectrum of people who transiently or persistently identify with a gender different from their natal sex. The term doesn't mean anything about how to treat it.

And for that matter neither did the people in the article. Their position was on the provision of non-gendered bathrooms.

[–]Questionable 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

No. I'll take your word on that. And if you wish to offer up your position, feel free to.

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

My position is that three people who are rapists doesn't, of itself, indicate a pattern.

To indicate a trend you would need to show that 3 is statistically significantly higher for this group than for the general population.

This hasn't been done, and given the numbers of child rapists in USA, I suspect that it's not true.

[–]Questionable 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

That checks out. But, a sexual deviant that advocates for the endangerment of children is just that. A sexual deviant. They don't need to physically touch a child to show their harmful intents. With that as a bases, the probability that someone who advocates the mutilation of a child's genitals, also has deviant sexual urges for them is inherent. You can not truthfully tell me otherwise.

No, transgenderism refers to the broad spectrum of people who transiently or persistently identify with a gender different from their natal sex.

Just FYI. Simply stating something doesn't make it a fact. Though you can corrupt entire nations by doing so. Would you care for me to quote you some One Piece anime fight logic for you? It's all perfectly logical in cannon. It's also, all pure fiction. And as a younger man, I also looked really hot in a dress. Yet at base, I knew then, that I was still a dude playing dress up. Just as I know now, that I can not stretch my arms like a rubber man.

In addition. there can be no spectrum if you are transitioning. To transition, is to go from one state to the other. You are either in transit, or your state is static. To constantly identify as being be in transit, is similar to a woman that can't stop breaking up with her boyfriends in order to relive past traumas. It is to live in a state of illness. You are either something, or you are nothing. You either possess self actualization, or you are a tool for others to posses.

I'm sorry. What was the topic again? And why does everything smell like copperᴉ?