JK Rowling claims society is on brink of 'medical scandal' over transgender issues

submitted by [deleted] from independent.co.uk

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 19 insightful - 8 fun19 insightful - 7 fun20 insightful - 8 fun -  (15 children)

On Sunday 5 July, she tweeted: “Many, myself included, believe we are watching a new kind of conversion therapy for young gay people, who are being set on a lifelong path of medicalisation that may result in the loss of their fertility and/or full sexual function.”

Oh, now she cares?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2019/03/18/its-not-enough-jk-rowling-say-her-characters-are-queer-show-it-us/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/j-k-rowling-confirms-dumbledore-grindewald-are-gay-fans-angry-they-dont-identify-that-way-in-books-and-movies/

https://news.trust.org/item/20190319175139-2qh3o/

[–]JamalGinsberg 6 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 5 fun -  (14 children)

Everyone has their woke-limit. Mine was homos marrying each other, hers was coerced sterilization of young girls on a national scale.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 17 insightful - 2 fun17 insightful - 1 fun18 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

My limit is harm done.

Let them marry. It does no harm.

As for the rest of it, not only is it harming people, it's harming society whenever anyone is treated more or less fairly. And now they're messing with children to cover up the Big Chem toxins that are polluting our environments and our poison "food".

[–]insta 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Let them marry. It does no harm.

When you let daddy gubbermint give married people special benefits it stops being a "religious institution" and becomes a government perk. You don't get to turn and be shocked when people want to manipulate that government perk.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Why bring religion into it? It's a social contract.

[–]insta 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Why bring religion into it?

Because that's at the core of the counter-argument against gay marriage.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

And that's why it's a losing argument. Believing in and invisible imaginary creator judge is irrational.

God is either all powerful and doesn't give a shit or he cares and is impotent. That is the Epicurean Paradox.

http://en.atheismfacts.org/epicurean-paradox.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus#Epicurean_paradox

[–]insta 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I don't agree with it either, I'm just saying that's their argument. Also, nobody is convinced by you labelling their argument a "fallacy" or a "paradox". That shit might work in academic circles but nobody is swayed by that in reality. Almost everything that leaves a politicans mouth is some sort of fallacy and nobody gives a shit.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I didn't come up with the paradox, but I wish I had.

God is another social virus dogma for control, based on nothing but nonsense built up into tradition. In reality half of everyone is stupider than average. It may work on many of them, but for the rational it doesn't. Natural Law on the other hand is rational and a solid foundation upon which we can build morality and ethics. Mark Passio presents it well but someone needs to make it clear, simple, to the point, and glossy for the normies.

Yes, politics is more dogma and blind faith. I wholeheartedly agree with you that virtually everything Machiavellians say is manipulation and/or flat out deception.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

It does harm to the very structure of society: the family unit. Two men having buttsex isn't a family. Even if they adopt VICTIMS into their insanity unit, which of course, only does more harm.

And I think you are smart enough to realize it is plenty possible to take a child born normal and brainwash them into being gay. That's harmful too.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

If you think sex is all there is to a family you're ever so sadly mistaken.

My second cousin is gay-married and they adopted to black boys (men now). I can't say what happens in their home but one thing I'm certain of - they seem very normal and everyone is very well loved. I haven't seen them since my other cousin, his brother, died 7 years ago.

People can become tolerant or accepting of gayness, maybe even open to being bi if that's their nature, but I'm pretty certain folks are born as they are on the Kinsey scale with their genetically determined preferences.

I'd say authentic feminism is good but the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Waves are far more harmful to society than gay marriage. Also bad: Gay Pride parades that are all about the sex, rather than the caring.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Wow reductionism much? I didn't say gender/sex is the only thing that makes a family. But no, people can go from straight to gay with sufficient influence. Interesting how you can't be a defective by default and become normal though huh? Which is the reason why gays invented the whole "you are born gay, not made": because you can't be "made" normal. You're either born normal or defective, and if you are born normal, you can be twisted into believing you are a defective. But never the other way around. Officially.

I think psience will actually cure the less severe soul deformities that lead to homosexuality. In the case of non-human souls though, well... They are just part of the cosmic war on mankind.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Ironic: "Wow reductionism much?" "Two men having buttsex isn't a family."

I am straight, or so that's how I identify. I was bi for a while when I was young and horny and willing to do anything that was interested in me. I learned that was how you get trapped in relationships, so I swore off dudes and fat/ugly girls and raised my bar high. I finally found my dream girl (until I got poisoned by Big Pharma - if it ain't broke...)

However, to be honest with myself, while now being straight and single, on the Kinsey scale of 0-6 I would still be a 1 and always have been. Presently I have bigger issues than sexuality - it's my self image and my high bar. I used to look like this and now I look like that, AND have aged, so finding my dream girl/woman is now even closer to impossible. I've accepted that I'll likely be voluntarily celibate from here on. I had more than most (not counting married people) when I was active.

The influence you speak of would not affect a 0 or 6. And anyone who was actually influenced had that inherent ability/tendency anyway - otherwise they wouldn't have been influenced. They're not "defective", just different, like someone with freckles or glasses. It's not a binary good/bad thing. No one is "normal" and average in all things.

Officials are bullshit.

On this I'll agree to disagree and won't bother on the matter furhter.

[–]notdelusional 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

An abnormality isn't necessarily a defect. Just as people can't definitively prove they were "born that way", you can't prove that it's possible to induce homosexual desire in a person. You're so close, yet so far away.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

So if it's not PROVEN, but we have tons of statistical evidence that such things occur, then that still counts for zero. Got it.

[–]notdelusional 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I didn't imply you've got nothing. I'm simply questioning the amount of confidence in the conclusion.