Psaki Says "Gender Affirming Care" for Kids Is 'Best Practice'

Then why have you several times mentioned including in a specific response to me brought up the idea that there is this attitude among those who have opposed the law of an attitude that will lead to anything goes? Are you now saying that isn’t the case?

And won’t those kids K-2 eventually become teenagers whose opinion may change otherwise?
And again so what if more kids of any age are part of an LGBT group? Why is that such a bad thing?

 

The attitude is anything goes. That attitude is exemplified in questions like why not, who is it hurting, why do you care, so what, etc. It's childish, it's irresponsible, it's...

Spoiler

Let me say it like this: if there is anything that will lead to the acceptance of pedophilia, it will be that anything goes attitude.

Could you rephrase the question, please?

 

Again who has said anything goes? “So what” is specifically regarding more people identifying as LGBT. You’ve acknowledged that LGBT isn’t the same as pedophilia.
It seems like your trying to have it both ways. You’re trying to claim your not tying this to pedophilia but just now your saying in respond to my attitude that I see no problem with more people being LGBT that that could lead to acceptance pedophilia

Children in K-2 do grow into being teenagers. You just said that teenagers will likely be far more influenced by social media than they will teachers if so then this law then why the concern about K-2 if those children will end up making their minds up in different factors in a few years anyway.

 

Does someone have to actually say anything goes to display an attitude of anything goes?

You're taking this personally, IMO. Like I've said before, I get it, but you shouldn't. You are not your attitude. And, as I've said before, the people defending all of these teachers or whatever that are exemplifying the anything goes attitude are not necessarily the people who will defend pedophilia, we all might be dead at that time, for all we know, but that same attitude will live on.

Children in K-2 are not as developed mentally as teenagers are (who aren't at all developed either, BTW).

Take for example the dialogue you wrote about what you would tell a kindergartner wanting to know about boys and girls.

"Johnny, you're a boy but there are a lot of Johnny and Maxs who believe they are Jill and Marys. There is nothing wrong with that but this isn't a decision that you should make quickly or a decision that you should make soon. It will be one of the most important decisions you make in your life and before you do that you should talk to your parents and many other people. If you decide that you're really not a boy that is OK and you can still lead a good life. If you decide you are a boy that is OK too. What is important is that you are happy with who you are."

A kindergartner hears that and they will be completely confused. You're telling them it's their decision. Kids that age can't make their own decisions. You're telling them it isn't a decision they should make soon, Kindergartners don't have the concept of time down yet. They were born just 5 years ago. You're telling them that that decision will be one of the most important in their life. What do they know about important life-altering decisions? They also have no idea what it means to be happy.

The entire statement is dangerous to kindergartners. In reality, it would be very, very difficult to come up with a statement that explains the concept of transgenders that doesn't lead to confusion in their minds. The confusion could eventually lead them to falsely believe they were born with the wrong set of genitals. This statement would suffice:

Spoiler

Also, I wonder if saying there are men who believe they are women is okay to say and if saying it's a decision is also okay to say.

I say all of that to say that the younger you introduce kids to LGBT ideas, the more likely it is that they begin to identify as LGBT then or later in life.

 

Okay I'm sorry dude and this isn't an insult because keep in mind I want kids to be taught to be empathetic towards people like you but damn you have to be bisexual. Like I cannot fathom chosing what I'm sexually attracted to. It is instinctual.

 

I can see a select small percentage of the population who have trouble understanding why it's wrong to have sexual relations with children such as yourself where we have to hand hold you like a child to explain why it's wrong where those same people today will create the slippery slope argument.

The slippery slope argument for this case can only work if you don't don't understand why it's morally wrong to have sexual relations with a child and why it's morally fine for two consenting adults or two consenting teens of the same age having sex. It's the power dynamic. It's morally wrong because the adult has the immense power dynamic over a child who's brain isn't fully developed to where the child does not have the ability to consent.

I can see how if one doesn't understand the core moral argument for why pedophilia acted upon is morally wrong they can find a slippery slope argument where rampant acceptance of LGBTQ people can lead to a "anything goes" situation where pedophilia would magically be accepted. Keep in mind the same slippery slope argument was used against mixed race marriages. "If we allow black and white people to marry each other than anything goes which eventually leads to child marriages".

 

The problem, and maybe you recognize this, is that sexuality is far more complicated than that. Even what it means to be male or female is not quite stamped at birth, but is an evolving process. In some individuals, sex chromosomes don't match up with the gonads that develop. And the same can happen with other characteristics we usually associate with the "male" versus "female" body -- including brain structure. When there's a "mismatch", that doesn't necessarily mean something wrong happened. Being gay or being trans is only "wrong" insofar as our society has not yet developed to a stage that is actually fully accepting of it. I think we're all better off if we teach children from a young age that humans are diverse in all sorts of ways -- and we should be accepting and respectful of that.

It's true, when educating children, we often present a simplified model of the world that we deem to be sufficiently accurate. We trust that as they get older, they can learn more accurate models of how the world is, but we don't necessarily want to confuse them when they're young. And I suppose it is possible that social environmental factors could play a role in a child's brain development that increases the likelihood that they will gravitate towards a non-heterosexual and non-cisgender orientation, with all the attendant health risks and inconveniences that can go along with that.

I have the feeling though that arguments like this would have been used in the past to keep certain behaviors "taboo" that really shouldn't have been in the first place. Take mixed-race relationships. Few people have a problem with it today, but it wasn't that long ago when it was considered taboo and parents would have freaked out at the thought of "normalizing" such a practice by exposing their kids to it. They might have advanced similar arguments as what you're making -- it will increase the likelihood that their kids will end up getting mixed up in a relationship with someone of the wrong race. And, yeah, in that environment, maybe that turns out to be not so comfortable. Perhaps not so safe either, for them or the mixed-race children they end up having. But is that really the sort of stigmatization we want to perpetuate to the next generation? Would you not agree that, instead, kids should be taught from an early age that there are no rules on who can be in a consensual, loving relationship with another?

 

You called someone a bigot earlier in this thread and now you are saying that I can't see why it's wrong to have sexual relations with a child. Pretty damn close to calling me a pedophile. But, I forgive you. I know you can't help yourself.

 

Yes if you think accepting LGBTQ people is a slippery slope that means "anything goes" that eventually leads to pedophilia mass acceptance, you don't understand why pedophilia acted upon is morally wrong. What else can I conclude from that?

In a population of millions, some bigots will exist. Some people who don't understand why pedophilia is wrong and just accept it's wrong on face value because society tells them its wrong like yourself exist. Some of those people happen to post here. So ya bigots exist. Omg. Shocker.

 

Yes I'm taking it personally because this is an important issue and knowing several LGBT people who have suffered the from discrimination from both teachers and family I think this is a very important issue. You've been debating this issue pretty vociferously yourself. Do you not have a personal stake in it?

But again you keep on talking about this "attitude" and you specifically cited my response regarding "so what" to that there might be more LGBT attitude. Now you're saying that's not what you're talking about or "that I'm not my attitude" It certainly sounds like you're personalizing the issue already.

And when a child asks "what is a penis? What is a vagina? Why do I have one and not another? Children are curious by nature and as adults it's up to us to guide them. Also given that LGBT people do exist and they are likely to encounter them even at a young age why shouldn't we explain to them as gently as we can that they are there and there is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with at some point that they might realize that they are LGBT. What you're arguing for is that any even acknowledgement of such issues shouldn't be discussed.

That you find it troubling to even say that it isn't a decision they should make quickly and that it is a decision they should talk to their parents about is more evidence that this really is a "Don't say Gay Bill".

And again why is it such a bad thing if later in life they identify as LGBT?

You keep on saying things like there is an "organic" amount of LGBT yet admit that is only theoretical. The truth is we don't know how many people are actually LGBT or not. If we believe in things like "Love is Love" and that there is nothing wrong with being LGBT then it shouldn't matter if there are more or less LGBT.

 

I will say again this is an important issue but this law is negligible at best about what it will actually do. The text doesn't mention anything regarding sex acts and FL already has policies regarding teaching sex ed. The fear that without this law there will be teachers telling toddlers to masturbate is simply not true as the law doesn't specifically address that and it is already dealt with under existing law.

It is very telling that even proponents of this law are admitting that whether people who identify as LGBT has very little to do with what teachers teach but due to many factors that are out of teachers control.

 

The fact that humans are diverse is self-evident. The question of how and when to teach LGBT concepts to children is what we are discussing.

Social environmental factors definitely play a factor. They've been shown to change DNA, not just brain development. That has been a major point in my argument that the increase in young people identifying as LGBT is not real.

I have no idea what arguments against mixed-race relationships were. I bet some were racial, some tribal, some racist, some well-meaning, some bad intentioned, some even slippery slopery.

All I know is that it's cheap to compare that, allowing people of different races to be together and marry, to this, allowing teachers to teach kids LGTBT concepts before they are developmentally ready.

As far as your question, teachers are not teaching kids that there are rules against who can be in consensual, loving relationships. We were never taught that by teachers and most of us agree that those rules don't exist. Believe it or not, I also believe that there are no rules against who can be in consensual, loving relationships.

 

Have noticed that you personally attack people who disagree with you? You especially attack their intellect. I've never seen you call someone bisexual, a bigot, or accused them of being incapable of understanding the amorailty of pedophilia, though. That's another level.

 

In Germany they make kids study the holocaust - it doesn't make them want to be Nazis....

https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/02/how-do-german-students-learn-about-the-holocaust.html

DD

 

or want to convert to Judaism either.

not sure of your point

 

Yes I have noticed that I call people who I believe deserve being called bigots, bigots. I'm personally attacking you and calling you a bigot who needs a hand held to guide you to why pedophilia is wrong and why the slippery slope argument makes no sense if you know why pedophilia and acting upon it is wrong

Are you trying to shame me in attacking you?

Call me a bigot. I'll explain why I'm not instead of crying "owe is me"

 

I don't know what you mean by "not real". My guess is that sexual orientation really is a pretty fluid thing that has never been strictly determined by biology, but rather by a combination of biological pre-disposition and various social factors. I'm fairly skeptical that a child's biological pre-disposition for a given sexual orientation will somehow be altered by how these subjects are discussed in a classroom setting. But, sure, pathways in the brain can potentially be activated that may eventually cause a child to grow up to be more open to same-sex relationships. Just as a "don't say gay" environment could activate pathways that causes a child to be less open to it. There's no neutral path here.

That wasn't exactly the comparison I was making. I was saying that concerns you seem to have over content in school somehow causing more kids to become gay or trans could just as well been made in the past about content in schools somehow causing more kids to eventually enter into mixed-race relationships. Just as I think you'd agree that schools shouldn't censor content out of concerns that some of the white kids in the classroom might grow up and marry a black person, or vice versa, when they otherwise wouldn't, similarly I'm not sure schools should be censoring content out of concerns that a kid might decide to enter into gay relationships when they otherwise wouldn't, or that they might decide to fully express their gender in a non-conforming way when they otherwise wouldn't.

 

I don't think this is helpful at all. It might make you feel better, but it's pretty counter-productive as a form of persuasion. We don't like to accept the awful things other people are saying about us, and so we will be more reluctant to accept their arguments.

 

No personal stake out of the ordinary. We all have LGBT family members, coworkers, friends, and I have had many LGBT students. I got love for all of them. Doesn't mean that I think teaching K-2 LGBT concepts is okay.

"So what?" Is an example of that attitude.

A penis is the thing boys have in between their legs; a vagina is the thing girls have in between their legs. They'll know what the other one is when they see it. That's the way God and/or me and your mom made you.

They don't need to know about the rare cases of people being born with this condition or that condition. They don't need to know about chromosomes or that some people feel that their male or female body parts are not theirs. No need to confuse them will all of that when they can't process it.

Telling a child that they have a decision on whether or not they are LGBT will confuse the child. That is a lot different than saying they exist and that their existence is okay. If they one day realize that they are, it should be because they are, not because they decided that they are.

It's bad if it's not their reality.

If being LGBT is something that is hardwired into the human brain, then there should be an expected percentage of people that are born that way. We can't just take any number and be okay with it because that would suggest that people aren't hardwired and that they could be programmed to be LGBT.

 

I'm not going to defend myself against those accusations. It's not worth it.