Be careful entering this contest. if this guy disagrees with you politically he will come and down vote your posts
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Be careful entering this contest. if this guy disagrees with you politically he will come and down vote your posts
On the contrary, it reflects very well on @improv's basic decency and convictions that he is unwilling to abide this behaviour. You appear to be actively going out of your way to hurt people. Whether you believe this or not, this is the result of your actions. This is not something we can just "disagree on"; you have no right to go out and hurt people.
To abide by what behavior?
Who am I going out of my way to hurt? that's quite a charge, I am sure you will have some quotes from my article to back that up right?
So let me get this right, if I object to the sterilization of children, if I object to state sponsored camps lying to children's parents then I am hurting people?
You have been told repeatedly by others exactly who your behaviour is hurting. As such, I find it hard to believe that your question here is genuine and in good faith.
It appears that you have somehow conflated freedom and respect of transgender people with sterilisation. This is an interesting insight into your mind. First, just because a person is a child doesn't mean they do not deserve to be treated with respect, and just because you do not understand their feelings does not make them unworthy of respect. Second, not all transgender people wish for physical treatment, and not all physical treatments result in sterility. Some may result in sterility, but it is not a defining factor. You are essentially saying that adolescents must keep their sense of smell in tact – and as such we cannot remove wisdom teeth. Loss of sense of smell is, of course, a risk involved in major oral surgery, but the reason we remove our wisdom teeth is not to lose our sense of smell.
You are correct that people must be aware of the risks involved in any treatment, as these are large decisions. All people, children or not, need a long time to make these decisions. But prepubescent children are in the unique position that they may delay puberty, buying themselves more time to be certain of the consequences with fairly little risk. This is by no means sterilisation.
I do not understand what you mean by "lying to children's parents" or "hiding the whole dirty business". What exactly is hidden, and what has been lied about? I think you are using deliberately inflammatory words which are not quite true ("lying") to incite an emotional response. Is this deliberate or accidental?
No I haven't, who? quote them.
Sounds like a deflection.
That sentence is incoherent to me, quote me doing whatever that is.
When did I say anyone was unworthy of respect? Quote me.
Another straw argument, when did I claim "all transgender people wish for physical treatment"? quote me.
The hormone treatments when carried to completion result in 100% sterility. If you take hormones that prevent puberty and then take hormones that make you express the secondary sex characteristics of the other gender you will be sterile.
That's an interesting view in your mind, now sterility is like losing your sense of smell, except of course a very small percentage of those who complete wisdom tooth removal loose their sense of smell, so small I have never heard of that happening and they didn't warn my about it as a possible side effect, opposed to everyone being sterilized who commits to a lifetime of synthetic hormone treatments, right?
Studies show that the biggest factor in becoming dependent on any substance is the age of first use. While they claim that the first stage of suppressing natural puberty with drugs is reversible the next stage is the one that causes permanent sterility. Sort of weird to pretend that they stop there.
you don't understand because your whole screed is about a post you didn't read.
You make this claim about "sterilisation of children". Where is it coming from? What is the logical argument that starts at an article about treating transgender people with respect, to the sterilisation of children?
This is what I was attempting to get at with "conflating freedom and respect with sterilisation". To conflate two things is to take two unrelated concepts and merge them in a generally incoherent way, or mistakenly treating them as if they were equivalent.
When did I say you were saying anybody was unworthy of respect? Quote me. However, I don't care for this tiresome and ridiculous game of yours.
You may not have explicitly claimed that. You made this strange leap from an article which I interpreted as being about respect of transgender people to sterilisation of children. I made the mistake of trying to understand where this leap came from, and tried to deconstruct your reasoning. I figured your reasoning was that some transgender people wish for physical treatment, and some physical treatment results in sterilisation, therefore transgender (sometimes) results in sterilisation. Please illuminate me on your actual thought process.
It's clear to me that you are still ranting about something you didn't read.
This is a very good way to shut down conversation, but not a good way to educate, inform or convince me that you have anything valuable to say. I did read your article, but this is really beside the point. In this case what is clear to you is not true. This same experience may be applicable elsewhere.
Stop blaming any misunderstandings on not reading the article. If I am misconstruing your article so badly, perhaps it is not entirely the fault of the reader, and you need to take more care and smaller steps in explaining your reasoning. Try to form a logical argument.
What are you talking about? Who is sterilising children? If the article addresses this, tell me where. Is this something you believe is happening? Or was this a thought you had, unrelated to the article? Yes, I object to the slaughter of mice in a field of buttercups just out of Marseille, but this is hardly relevant to the conversation.
You are making this conversation very hard, because if I try to understand what you are saying and ask if I understand your points correctly, you accuse me of constructing straw-men; if I ask you to explain what you are saying, you accuse me of not reading the article.
No, if you post transphobic propaganda and ask me to upvote it, I will take a look, and if I find I "disagree on rewards" for it or that it's "Hate Speech/Internet Trolling", I will downvote it.
I disagree politically with the vast majority of Steemit users, but I sometimes upvote them if they are expressing a viewpoint that provides insight into a topic. You are the only person I have ever downvoted (aside from obvious spam), and you have gotten, overall, more upvotes than downvotes from me.
I don't engage in casual downvoting, but you posted insults and general attacks on a vulnerable population, labeling them "crazy", "dirty", and "disturbed".
MUWAH, your the best. :) upvoted and following,
though I'm sure @funbobby51 will accuse you of virtue signalling.
Bahahahahahahaha
Thank you.
Actually, I think this fellow doesn't even consider it virtue signaling. This is actually my first encounter with what I've learned can be labeled "concern trolling". I've certainly engaged with transphobia before, but not the whole "trans rights activists are bad for trans people" perspective. That's just ... I dunno. Something else. Thank goodness we're not alone.
Now you are just lying, that's sad. Lets look at those words you quoted in context. You are claiming I said those about transgender people, really? Pathetic This is not attacking a vulnerable population: