Rather Than Making The Internet Safe For Kids, Make Your Kids Safe For The Real World
from the education-not-censorship dept
We’ve been talking a lot lately about the massive moral panic going on right now, claiming that the internet is somehow inherently dangerous for kids. As we’ve noted, the evidence simply does not support this. Over and over and over again we see the actual data and actual research shows no evidence of any inherent harm to children from the internet and social media. Indeed, much of the evidence suggests that most kids get real value out of the internet from the ability to communicate with friends and family to access information and people they wouldn’t otherwise have access to.
That’s not to say that no one is harmed, or that no one is bullied, or that no one is made to feel bad about themselves online. Because that happens. And there’s nothing wrong with looking for ways to minimize those things, or to minimize the impact of those things. But some of that is human nature, and you’re not going to change human nature.
Unfortunately, most of the political class and the media have completely bought in on this moral panic. And lots of others are buying it, despite the lack of evidence. When I wrote an article recently highlighting how little evidence there is to support the idea that social media is bad for kids, I literally had someone email us to demand I retract the article because it was “obvious” that social media is dangerous. But the data just doesn’t show any of that.
Last year, I wrote an article about how dangerous this moral panic actually is for kids. I noted that this mad rush to try to “clean up” the internet to make sure everywhere was perfectly safe for everyone was the equivalent of raising children at Disneyland, and then on their 18th birthday, releasing them into the real world outside the gates, and expecting them to be able to survive. It’s doing the opposite of preparing kids for the real world. It’s hiding the real world from them and failing to give them the tools to survive.
Thankfully, at least someone else out there agrees. Wired has a great article by Lux Alptraum arguing that we don’t need “age verification” or other “protect the children” laws in order to protect kids from adult content. We don’t need censorship. Instead, we just need to “talk to your children honestly not just about what they might see online, but about their own bodies.” It opens up by talking about decades of attempts to “clean up” the internet to “protect the children” online, and notes how silly this, and how little it does to prepare kids for the real world:
Debates around the pros and cons of these various solutions get into what freedom and privacy we’re willing to sacrifice for the sake of keeping kids from seeing adult content—as well as considering whether these censorship laws and filtering programs actually accomplish the things they promise. But one thing that never seems to come up, is this: Let’s say the filters work, the age verification platforms work, and kids are 100 percent prevented from seeing any adult content until the day they turn 18. What then? Does censorship alone ensure that kids will grow up to be sexually healthy adults?
Not really. If we want kids to grow up with healthy ideas about sex, we actually need to offer them more than just censorship. And when they are equipped with healthy messages about sex, they’ll be resilient even when censorship inevitably fails to protect them from all possible adult content.
None of this is saying that anything goes, but that when we educate kids with age appropriate concepts rather than trying to shield them from everything, they are much more likely to be able to deal with the things they come across. As the article notes, educating children helps to inoculate them against whatever nonsense they might encounter online.
“A big thing that I hear from parents with concern about pornography is the way that it presents gender roles,” says Heather Corinna, founder and director of the youth sex education site Scarleteen. “OK, let’s think about it: What kind of education and support have you already given your young person about gender roles? Have you already done a really good job of educating them on the bullshit of sexism?” If you’ve already educated your kids about how to respect people’s bodies and autonomy, then that message is going to carry over into sex—and it won’t be magically erased just because they stumble onto a porn flick that features a sexist story line.
The article includes a bunch of tips for parents about how to have age appropriate conversations about bodies and sex. But it should also serve as a good guide for other topics as well. Having conversations and discussions about bullying, about violence, about drugs and crime and many other topics is how you prepare the kids for the real world. Kids can be taught to recognize when they come upon a situation that is dangerous, and can be taught to go to adults who can help (parents, school officials, other trusted adults), but only if they trust those adults to talk with them openly about these things, not pretend none of it exists at all.
Yet, because of the wider moral panic, and a variety of laws around the world, all of this will become much more difficult. The focus is on censorship and denial, rather than education and preparation. All that will do is produce a crop of young adults wholly unprepared for the real world.
Filed Under: censorship, education, moral panic, preparation, protect the children
Comments on “Rather Than Making The Internet Safe For Kids, Make Your Kids Safe For The Real World”
Wow, it’s almost as if a bunch of moralizing busybodies want to control what everyone sees on the Internet and are using “think of the children” as a pretext to enact widescale censorship. Imagine that~.
Re:
Well yeah! You can’t expect those parents to actually parent their children, and have an idea of what they’re looking at. That’s everyone elses’ fucking job!
Re: Re:
I think that this is unfair to a lot of parents. Not every parent has the time to give their kids talks about important stuff. Latchkey kids exist; parents can (and do) often work long hours to afford rent or mortgage or groceries. I want parents to talk to their kids more about serious issues, but not all of them have the time to gather up the knowledge and resources on those issues in order to then give them that healthy discussion.
Re: Re: Re:
Their inability to talk to their children due to time restraints is not reason enough to enact widescale censorship on the Internet. For what reason should we treat YouTube as if it’s supposed to be a better parent for a child than said child’s actual parents?
Re: Re: Re:
solution to that is an enforced livable minimum wage, not censorship
Re: Re: Re:
Not every parent has the time to give their kids talks about important stuff.
Then frankly, what the hell are they doing having kids in the first place? The question isn’t meant to convey an entirely snarky tone, but if kids don’t learn ‘important stuff’ from their parents because of work obligations, the problem is the work obligation. But I wouldn’t expect social services to step in anytime soon. We’re talking about kids already here versus a clump of goop in a woman’s mommy parts.
Not every bang in the backseat after a night at a bar should result in a child. And those bringing children into the world under those circumstances (forced or otherwise) should have real concern about not having time to actually talk to them, and possibly reconsider whether it’s a better idea to abort, rather than subject the child to an environment where you have no choice but to ignore them.
Latchkey kids exist
I know. I was one of them. But somehow, I still managed to learn the ‘important stuff’ from my parents (who were divorced, but responsible) and turn out to be a (mostly) reasonable adult.
Re: Re: Re:
Something tells me the parents who are working all the time and “don’t have time” to raise kids are also not the ones with the time to concern troll the rest of us about raising ours, ask governments to censor in place of good parenting, etc.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Straight men unable to keep their junk in their pants where it belongs is precisely why we have such a population epidemic right now. When lesbians and gays have a family it is entirely planned decision. Straight family units are completely incapable of getting their act together in a progressive modern age, which is why children raised by two women or two drag queens are far superior in the long run.
Re: Re: Re:2 Population Epidemic?
What population epidemic? The only thing stabilizing the populations of the US and most developed nations is immigration right now. In the US specifically, we’re well below replacement by just reproduction right now.
Even from a worldwide perspective, the hockey stick curve is expected to turn into a sigmoid curve in the latter part of this century and flatten out at around 11 billion. I was born in the mid-80s. We’ve gone from 4 to 8 billion in my less than 40 years of life. If we only go from 8 to 11 in the next 75+ years, we should be just fine in the long run.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
We thought we would be fine in the long run, too. We thought the straight freaks would crawl back into their caves once we had gay marriage approved. And then look what they did out of pure spite, they fought for the right to rape a child into existence.
Re: Re: Re:4
I don’t think “spite” had anything to do with it. Republicans were going after Roe v. Wade long before any states recognized gay marriage or even civil unions.
Re: Re: Re:2
I know you’re probably not going to answer this, but I have to ask:
What population epidemic? What are you even going on about?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
Parents who don’t how to properly raise their children are also part of this. There are services like website blockers that can help keep your kids off porn and scam sites, but instead of doing that (or, as Mike said, having an important discussion about the real world with your kid) they would prefer to posture about how it’s the internet’s fault.
It’s this century’s moral panic, I guess.
Re: Re:
For what it’s worth, while I understand why people flag Matthew’s posts without reading them, I actually agree with him for once.
Wow, that felt weird to say.
Re: Re: Re:
That’s not Matthew. Note that this one has the middle initial “N.” rather than Matthew’s which is “M.” It looks like someone has been trolling Matthew this past week as Matthew N. Bennett. Kinda annoying, honestly… No need to impersonate the trolls.
Re: Re: Re:2
I assumed it was a typo, mostly because every other instance of a troll impersonating Matthew involved something I and most people here would object to and also lacked subtlety, as well as the fact that Matthew doesn’t have an account, meaning he has to type in his name every time. Also, I myself accidentally typed “Natthew” before my spellchecker caught it.
Re: Re: Re: 'The boy who cried wolf' in practice
That’s the thing about reputations, if you get one as a liar/dishonest individual it doesn’t matter if you tell the truth at some point since people have already been conditioned to ignore anything you say.
Mike, you (and Lux Alptraum’s) words of sanity have one minor fatal flaw: some of the previous generation are perfect examples that some people are immune to being made “Safe for the real world”.
Re:
This is actually True.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
US Americans are ignorant morons
What’s with this obsession to “protect kids from seeing sex”? That just shows the ignorance of US Americans, who somehow seem to think the USA is the world. No, it isn’t.
Here in Africa we live in shacks, multiple generations living in close quarters. Kids see their parents and other adults having sex all the time!
But no, whiteness!
Re:
Some Americans have a real problem distinguishing ‘nudity’ from ‘pornography.’ And they’re convinced the rest of us are as well.
People always seem a lot more concerned with other peoples’ children then they do their own.
The biggest threat to kids is their parents’ failures at parenting. And it just keeps getting worse with every generation.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
“And it just keeps getting worse with every generation.”
Yup, the younger generations need to stop buying avocado toast, apple watches and vanilla frappé. They need to start buying the houses they will need for all those children they are not having.
It will be interesting to note what Millennials will have to say about the younger generations, as they yell at the kids to stay off the lawn.
Rinse and repeat
Re: Re:
Re: Re:
Actually I like Gen Z a great deal. They emerged into adulthood kicking tables.
Re: Re: What Lawn?
I don’t have a lawn to tell kids to stay off of. Although, I also don’t really want to have a lawn to take care of.
It feels like this is coming from 2 sides, the first is that the powers that be really want the monitoring for their own gains, and its got nothing to do with “protecting children”. That’s the main goal of all of this.
But the second is what they are using as their hook. “You don’t want to talk to your children about the real world, and rather than let those that do make you feel bad, make a world where they aren’t exposed to the real world so when people do educate their kids, you get to vilify them in the way you perceive they do to you”. If their arguments had merit, they would start much much closer to home, such as with duplicitous headlines and liars in power.
I remember many years ago (I think I was 14) reading a selatious headline. I can’t remeber what it was, but it was one of those things that said something horrific that it claimed everyone knew but wasn’t talking about (probably immigrants taking our jobs or some such). I went to my dad about it and got the bollocking of my life.
He was saying that I shouldn’t just go with whatever attention grabbing headline is printed, but actually read the article, not just jump on the implied content I had imagined.
We then went through the article and discussed it point by point, and by the end of it, I had the foundation of a pretty good bullshit detector. His words will stay with me forever “don’t let someone else make up your own mind”.
I could very easily have gone down that nasty rabbit hole and stayed there for the rest of my life, but my dad taking the time to teach me about critical thinking and making up my own mind taught me more than anything at school.
If they really want to “save the kids”, they should start with rules around media and things that co-opt peoples ability to make up their owm minds. I’m not talking about censorship, or two sidesing articles, but actual education around how to see through the bullshit.
Hasn't worked yet...
I turned 70 yesterday, and the 2 highlights of 1953 were the introduction of the Corvette, and publishing of issue #1 of PlayBoy. The Moral Crusade has been after “porn” ever since. They will keep going after it for ever more. It’s what they do. They haven’t stopped it yet…but they do keep trying, and they keep getting louder about it. And keep finding politicians to jump on the latest moral panic they stir up.
We just have to keep watch, and keep fighting.
Re:
If you think moral crusades against pornography and “obscene” materials in the U.S. started with Playboy, you might want to brush up on your history. I suggest starting with Lady Chatterly’s Lover and working backwards from there.
Re: Re:
I think Sappho had that problem too. You may end up having to go way back, only to find out that the second thing ever written down was a complaint that the first thing ever written down was obscene and should be erased.
Re: Re:
Don’t forget (great) grandma’s petting parties in the ’20s. Crushed in the great depression.
Re:
There were pearl clutching articles written about how the waltz was the downfall of society. The concern of sheltered adults fearing for their kids in the face of something they didn’t have when they grew up is constant. We just have to make sure they don’t affect the rest of our rights while they adjust to an ever changing world.
More its dangerous to parents who panic over what their unsupervised kids ma be doing, but then if it wasn’t the Internet it would be video games, television or dungeons and dragons, etc. Even more damaged are those adults panicking about what other people kids might be doing,
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
This article is absolutely correct. Parents need to talk to their children and emphasize that whatever they might see online, people can only ever be the sex of their bodies, and that people calling themselves trans, or non-binary, or gender-queer are either fooling themselves or trying to fool others. Also, that online presentations of such people never show the difficulty and harm that such people undergo if they try to have themselves altered medically or surgically. Especially in current YA literature, such characters appear in very matter-of-fact ways, with the only difficulty they experience being the villains refusing to affirm them, essentially propagandizing the false doctrine of woke gender ideology to young people. The entertainment and publishing industries are now entirely colonized by woke ideology, so seeing the truth presented is increasingly difficult.
Re:
The prescriptivist approach doesn’t even work for dictionaries — what makes you think it works any better for biology, or YA novels?
Re: Re:
Have you noticed that there’s no difference between Hyman and a religious nutjob…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
The answer to parenting being difficult and fraught isn’t to abandon it! Parents raise their children with whatever values and beliefs they choose to instill, explicitly or implicitly. Sometimes it takes, sometimes it doesn’t. There’s a famous quote from Pirkei Avot – “You are not expected to complete the work, but neither are you free to neglect it.”
If parents want to teach their children that woke gender ideology and critical race theory are true, that’s their prerogative as parents. Ditto if they want to teach their children that those things are false. But the notion that parents can somehow raise children as blank slates who will determine their beliefs once they are old enough is simply ludicrous, and such parents will get the children they deserve.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
You can’t stop us from raising children to be nonbinary, Hyman. You and your straight ilk can shake your fists at the sky and be dragged into this new world kicking and screaming and it won’t do a thing to help.
Your time is over. Do us all a favor and die with dignity.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Nor do I want to stop you. But I will stop you from raising my (theoretical) children as non-binary. (My actual child is already raised, and at least so far, does not claim to be other than the sex of his body.)
Dying with dignity means dying while not cowering in fear of woke ideologues who seek to silence dissent.
Re: Re: Re:3
Yes, yes, you want to make it so people legally can’t raise their children without conforming to the gender binary, we get it. We’ve seen your Republican comrades-in-arms passing laws to that effect in states they control.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
No, we want to make it so that you can’t raise my children as non-binary, including teaching them lies about gender in school, and having schools lie to parents about the mental illness of their students.
From what teacher and principal acquaintances have told me, school kids are now fully on board with woke gender ideology, and love to yell at teachers who “misgender” classmates who claim to be other than the sex of their bodies. It gives them the chance to exert power over teachers in a way that the teachers cannot fight back against, which is the same thing that grown-up woke ideologues seek in the arenas they have colonized.
Re: Re: Re:5
Three things.
Gee, it’s almost as if young people are growing up in an age where they’re more likely to personally know at least one queer person, learn that queer people aren’t the massive threat to society that bigots say they are, and think the mistreatment of queer people by anyone (but especially adults who should damn well know better) is bullshit. Imagine that~.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
Telling children that queer people exist is the correct thing to do. Schools should “teach the controversy”, that is, that there are people who claim not to be the sex of their body, and other people who claim that such a thing is not possible, and that in a society like ours given to pluralism, the correct behavior is to be polite to people who think differently than you and to accommodate their needs, but never to demand that they affirm what you believe or have them demand that you affirm what they believe.
They should be taught that people have religious, cultural, and social taboos against mixing sexes in certain contexts, and that people who believe that they are a sex different from their bodies should not be allowed to force their way into spaces for which their bodies disqualify them, against the wishes of the people already there. They should be taught that societies have social stereotypes for gendered behavior and appearance, but in a free society, people may choose not to conform to those stereotypes.
Children should be taught that some people develop sexual and romantic attraction to people of their own sex instead of, or in addition to, as is more usual, to the opposite sex. They should also be taught that many people have religious taboos against such same-sex attraction, but that our society has largely moved away from preventing such attraction from being expressed. And again, that in a pluralistic society, people should be free to keep their religious taboos, including not being required to abet such behavior that they believe is sinful.
This is the same way that religion in general is, or should be, taught in public schools. Woke ideology is no less a religion.
Re: Re: Re:7
Again: Your larger problem isn’t that you’re afraid of/angry at “woke ideologists”. No, that problem is how you and your Republican allies are actively trying to prevent them from having any place in society. The GOP is banning books by/about queer people, abolishing gender studies from universities, trying to ban public drag performances of any kind (which can also have the “unintended” side effect of banning trans people from being in public), and generally trying to make queer people feel so uncomfortable in public that they either stay out of the public sphere or kill themselves. Hell’s bells, Hyman, you’re even saying in this comments section that you’re A-OK with a eugenics-driven genocide of (among other groups) queer people.
The issue is less that other people are trying to force anyone into transing their gender and far, far, far, far, far more that you and your conservative brethren are trying to force trans people into being cis or being dead (because either result is a “win”) by any means necessary (because fuck ethics and morals), and it’s all because you can’t live with the fact that the gender binary is Some God Damn Bullshit.
You can’t do ugly things to people and expect to live a beautiful life, Hyman. And you’re barely even trying to hide what kind of ugly things you want to see done to trans people. At some point, you will publicly admit to wanting violence done against them. It’s all a matter of pressure and time.
tick tock, you Nazi bitch
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
Again, your problem is that you cannot stand to hear dissent against your ideology of lies, so you must construe dissent as a call to violence and extermination, in order to use emotional blackmail to get your way.
I vote only for Democrats, for the reasons you enumerate why Republicans are evil. Not teaching and enforcing lies in public institutions is not the same as trying to prevent people who believe in those falsehoods from speaking their claims. Viewpoint-based censorship should be fought where ever it appears.
If trans people are eliminated through the choice of mothers not bringing such embryos to term, that is a proper use of the freedom to choose. So is choosing its sex or eye color or anything else, once such choices become available. There is no requirement on a free woman that she bring a trans or gay person into this world, either deliberately or through inaction. Such a requirement would be slavery.
Re: Re: Re:9
That would of course happen after the proper indoctrination of the general population that any genetic markers indicating that the embryo might not develop into a cis-gendered adult. It’s eugenics, but the evil version.
Re: Re: Re:9
Remind me: Who is it that’s trying to ban books with even the most harmless and anodyne mentions of queer people from school and public libraries? Because it sure as shit ain’t “woke ideologues”.
Also remind me: Who is it that’s trying to ban books written by, for, or about conservative politicians/pundits? Because, again, it sure as shit ain’t “woke ideologues” doing that.
The only person here who can’t stand dissent from their gender ideology is you. We’re not okay with your bullshit, but we’re not trying to stop you from saying it anywhere else—which is something I highly encourage you to do because all you will find here is dissent. (Seriously, is this a form of self-harm for you or some shit?)
And yet, you’re espousing the same anti-queer rhetoric as people who are actively trying to stop anyone from saying “queer people exist” in a public school. That sucks for you because you’re going to get lumped in with those censorious assholes regardless of whether you like it, approve of it, or want it—and there is nothing you can do about that except learn to love it or leave.
Jesus tapdancing Christ, Hyman, are you really that comfortable with sounding like a goddamn Nazi?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10
I say what I believe. I am not responsible for the speech of anyone else, even if they share some opinions with me. If you do not like what someone else is saying, you can go argue with them. Arguing with me over what they said but I have not said isn’t going to do anything useful for you.
It’s touching, but untrue, that you think that anything you could say to me will “suck for me”, or get me to leave. I cannot feel insulted by someone for whom I have no respect (which is a lesson a lot of commenters here could stand to learn).
I am comfortable stating my opinions, and not the least bit discomfited by woke ideologues shouting “Nazi” because they don’t like those opinions.
Re: Re: Re:11
…neverhappened out here in the non-hallucinatory world.
Re: Re: Re:11
I’m not calling you a Nazi because I don’t like your opinions. I’m calling you a Nazi because you are espousing the kind of rhetoric (e.g., racism, a belief in eugenics as a means to bettering humanity) that led to the goddamn Holocaust. At this point, it’s irrelevant whether you’re doing this shit out of some long-term trolling op (which would be a huge waste of your time) or because you actually believe in many of the same ideals as the Nazis—you’re going to be labeled a Nazi and that is nobody’s fault but your own, you Nazi bitch.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:12
Nice use of the passive voice to pretend that your opinions are not just you’re own. “Are going to labeled” just by you and your ilk, which, as I’ve explained, does not matter to me because you and your ilk are not worth any respect, just ongoing repetition about why your opinions are wrong.
Re: Re: Re:13
Yes, I’m sure plenty of people here would agree with my opinion that you sound like an American conservative lawmaker at best and a goddamn Nazi at worst. What’s your point, other than to say “you hold an opinion shared by others on this site”?
Re: Re: Re:10
Hyman doesn’t want to accept that women, under the pressure put on them by breeders, are procreating offspring that are naturally trans and need to be adjusted later for fabulousness. But the paradigms are shifting and the voices of the oppressed are calling out, “No more”. We live in a future of femboys and futanaris and straight freaks like Hyman will be replaced.
Re: Re: Re:9
The problem is that YOU cannot let a chance to attack people who say treat people with respect regardless of their sexuality alone because you do not want people who are different from you to show their difference in public. You are so obsessed with gender that you bring up your disagreement with those who say treat everybody as equals at every opportunity.
Re: Re: Re:5
If Hyman had reality on his side inside of his false beliefs, he wouldn’t lie that being non-binary is a matter of how a child is raised.
“Trans prople are mentally ill” is and has always been projection.
Re: Re: Re:6
Balderdash, how could constantly fixating on what’s between the legs of complete strangers and whether it ‘fits’ what they want to be called, to the point of bringing it up on a regular(one might say obsessive) basis be seen as a sign of mental illness?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
All of Scotland was recently “fixated” by what was between a male rapist’s legs when he called himself a woman and demanded to be incarcerated in a women’s prison. When people seek to force their way into single-sex spaces for which their bodies disqualify them, trampling over the religious, social, and cultural taboos of the people already there, “fixating” on the genitals of the intruders is going to happen no matter how much woke ideologues screech.
Re: Re: Re:8
You are fixated on single events proclaiming it’s the norm. It’s a very dishonest way to go about life because regardless of how things normally function there will always be single events breaking the norm.
For you to have a point here you must show that it’s common that men call themselves women in an effort to be placed in a women’s prison.
Talk about grasping at straws to build up a narrative that’s entirely false.
But let’s take your reasoning for a spin: It’s a fact that anti-trans activists have murdered transgendered people more than once, considering your rhetoric you are an anti-trans activist so that means we are just waiting for you to murder a transgendered person.
Turnabout is fair play, isn’t it?
Re: Re: Re:8
Since you’re so intent on “intruding” on the lives of trans people and what they do with their genitals: What’s between your legs, you Nazi bitch?
Re: Re: Re:9
I know you’re gay (or bi?), but I’m not sending you a picture of my genitals. Do you get sexually aroused by people who call you an idiot? That would explain your posts.
But if you want to use your imagination, my genitals are the ordinary male sort, average sized, and were circumcised when I was eight days old.
Re: Re: Re:10
You really are fixated on other peoples genitals, you should really seek professional help for that – you might end up in the National Sex Offender Registry otherwise.
Re: Re: Re:8
Ah, I knew I was missing some context, since it’s Hyman “despite his upbringing, he became a Nazi” Rosen.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-63823420
The things Hyman conveniently left out:
So the perp was ALREADY convicted of rape charges before transition. Then was diagnosed with gender dysphoria and transitioned while being remanded. Or something to that extent, it’s a bit hard to tell in the article.
At least the bureaucrats are bookkepping decently…
Which actually seems prudent, shocking, even, considering the clusterfuck that is the UK.
More common sense from a country that was hoodwinked by their rich to Brexit.
Well, holy fucking shit. Actual concerns from people who aren’t Nazis! And it has little to do with transgerder men, either! Just a general concern that these incarcerated women might react horribly to men, transgender or otherwise, in their midst!
Re: Re: Re:9
Yeah, that tracks.
Re: Re: Re:8
No, it appears that they fixated on what that rapist was incarcerated for doing (i.e. raping women), not the rapist’s genitals. Indeed, if this was a case of a ciswoman convicted of raping women, they, too, should not be allowed to stay in the same cells or use the same locker rooms and restrooms and such as other female prisoners.
According to a segment of the population but not necessarily the majority, even though others disagree that their bodies disqualify them but would actually argue that their minds and/or appearance disqualify them from using the alternative.
Seriously, you have presented no arguments as to why those taboos should be respected but other taboos also held by a number of people that are mutually exclusive with the ones you favor should be trampled on in the process. Also, genuine, fact-based safety concerns take priority over religious, social, and cultural taboos (all else being equal), and you have not argued why the taboos should take priority instead.
And how exactly would they know that there is an “intruder”? No one should see anyone else’s genitals in single-sex restrooms or locker rooms or when playing single-sex sports. If you can, either you or the “intruder” is doing something you/they shouldn’t be doing in such a space/during such an activity even disregarding what is actually between the “intruder’s” legs. In other words, anyone using such spaces or performing in such an activity should have no reason to be able to or want to fixate on such a thing, period.
Seriously, learn to mind your own business.
Re: Re: Re:9
Scotland changed its rules about fake women being sent to women’s prisons after the outcry about the rapist, not before.
The religious, social, and cultural taboos about single-sex spaces should be upheld because there are vastly more people who want them in place than delusional or activist people who want to intrude on them. I understand that you woke ideologues don’t want that. That’s why we have culture wars rather than culture debates. When there are conflicting desires where only one side can have what it wants, the two sides must battle it out.
Re: Re: Re:10
The outcry was because people like you lied about what actually happened, either directly or by omission.
You are just another hateful liar, you think your misplaced righteousness allows you to bend the truth or straight up lie and then you get on a rant every time someone point out your lies.
The thing about your anger is that it will certainly shorten your lifespan while making you susceptible to all kinds of stress-related ills. You reap what you sow.
Re: Re: Re:10
I mean, that doesn’t exactly counter anything I said, so what’s your point? (I’m not saying whether that is right or wrong yet because it’s irrelevant, so I see no reason to check.)
[citation needed]
Also, that’s not a very good reason, especially given the very real safety concerns at issue.
I honestly don’t care enough about such taboos to be bothered. I’m only bringing up that you have failed to address the issue.
Personally, I think the whole issue could easily be sidestepped in a way that makes restrooms and locker rooms better for everyone, so the whole thing could be rendered moot quite easily. Moreover, I think that taboos in general are a weak reason without something else to back them up, and majority-rule isn’t sufficient to do so.
So yeah, you really shouldn’t jump to conclusions like that.
Except, as I see it, there is a way to make the conflict moot by just making bathrooms more private and safer, making the need to make them single-sex in the first place moot.
Again, though, you have failed to give any reason why anyone else should agree with the alleged majority, nor have you even actually demonstrated that the majority agree with you.
Re: Re: Re:11
Having single-occupancy bathrooms solves the problem of where to go in a good way, satisfactory to everyone, although potentially at greater expense than large single-sex bathrooms.
Now we just need to fix locker rooms, prisons, and sports teams, and we’ll be all set.
As for reasons, I repeat as often as necessary that many people have religious, social, and cultural beliefs and taboos against mixing sexes in certain contexts. You might not like that, and you might try to convince people to give up those beliefs, and you might think that the issues you prioritize justify trampling over the beliefs of those people, but until you succeed, you will need to fight a culture war because your opponents aren’t going to surrender just because you are a Righteous Warrior for Truth and Light.
Re: Re: Re:12
We better get those their own safe spaces then, because damn if I will let someone’s religious, social and cultural taboos be forced upon me.
It’s also funny you make the above argument, because according to you, only “woke ideologues” wants to force their ideology on others and here you are suggesting that people must pay attention to other peoples ideological taboos.
I don’t expect you to honestly and intellectually understand my point since you are still here even when you have been told to leave. Do you also do the same when visiting other places, like restrooms where you gawk at peoples genitals to make sure no transperson is present?
Re: Re: Re:5
No one wants it otherwise.
…Uh, I have a lot I want to say to that, but for now, I’ll stick to just one thing:
Assuming for the sake of argument that both of these things are actually things that happen (even though the former does not appear to be the case), and ignoring whether or not either of them would otherwise be problematic or wrong (even though you have done nothing to demonstrate that), how would either of those things be raising your child to be non-binary?
Identifying as non-binary isn’t a mental illness (it isn’t even a potential case of gender dysphoria bad enough to be a mental illness), so not disclosing a mental illness to you (the parent) would have nothing to do with being non-binary. And teaching that gender and sex are not the same thing and that neither sex nor gender are binary (the things you seem to object to) is not raising anyone to be non-binary any more than teaching evolution is raising someone to be an atheist. So tell me, how do these two alleged practices constitute “raising [a] child to be non-binary”?
I.e. sources that we cannot verify, so it can be countered by my (honest) claim that teacher and principal acquaintances of mine have never heard such a thing.
I’m just going to ignore the unverifiable nature of the source for this claim for now and point out how it’s still flawed.
[citation needed]
Re: Re: Re:5
Your children will be raised as non-binary, Hyman. It’s the only way for us to save this fallen world that has been long poisoned by the toxic masculine patriarchy.
Your kind is no longer welcome in this world. Roll over and present your ass for the new order.
Re: Re: Re:3
Mike has not sued you to get you to shut up, Hyman.
And it’s highly liekly that he never will.
No one is stopping you from buying your own server space, IRC server, domain and/or set up ypur own blog to spew your laughably stunted knowledge you parrrot off as “the truth”.
And I, for one, hope you actually stay the fuck away and actually do just that. Stay in your own crazy zone and leave us be.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
No, you won’t. The children of tomorrow will be raised by drag queens instead of priests. Anticipate the fabulous.
Re: Re: Re:4
I’ve said this before, but you have a very twisted definition of “fabulous”.
Re: Re: Re:5
It might be fabulous, who knows?
If you get a chance, by the way, watch S1E8 of Doom Patrol on HBOMax. It’s a very good episode featuring a non- binary sentient street named Danny, and there’s a cabaret on them with drag performers, one of whom is an episode co-star. Grant Morrison, the writer on the titular comic book a few decades ago, now identifies as non-binary and recently wrote a novel, Luda, about an aging drag queen being supplanted by a younger one. (I believe the novel is insufficiently PC for woke gender activists, and they have attacked it. I haven’t read it yet.)
Re:
This article is absolutely correct. Parents need to talk to their children and emphasize that when they run across a bigot they should tell that bigot to fuck the hell off and get a life while explaining that they don’t need a bigoted internet Karen harassing them.
Re:
Quit fucking heckling this site over your favorite hate target.
Re:
Fuck off, you anti-queer bigot.
Re:
Reminder: There’s still zero scientific basis for Hyman Rosen’s lies about sex and gender.
Re: Re:
I’d love to have an in depth discussion. It would end the moment they realise that there’s not actually 2 genders (hermaphrodites and intersex individuals exist) and that chromosomes don’t directly program gender (XXY, XXYY, XXYYY, etc. people exist). But, it’s important to remember that some people think they know everything because they were taught something in high school, but never experienced life enough to realise that this isn’t the end of education.
Re: Re: Re:
Some people can’t deal with the fact that some things isn’t binary because they want to be able to easily attack and decry the things that doesn’t fall within that extremely limited scope.
Take Hyman for example who thinks that if you are homeless you are a disease ridden bum doing drugs, if you are black you are automatically a criminal, if you don’t have an emotional response comparable to a rock and shows just a tiny bit of understanding and compassion you are a woke ideologue, if you are trans you are a rapist and a groomer. Also, look at what he think is the fitting punishment for some crimes and non-crimes: the death penalty.
If he lived in a world where his views where the predominant ones, he would be short-lived indeed because there’s always someone else who would think he should be punished for some action they found egregious. It’s also why I said earlier that if he had even the slightest amount power over other people it would be the start of cleansings since his rhetoric follows all those “great leaders” where the perceived undesirables ended up in mass-graves.
Re: Re: Re:2
…a Florida Republican.
Re: Re: Re:3
Only in Florida?
Most of the world, sadly, shares his views on trans folk. Or at least, are very open about not wanting to deal with the topic of transgender folk.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Woke gender ideologues would screech in fury at the suggestion that a test for physical intersex traits or genetic anomalies should be a requirement for being affirmed as trans or non-binary. That some people are born blind doesn’t mean that people can’t see. That some people are born deaf doesn’t mean that people can’t hear. People come in exactly two sexes, and the fact that sometimes things go wrong in development doesn’t change that. It’s just what you get when evolution throws things at a wall for a few hundred million years.
Re: Re: Re:3
But you are all for it, right? You don’t see the inherit problem in it?
You know, it can’t be exactly two when it sometimes isn’t. But that’s what you do, exactly as I said above, you reduce everything into a binary situation and everything outside that is an aberration that must be stamped out by any means.
Ie, it’s something that occurs naturally.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
People can only ever be the sex of their bodies. Sometimes people have genetic or developmental abnormalities that can make the sex of the body difficult to determine, or even make the body truly ambiguous, although that’s going to be pretty rare. Their parents and doctors (and sometimes themselves, if things aren’t noticed early) need to figure out what’s going on, what sex they are, and what needs to be done to correct the abnormalities. That’s a very different situation from people who are deluded or profoundly wish to be a sex different from their normally developed or developing bodies.
Woke gender ideologues have gotten into intersex issues too, trying to stop parents and doctors from having the children treated while babies to surgically correct developmental abnormalities, trying to destroy children’s lives in this way too so that they can promote the false notion that there is no gender binary.
https://hms.harvard.edu/magazine/lgbtq-health/body-self
It’s not dissimilar to the woke deafness advocates trying to destroy children’s lives by gaslighting parents into not getting cochlear implants for their deaf children because “deafness is culture, not disability”.
Re: Re: Re:5
Keep on proving my point.
Re: Re: Re:3
I trust you know enough about the Holocaust to know where a belief in eugenics will inevitably lead.
Re: Re: Re:4
Hyman has admitted to being a Nazi.
And either being born Jewish or Polish.
He is a shame to Both the Jews and the Poles.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Eugenics practiced as not permitting the “wrong people” to breed will never end well.
A proper practice of eugenics will occur at the level of the individual embryo, either fixing genetic anomalies, or selecting embryos that don’t have such anomalies from a set of choices. That will lead to the reduction of a host of genetically-linked diseases and abnormalities, including Down syndrome, sickle-cell disease, Tay-Sachs, and so forth.
There’s no science yet to support genetic testing for mental illness (most claims of such findings have not proven out), but perhaps one day that might be prevented as well.
Such a eugenics won’t be a panacea, of course, because many defects arise during development, and a cause won’t be locatable within the genetics of the embryo.
Re: Re: Re:5
And since you believe being transgender is a mental illness, we can therefore infer that you’d seek to have an embryo that might one day be a transgender person be aborted before it’s allowed to become a viable fetus. Again: A hardcore full-throated belief in eugenics will always lead to a belief in the wide-scale extermination of “unwelcome” minorites—i.e., genocide.
Congratulations, Hyman. You’re a goddamn Nazi.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
Since embryos and fetuses are not people, they are not minorities in the sense you mean.
An embryo-level eugenics should be carried out at only the behest of the mother. Once the medical capability for such a eugenics practice exists, she is the only person who gets to decide whether and what sort of embryo to bring to term. If she wants an abortion, she may have one on demand and without apology. If the capability exists and she wants an embryo that will not become a child who is gay, or trans, or schizophrenic, that choice is also hers alone.
If such choices lead to people with Down syndrome, or being trans or gay, or schizophrenic, or blind, or deaf no longer existing (which is unlikely, since most babies will likely continue happening the old-fashioned way), that is fine. People who do not exist have no claim to existence.
It may also be that once such capability is widely available, public perception of people who do not act to prevent defective children from being born may change, such that failure to act is seen as immoral. I hope that happens, but again, that seems unlikely to happen to such an extent that people would be precluded from having such babies.
Re: Re: Re:7
I don’t think you could sound more like a goddamn Nazi if you tried.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
I believe that a woman who, knowing that her embryo will develop into a blind baby, allows it to be born instead of having it aborted, is as morally culpable as if she had had a sighted child and deliberately put its eyes out.
Re: Re: Re:9
And I’d bet good money that you’d love to punish her by having the state force her into never having another child. After all, stopping a worthless breeding sow from producing inferior human livestock is exactly what you fucking genocidal eugenicists are all about.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10
Nope. People do things all the time that other people think are morally reprehensible. We generally don’t give people the power to punish the moral decisions of other people. When that does happen, it’s nearly always a bad idea, as in prohibitions against abortion or prostitution. (And these punishments are most often meted out against women, much less often against men, especially “normal” men.)
Re: Re: Re:11
Sucks for you that you claim to hold that position yet still advocate for both Nazi-level eugenics and book bans that target even the most innocuous pro-queer content. Makes you look like a liar or a hypocrite; whichever one is worse is your decision, shitbird.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:12
As usual, you argue with illusory versions of me that say things that I do not. I am opposed to any sort of book bans; of course it is woke ideologues who cheer Amazon’s refusal to sell When Harry Became Sally.
Given that you favor the right and ability for children to be mutilated into a semblance of a sex they can never be, it’s ironic for you to be accusing others of “Nazi-level eugenics”.
Once the technology exists, people should have an inalienable right to design their babies as they wish, not as you wish.
Re: Re: Re:13
And yet, you align yourself philosophically and morally with people who carry out those bans because they, too, hate trans people with every fiber of their being. Curious. 🤨
Amazon can sell or not sell whatever the fuck it wants—especially if it doesn’t want to be associated with transphobic garbage. Or do you not believe in capitalism any more?
I’m not trans and I have no trans children, so what I favor is largely irrelevant because what I believe shouldn’t be the factor that determines whether trans people can even exist. That said: What I favor is age-appropriate gender-affirming treatment as determined by experts in the field. In re: children, that rarely involves gender reassignment surgery. And no such surgery should ever happen to a child without consent from the child and their parent(s) after long-term gender-affirming care. That you believe bullshit right-wing anecdotes about “oh the kid walked in and the doctors transed the kid’s gender on the spot” when even trans adults struggle to receive gender-affirming care of any kind says everything we need to know about you—and it’s that you gladly let other people make up your mind for you. (As if the constant repeating of the same exact sentences and paragraphs about “woke gender ideologues” like they’re coming from a workshopped script wasn’t enough of a sign of that…)
Again: If you don’t want to be called a Nazi, you shouldn’t sound so eager for a world where Hitler’s dreams of Aryan peoples breeding and sustaining a genetically superior master race that will rule all other peoples could become a reality.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:14
Amazon can refuse to sell whatever it wants. Florida can refuse to stock whatever books it wants in its schools. You call the first freedom and the second censorship. You really are an idiot, aren’t you?
I do not hate games people and I do not hate religious people. Both believe lies about themselves and the universe, both are allowed to do so, and both should be prevented from having their lies taught as truth in public institutions and forcing others to affirm their lies.
Woke ideologues are desperately trying to gaslight the public about how much care and consideration children get from the trans groomers.
Re: Re: Re:15
Not in this case. Amazon isn’t a government entity; its refusal to sell a given book doesn’t prevent that book from being sold elsewhere. The government pulling a book from a library shelf prevents anyone who generally can’t obtain that book in any other way from doing exactly that. If you can’t figure out why only one of those is censorship, your Emotional Support Reality is more fucked up than I thought.
And yet, you want your lies about trans people and the gender binary taught as the absolute objective truth at every level of education. Curious. 🤨
Can you offer any credible evidence presented by credible sources that backs up any claims of systemic issues concerning the long-term care and consideration for transgender children across the nation? A handful of possibly bullshit anecdotes cherrypicked by right-wing pundits to make trans people look bad don’t count.
Re: Re: Re:15
So what is your point?
Ah. Well, the difference is that Florida is a state government, while Amazon is a private company, so the latter is far less constrained than the former. Additionally, the second infringes on academic freedom since it involves schools (and in a way that doesn’t relate to deciding school curriculum, since what books are in school libraries doesn’t relate at all to what is actually taught in those schools), but the first has no relation to education (and, thus, academic freedom) at all. As such, the two are readily distinguishable in that regard.
Okay, what the heck are “games people”? I have never heard anyone use that term, and if it meant “gamers” or something like that (the most logical conclusion), that would make no sense in this context.
I’m sure it’s a typo, but for the life of me, I can’t figure out what that’s supposed to actually be. I’m just going to assume you meant “trans people” because nothing else would make sense given what else you say and given what Stephen said, but I honestly have no idea how that could possibly become “games people”.
I don’t think Stephen claimed you did.
I mean, first off, there are a lot of religions out there. Some of them don’t teach anything capable of being falsified or that contradicts any scientific findings, and the founders of those religions may well be honest believers. Given that, it’s highly debatable that all religious people “believe lies about themselves and the universe”, and you certainly can’t prove that.
As for transgender people, as I stated multiple times in the past, you have yet to present an example of anything that transgender people actually believe about anything that is demonstrably, objectively false. It’s all been attacking strawmen, arguing against subjective claims (which are inherently incapable of being demonstrated to be false or being objectively false), and/or just rejecting science, particularly the entire field of psychology. As such, you have failed to demonstrate that transgender people “believe lies about themselves and the universe”.
I ask you once again to prove me wrong about transgender people with actual evidence about something trans people actually claim or believe.
Regarding religious people (and substituting “lies” for “religious teachings”), I agree wholeheartedly that religious teachings should not be taught as truth in public institutions, nor should anyone else be forced to affirm them. Additionally, there are religious people who try to push their beliefs to be taught in public institutions and/or to be affirmed by others, so this is an actual issue.
Regarding trans people, though, there are four main issues:
You have yet to demonstrate the existence of “trans groomers” as a trend or even anything more than just one or two isolated incidents, nor have you given any evidence that children don’t typically get the care and consideration that “woke ideologues” claim they get regarding transitioning. Additionally, as far as I can tell, “woke ideologues” claim that “trans groomers” are either nonexistent or so few in number as to not be worth worrying about, but they don’t say anything else on the subject of “trans groomers” beyond that they are irrelevant to the points made in favor of trans rights.
As such, you have failed to demonstrate that “woke ideologues gaslight the public” as you claim.
Re: Re: Re:16
Read your own post? It’s classic gaslighting – the things you like are “settled science” and the things you hate are “isolated incidents”. “Not all religions believe in the supernatural”? That’s just so pathetic.
You will no more be convinced that woke gender ideology is a lie than an election denier will be convinced that Biden won or an anti-vaxxer will be convinced that ivermectin is useless or a religious fundamentalist will be convinced that their gods don’t exist. There comes a time when it is obvious that talking to the other side is hopeless. When the two sides want something irreconcilable (abortion is perhaps the clearest example), there must be a culture war, not a culture debate.
When it comes to woke gender ideology, people should not be permitted to force their way into single-sex spaces for which their bodies disqualify them, unless the owners and current occupants of those spaces agree to change the admission criteria. Woke gender ideologues don’t like that – they demand that everyone be forced to affirm their lies and to allow people making delusional claims into single-sex spaces regardless of what their body is. So we will have a culture war to see which side wins. And it’s not going tp be a nice, clean fight. It’s going to be LibsOfTikTok posting videos of non-binary teachers hoisting trans Pride flags and woke ideologues claiming that trans people will kill themselves if someone calls them by the wrong pronoun. That’s fine. People who lose with grace and dignity are still losers.
Re: Re: Re:17
You don’t even know what gaslighting means even though you do it the whole time. That’s the really pathetic thing here.
You are just a fact free bigot who wants to kill people you don’t like, you have made that point abundantly clear.
Oh, they all demand that? I think that’s called gaslighting, it’s when you lie and distort things. It’s also why you use “woke ideologues” or any other nebulous description because it allows you an out claiming that “oh, I didn’t mean that”.
You should know how that feels. Well, except that bit about grace and dignity which are qualities you don’t possess. You are just another angry bigoted looser with no empathy on the internet who are so toxic that you aren’t welcome anywhere while being incapable of understanding why that is which also makes you stupid.
Re: Re: Re:15
You’re just mad because trans people are better at parenting than your close-minded, cis straight trash, Hyman.
Expect us.
Re: Re: Re:13
Given your arguments against “woke ideologues” go after strawmen, even if this is true (which, at least in this case, it doesn’t appear to be), you really have no room to criticize Stephen for it.
If I recall correctly, you previously defended the removal of certain books from school libraries. That is definitely a sort of book ban, especially considering the example of a book ban you yourself mention right afterwards:
How is that more of a book ban than what you have defended?
Moreover, Stephen specifically called you a hypocrite for criticizing “woke ideologues” for allegedly calling for book bans when you yourself have defended book bans in the past, even if in a different context. As such, even if true, this doesn’t go against anything Stephen said at all, especially since you don’t even claim that Stephen cheered that.
Like how it’s ironic that you accuse Stephen of arguing with illusory versions of you given your predilection towards doing so yourself?
Also, a few problems with this:
So yeah, that is eugenics, and you argue in favor of it. Whether or not it’s “Nazi-level” is a matter of opinion, so Stephen wasn’t arguing against an illusory version of you here.
Now, my main issue with this sort of eugenics is the fact that, unlike abortion (which involves the mother’s right to decide whether or not her body can be used to support someone else’s life), eugenics doesn’t really involve the mother’s right to her own body but, rather, directly invades the unborn’s right to bodily autonomy, so that kind of eugenics is already a lot less clearly in favor of the mother over her baby than abortion is, and the right to an abortion is already a case where many people who agree the right exists have well-reasoned disagreements as to the contours of that right, so it’s not entirely inalienable.
Also, you seem to believe that mothers should have more rights as to their children’s bodies than their children should have as to their own bodies. I don’t entirely agree, and I believe that there are many exceptions to parental rights if the child does not consent (though there are some cases where the parent does have final say).
Moreover, I have no idea on what you can base a right to “design” one’s child; as far as I can tell, there is no precedent to this that would favor such a right. In other issues of rights being debated, they are generally grounded in either being an extension of an existing right that everyone agrees exists to some extent (like bodily autonomy vs. right to life (abortion), free association/speech (moderation of privately owned sites), or privacy (gay marriage, consensual sex acts, and sex- or gender-altering treatments, among other things)) or are about the contours of an existing right everyone agrees exists (like privacy, free speech/press, free association, religion, due process, or freedom from unreasonable searches/seizures without a warrant). Outside of being vaguely associated with parental rights generally (but in a way that goes against established limitations of parental rights, like how we don’t allow parents to force their children to get tattooed, piercings, or plastic surgery against their will), this doesn’t seem to be based on existing rights.
Beyond that, though, I consider this to be a highly debatable issue.
But even putting all that aside, this last part is just perplexing to me:
Where the hell did you get the idea that Stephen thinks that babies should be designed at all, let alone according to his wishes? As far as I can tell, Stephen is opposed to babies being designed according to anyone’s wishes, but if not, he certainly wouldn’t be saying it should be done according to his own wishes.
So yeah, another case of you arguing against an illusory version of your opponent. You really need to learn to stop projecting like that.
Re: Re: Re:6
Always has been.
Re: Re: Re:3
Native American understanding about sexuality would screech at your Reddit-level understanding of science, psychology, and utter disregard of THEIR opinion, you Nazi fuck.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Native American “understanding” is just as false as Jewish understanding, or Christian understanding, or Hindu understanding, or Muslim understanding, or Buddhist understanding. The only “way of knowing” that discovers truth is science, and even then, because science is carried out by people who are impatient, greedy, and flawed, and often controlled by people who have predetermined what the truth should be, it takes a long time to determine the truth.
Also, this “Native American understanding” is mostly just something made up by woke gender ideologues: https://rewirenewsgroup.com/2016/10/13/two-spirit-tradition-far-ubiquitous-among-tribes/
Re: Re: Re:5
You got any more anti-religion screeds you wanna throw in there, son, or are you just gonna say “religion should be abolished everywhere” and be done with it? Christ, I’m an atheist, and even I think you’re being a goddamn buffoon…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
Religion should not, and cannot be, abolished. People should be free to believe whatever they like, even, or especially, when their beliefs are false. But they should not be permitted to silence dissent or to outlaw “blasphemy”.
https://reason.com/2023/02/09/after-muslim-students-complained-that-an-art-exhibit-was-harmful-macalester-college-shut-it-down/
No religion that teaches that the supernatural exists is true, whether that supernatural entity is Jesus or Coyote.
Re: Re: Re:7
Tell that to the Republicans who are trying to do exactly that with gender studies, Black history studies, and so much as mentioning the existence of queer people. They’re the ones who view speech that disagrees with them as blasphemous and thus worthy of laws preventing them from being spoken in states they control.
I’m sure you consider me a “woke ideologist”. But I’m not out here trying to ban your queerphobic and racist bullshit. You, on the other hand, are actively supporting bans on pro-queer and anti-racist speech in schools of all levels because, like Republicans, you essentially consider it blasphemous and want it snuffed out. If there is anyone who is being a religious zealot here, Hyman, it’s your sorry ass.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
I am not a Republican, and I am not responsible for what other people say or do, only for what I say or do. Woke gender ideology and critical race theory are lies, and lies should not be taught as truth in public schools. But those lies exist in society, so they should be taught as things that some people believe, and students should in general be taught that there are many conflicting beliefs that they will be sorting out for themselves in the course of their lives.
Re: Re: Re:9
You are aligned with their goals, though. To-may-to, to-mah-to.
That’s true. But when what other people say aligns with what you’re saying, you’re going to get lumped in with those people regardless of whether you like it. The GOP says anti-queer shit and you say anti-queer shit, so don’t get all pissy when you get lumped in with people who are actively working towards a queer genocide. That’s nobody’s fault but your own for holding onto the same bad ideas as them.
Do you mean lies like “sex and gender are absolutely the same thing and there are only ever two sexes”, “the Confederacy wasn’t about slavery”, or both?
If you actually think this, aligning yourself morally and ethically with Republicans is a shit way of proving it, given how they’re already trying to destroy public schooling in general and how they’re actively working to make sure schools teach conservative-penned propaganda instead of accurate American history. I’d tell you to look at how they’re trying to whitewash how slavery is taught in schools, but you’d probably agree with that, what with your being an avowed racist.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10
I am not responsible for what other people say or do, even when those people share some opinions with me. If you don’t like what they are saying, go argue with them. It will do you no good to argue with me about opinions I do not hold. And I will not change my opinions regardless of how reprehensible other people who share those opinions might be, nor because wonderful people (of whom you are not one) disagree with them.
Public schools were ruined by woke ideologues who insisted that delinquents and bullies should not be expelled, that special needs students should be taught in the same classes as normal students, that students should not be separated into tracked classes by tested ability, that teaching should be “holistic” rather than skills-based, and that schools should become social service centers rather than places for teaching.
Sex and gender are absolutely the same thing and there are only ever two sexes.
The Confederacy was about slavery.
Re: Re: Re:11
By the same token: I’m not responsible for you aligning yourself with a shitload of bigots and fascists—and if you take issue with me talking about how you’re doing exactly that, I’m not really the one with the problem.
And there it is—and by “it”, I mean “the surest sign that you’re a right-wing conservative”.
No, public schools were ruined—and are still trying to be ruined—by conservative fuckwits (not unlike you) who think teaching kids anything other than “the three Rs” is liberal brainwashing and funding public schooling is akin to funding communism. They defund schools, demean teachers, and act like the best possible solution is privatizing the entire education system at every level—a solution that benefits right-wing grifters and conservative Christian jackoffs who are more than ready to replace public schools with private schools that just so happen to
indoctrinate students withexclusively teach conservative Christian ideologies. Hell, given how DeSantis is trying to wreck Florida’s higher education system by taking over colleges and banning entire fields of study, that your anti-queer brethren are trying to destroy the institution of public schooling shouldn’t even be that big of a surprise to you.Just because you left school doesn’t mean your education has to end. So educate yourself on exactly how complex sex is within the human genome and how gender identity is based far more on social cues than on genetic markers.
I’m surprised you can even bring yourself to say that. Did admitting a factual truth that wasn’t pre-approved by your Emotional Support Reality cause you any pain?
Re: Re: Re:11
But you sure do love using the term woke-ideologues. Not much for consistency, are you?
Re: Re: Re:11
[citation needed] for every single one of those claims.
As you use the terms, yes, they are the same thing. However, others use “gender” as shorthand for either “gender identity”, “gender presentation”, “gender roles”, “social gender”, “grammatical gender”, or some combination of those things, while “sex” is used by these people as a shorthand for either “sex determined by primary sex characteristics”, “sex determined by secondary sex characteristics” (collectively with the previous, “physiological sex”), “sex assigned at birth”, “sex determined by the set of sex chromosomes in one’s genes” (i.e. genetic sex), or some combination of those things. Under those definitions, sex and gender are very much not the same thing. That you don’t agree with those definitions is irrelevant as you don’t get to decide what definitions are the “proper” definitions, and this is reflected in how many scientists and medical professionals who specialize in relevant fields use the terms. No one is required to conform to your definitions.
False. For one thing, you didn’t specify “in humans” or anything, and some fungi have a lot more sexes than two.
But even setting that aside, sex in humans is bimodal, meaning the vast majority of humans are exactly one of precisely two sexes, and both sexes are roughly equal in number, but exceptions do, in fact, exist. For there to only ever be two sexes among humans, sex in humans would have to be binary, but it simply isn’t. To the extent your position is consistent with sex being bimodal (rather than binary), literally no one on the side of transgender people is disputing that, including transgender people, genderfluid people, non-binary people, intersex people, and allies of any of those groups.
Heck, being transgender or even genderfluid isn’t necessarily inconsistent with gender being binary, and being transgender, genderfluid, or non-binary is not inconsistent with sex being binary. Sex being binary only goes against intersex people, and transgender people will identify as only one of two genders while having a sex that (excluding intersex individuals) is also one of two sexes. The only difference is that the two don’t match. And with genderfluid people, ignoring those who are intersex, they fit fine in exactly one of two sexes, and many (though not all) identify as exactly one of two genders at any given time; they just have genders that can vary over time and which don’t necessarily match their sexes.
Re: Re: Re:9
They why are you trying to force your beliefs as to what is true down everybody else’s throat, and getting opposing beliefs removed from education? If you started practicing what you preach you would stop heckling people in the comments by bringing up your anti trans beliefs at the slightest excuse.
Re: Re: Re:5
Huh, thanks for affirming that you, indeed, are no different from the Nazis.
That article disproves a lot of what you lie about all the time, and affirms that you, indeed, would take the nuanced Native American view on sexuality (spread across at least 500 tribes).
Please do not try to use the Native Americans to justify your genocidal hatred of the other. And the Veteran.
Re: Re: Re:6
Nuance is for people willing to admit they’re wrong and learn something new. Hyman, like Ron DeSantis, would prefer that people who don’t conform to his worldview be silenced—and like Nazis, Hyman probably isn’t above suggesting a “final solution” for the “problem” of queer people daring to exist if all his other “solutions” fail.
Re: Re: Re:7
Ironic, again, that Hyman, the man who was legit taught by survivors of the Nazi Regime/invasions, is now shilling for the same ideology that tried to murder his parents.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
Imagine a woke ideologue claiming that it’s his opponents that want people silenced. The pot calling the kettle black indeed. As if woke ideologues didn’t glory in the viewpoint-based censorship Twitter and Facebook provided, as if they don’t cheer Amazon’s refusal to sell When Harry Became Sally, as if some woke gaming sites haven’t banned discussion of Hogwarts Legacy.
Re: Re: Re:8
You’re the one on the side of people trying to literally ban trans people from existing in public. Accusing me of hypocrisy for pointing that out even though I’ve been saying for years that even the most reprehensible people with the most vile and odious views have the right to speak their minds on whatever platform that will have them is…well, it’s goddamned hilarious.
Three things.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:9
You really are an idiot, aren’t you?
Every censor can choose. Amazon can choose. Florida can choose. Russia can choose. China can choose. Every censor has the legal right to censor; there mostly aren’t a bunch of guerrilla censors trying to silence people illegally. Censorship doesn’t become less wrong because the censors are allowed to do it, it becomes more wrong.
Re: Re: Re:10
Oh, I am absolutely a fucking moron in a lot of ways—but not in this instance.
Amazon has the right to choose what books it will or won’t sell. The same statement applies a small-town bookstore owned and operated by someone who votes Republican. The choice to not sell a given book isn’t censorship.
Re: Re: Re:10
.>Amazon can choose. Florida can choose.
There is a significant diffrence between those two statements because oof the relationship of the entity to the choice. Amazon chooses what Amazon will sell to you, while Florida chooses what others will sell to you. The first is not censorship, the second is.
Re: Re: Re:3
I mean, I think most people would screech in fury at there being a test for normal sex traits because that is such an obvious case of an invasion of privacy. What’s in my pants is none of your business.
Additionally, as you yourself have pointed out, “intersex” and “trans/non-binary” are different things, so why would you require the latter to be tested for traits of the former? That doesn’t really make sense.
As for tests that could actually be used for transgender people, well, I’ve already pointed out that the costs are too high given the minimal benefits for requiring such a test, but even ignoring that, well… I kinda looked a bit more into the details… and while I could be misinterpreting it… it would appear that the experiments in question were mostly autopsies. Meaning that you kinda can’t make a living person take a test from those experiments.
Those statements do mean that the statement that all people can see and hear is false, though, which is the point.
No, it actually does. Sex is bimodal, meaning most people fit into exactly one of two categories, but not all of them. The statement “people come in exactly two sexes” only holds true if sex is binary, not bimodal, and that simply isn’t the case.
The problem is that you used the word “exactly”, meaning absolutely no exceptions or gray areas. “People come in essentially two sexes,” would be a more accurate statement.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
The people who want to force their way into single-sex spaces aren’t (generally) the ones who fall into a gray area of physical sexual development. They are ordinary men and women who either think or wish they are a different sex than their body, and they do not get to trample over the religious, social, and cultural taboos of people who insist on segregated sexes in certain contexts.
Re: Re: Re:5
…says the guy who has heavily implied that the proper-ass solution to this issue is “separate but equal” spaces where trans people can be segregated away from polite society.
Re: Re: Re:5
So… the people holding these specific cultural, religious and social taboos, they seem to ask for special treatment, perhaps they should then setup some safe spaces where they can practice their taboos instead of imposing them on others that do no believe in them? After all, aren’t public spaces supposed to available to everyone?
Re: Re: Re:5
Irrelevant to anything I said in that comment. Nothing I said there had anything to do with the use of single-sex spaces. Please keep your responses to address what I actually said, not what you want to talk about.
False. For one thing, I don’t believe “ordinary” actually exists, and based on what you’ve said about trans people (namely that they’re mentally ill), you don’t think they’re ordinary, either. At most, you think their bodies are ordinary, which is not the same thing as being “ordinary men and women”.
Additionally, literally no transgender person thinks they are a different sex than their body, and many (though not all) transgender people are perfectly fine with the sex of their body even though it doesn’t match their gender identity and even if they can pass as the sex that matches their gender identity rather than the sex of their body. However, most if not all trans women who can pass as female favor using women’s restrooms and women’s locker rooms, and most if not all trans men who can pass as male favor using men’s restrooms and men’s locker rooms. As such, even ignoring intersex people, it is not true that all the people who want to be able to use the single-sex spaces corresponding to their gender identity rather than the sex of their body “think or wish they are a different sex from their body”.
So tell me, do you have anything to say with regards to something I actually said?
Re: Re: Re:2
And considering that a good chunk of homeless people are also veterans…
I guess Hyman also thinks it’s okay to steal from the VA as well. Because, you know, veterans are violent (because, you know, military training and all) disease-ridden bums doing drugs. Worse still if you’re a BLACK veteran… (This entire paragragh is meant to be sarcastic and mocking Hyman’s actually Nazi beliefs.)
Re: Re: Re:2
He can move to Singapore, at least until the PAP finds his views incompatible with their views and try to sue him.
Re:
We get it, Hyman.
Parents should do their jobs and parents, if only to teach them about Nazi supporters like *YOU** and report you to the nearest authorities, at best.
Or, you know, to stay the hell away from your ilk.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Sure, if that’s what they want. But you and the author need to recognize that many parents do not believe in woke gender ideology, and they will do their best to teach their children that it’s false, and will resist the woke ideologues who have colonized so many social institutions. Scarleteen is completely steepped in woke gender ideology, for example, easily seen with a click or two. Parents who understand this will teach their kids that this site is filled with falsehood and propaganda, and should be used as a way to learn about sex only with great caution, if at all.
And of course you woke gender ideologues absolutely despise the parent’s rights movement, in which parents actually want to be the ones raising their children properly.
Re: Re: Re:
“many parents do not believe in woke gender ideology”
Many parents have beliefs that don’t conform to reality. Nobody’s trying to force your kid to be trans, they’re just accepting that the tiny minority of those who are are allowed to exist.
I know you’ve been programmed by your favourite propaganda outlets to fear “woke”, but it probably means something different in your programming to its original meaning.
“Parents who understand this will teach their kids that this site is filled with falsehood and propaganda, and should be used as a way to learn about sex only with great caution, if at all.”
I’m… not exactly sure who you think is coming to Techdirt to teach their kids about sex, but I agree it’s probably not the best resource.
Re: Re: Re:2
Hyman’s no different from that Alaskan Republican who declared that beating choldren to death is a societal benefit.
Re: Re: Re:2
Hyman can’t stand it that Techdirt teaches children actual critical thinking, evaluating proof, worker’s rights, human rights and being a decent human being.
So of course, it’s a dangerous site for actual Nazis.
Re: Re: Re:
You’re the dude that doesn’t believe genetics play a role in how the brain develops and how it can affect the self-perception on sex and gender. That must also mean there is no genetic factors in play when we talk about predisposed behavior some individuals have. Science has proven that is not the case, but you tend to disregard science and facts when it proves you wrong.
And I can point to a multitude of sites filled with neo-nazis, racists and bigots that talk like you when they want to appear “polite”.
You always need to find a new boogeyman to pin on people who doesn’t conform to your twisted version of reality, don’t you? Here’s the reality, parents have always had the right to take their kids out of school and homeschool them if they didn’t like the curriculum, the teachers or any other reason they could cook up. What’s happening now is that they, just like you, are trying to force their views on education on everyone. They are happily cheered on by the far right in an effort to discredit schools and the public school system (which is in shambles because of political infighting and poor funding in many places).
The worldview you espouse is based on hate and anger, you’ll regret it the day when you need understanding and compassion and don’t get it. You are the antithesis of the person in Martin Niemöller poem, but your peers will still come for you in the end because they’ll always need victims for their hate.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
The New York public school systems says that sex education should not refer to a “boy’s penis”, just a “penis”, because not everyone who has a penis is a boy. Woke gender ideology has completely colonized education where they have control.
Public school systems are a shambles because they do not kick out disruptive students and because they mix students who cannot learn in with students who might want to learn if given a nin-chaotic setting. This is what schools of education teach, though, so fixing it is going to be completely hopeless unless someone imposes a new structure from the top down. It could be DeSantis, but he will probably fail too, as he starts to focus more on running for president.
Regardless of a person’s self-perception or wishes, they can only ever be the sex of their body. Many people have religious, social, and cultural taboos about mixing sexes in certain contexts, and people whose bodies disqualify them should not get to force their way in to those spaces against the wishes of the people already there.
Furthermore, no one can ever “know” themselves to be anything but what they are, because no one has the ability to read someone else’s mind to know what they think. No one can “know” they are a man or a woman because men and women do not have one way of thinking or being; it is woke gender ideologues who are trying to gaslight people of both sexes who do not wish to adopt social gender stereotypes that they must rather be of the opposite sex, or non-binary, or queer. To the extent that all men or all women share some commonality, it is because they share physical biology. Women can menstruate, become pregnant, breastfeed, develop fibroids, develop ovarian and breast cancer, undergo menopause. Men can have erections, get wet dreams, produce sperm, impregnate women, get male pattern baldness, get prostate and testicular cancer.
The Niemöller quote is one of the reasons I won’t shut up. The woke colonizers have been rolling through everywhere – business, academia, politics, professional organizations – and wherever they can take control, they terrify the weak into silence for fear of being ostracized or fired. But the maw of the woke is never full, never satisfied, always seeking more victims to devour. Cowering in the face of their lies and delusions only delays the moment they come for you, especially if you do not lie at the intersection of their favored victim groups. Wokeness is a poison and a parasite that destroys its host.
Re: Re: Re:3
Funny, I seem to remember that it’s the white supremacists that have this ideology.
I still have my fucking notes from when I was still part of a church, you know. Straight from Billy Graham’s pet poison orgs, too.
Re: Re: Re:3
When all non-violent methods of “curing” that “poison” don’t work (and they won’t), the only method left will be the same “solution” the Nazis had for “the Jewish question”: systematic violence, up to and including mass murder, inflicted upon a maligned minority in the name of protecting a strict social order controlled by the majority.
The only people I’ve ever seen trying to enforce their ideas about gender and gender roles upon queer people—violently or otherwise—are conservative bigots. You best believe you’re one of them, Hyman. Every one of your bigoted-ass beliefs, including your racism, aligns with theirs.
Re: Re: Re:3
Your rhetoric indicates you are using it as a manual instead of as a warning.
Re: Re: Re:3
I mean, even ignoring transgender, genderfluid, and non-binary people, it is simply a fact that not everyone who has a penis is a boy. Intersex people do exist. That’s not “woke gender ideology”; that’s just an irrefutable fact of reality. We don’t even need to get into gender identity, neurology, psychology, or sociology to show that.
Also, even if everyone who has a penis is a boy, that just means that the “boy’s” in “boy’s penis” is superfluous. Why even specify that in the first place? Nothing is lost in making this change.
Really, this is such a weak example to bring up. Why do you even care?
What public schools did you attend? I mean, sure, they don’t expel students for merely being disruptive, but short of that, they absolutely do kick out disruptive students. I have no idea where you got the idea that they don’t.
Says the guy who says that being a man or woman is tied solely to the body.
Also, no one says that they do. Just like Americans, Scotsmen, atheists, and Christians don’t have one way of thinking or being, it’s a matter of identity.
I have yet to see this actually happen in any substantial numbers, if at all. You just fail to understand their actual positions, as far as I can tell.
Again, even ignoring transgender, genderfluid, and non-binary people for the moment, there are women/men who don’t have the traits you just gave to all women/men. Heck, most of both lists is rendered invalid simply because both sterility and asexual people (in terms of sexual orientation) exist in both sexes.
I don’t even know what you’re talking about. You could have at least said what the quote was or something.
You have failed time and again to demonstrate this. All the examples you’ve given so far fail either because they don’t appear to exist at all, give no indication of a trend rather than one or two isolated incidents, are far more nuanced than you make them out to be, give no indication of being harmful, or have nothing to do with “wokeness”. Just asserting this means nothing. Show your work.
Re: Re: Re:4
*First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.*
—Martin Niemöller
Hyman thinks what he does is heeding the poem’s warning, but in reality it’s people like him that comes for the different people. It’s something he will never understand and will always deny because he suffers from motivated reasoning.
Re: Re: Re:5
Hyman doesn’t have the balls to actually go after people, though. He’s the kind of person who turns his head and thinks “not my problem” while the “undesirables” are dragged away—and all without realizing that he’ll be one of those “undesirables” sooner or later.
Re: Re: Re:5
And Hyman does not care that his parents, despite everything they did, lived to see Hitler’s Nazis in the flesh and tried to pass it down to him, and spectacularly FAILED.
Re: Re: Re:5
Referencing a poem(not sure what it would be classified as) that describes and condemns people like him and thinking it helped his case… damn if Hyman’s projection is incredible for all the wrong reasons.
Re: Re: Re:5
Ah. I didn’t recognize the name.
And yeah, I frankly have no idea why Hyman thinks that poem supports his position.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
Parents who do not accept the new woke reality will be proven incapable of preparing their offspring for a new future and will have their privileges revoked.
Keep pushing us, Hyman, and there will come a time where you won’t have a functioning ass to sit down with, because that’s how hard it’s going to get fucking kicked.
Re: Re: Re:4
You can keep blocking us like you tried to block gay marriage, Hyman. It won’t work. Your victory in block the right to abortion was only temporary. The paradigm shift of futanari and femboys is coming for your soy boy ass.
Re:
Hyman, don’t hijack the comments of an article to push your assertions that have, quite literally, nothing to do with the article itself. This has nothing to do with sex or gender.
Which no one disputes. Again, the issue is whether gender identity has to correspond with the sex of their bodies, and which of sex and gender people should be treated according to. That their sex is restricted to how their body is is not in meaningful dispute here.
The evidence doesn’t really support that. Do you have any, y’know, evidence to support your claim that that is what they are doing? Or is it just your undemonstrated opinion?
Do you have evidence of this harm? Or anyone doing anything that would appear to minimize the difficulty and harm?
Because, frankly, the medical difficulties are boring and/or disturbing to explain in such works of fiction, it isn’t necessary, and I have no idea why you expect a work of fiction to explain every single thing that happens. Not to mention the fact that, in many cases, the character either already went through those procedures (so the difficulties have essentially passed by their introduction to the plot) or never go through those procedures at all during the story (so there are no difficulties to discuss).
Frankly, if you think anyone expects YA literature to explain everything on a subject in real life, I don’t know what to tell you other than that you’re being ridiculous.
Also, I remember reading plenty of YA literature in high school that does discuss the difficulties in the procedures. Maybe you’re just reading the wrong ones.
You have not demonstrated any such doctrine that is false.
You do realize that, of all the YA literature and other forms of entertainment, transgender, genderfluid, and non-binary people don’t even get mentioned in the vast majority of them, right? So please, do explain how these industries are “entirely colonized by woke ideology”.
Back in the 1960’s, Bonnie Prudden (the one who made the pathetic physical fitness of American school children a hot topic back in the 1950s) noted that there’s two basic strategies to protect your children from drowning:
– keep them entirely away from any and all bodies of water, till they reach adulthood,
or
– teach them to swim
and that one of these ways works much better than the other one does.
The principle still applies.
The internet is Dangerous
Why not?
It has information, history(more then most schools tell you), Facts, Fiction, Opinions, those that Think like you, and those that Dont.
A world full of People from other countries that can Share information and knowledge, and Much more.
A great place to have debates, and yell and scream and Learn to shut up. And not have the ability to BEAT THE HELL out of another idiot like you.
If you don't want to be a parent then don't have kids
‘There is bad stuff online and rather than put limits in place and/or talking to my kids about it I demand that everyone else do everything in their power to keep my kid from any of it’ is just bad parenting in the short and long term.
Not only are they going to find ways around any limitations(quickest way to get a teen to do/look for something is tell them they can’t) but as soon as they reach adulthood and the blinders come off they are going to be completely blindsided by all the new things that they have no experience with and no knowledge of how to handle.
If the idea of talking to your kids about porn, sexuality, or other ‘tricky’ topics is something you think is beyond you then either don’t have kids or accept from the outset that someone else is going to pick up the slack and if you’re lucky it will be a trustworthy and accurate source doing the educating. Trying to shunt the job onto everyone else is just lazy and sabotaging the very people you claim to want to ‘protect’.
You can’t teach kids about sex!!!
It will make them have more of it!!!
Umm okay, how about a program that teaches consent?
OMG How Dare You!!! Thats a parents job!!
Well watching the Maury Show, parents get an F-.
Its the fault of the media!!!
Maybe stop pretending you ever turned on the V chip in your tv & take responsibility for what your kids watch??
I’m to busy to do that society should modify itself to appease me!!
Are you fucking high?
We live in a nation where females aren’t allowed to bare their shoulders in mixed sex situations, because it might distract the boys. At no point has anyone ever considered teaching the boys that seeing bare skin & feeling a tingle in your pants doesn’t give you the right to touch, that no means no & if you refuse to accept that answer you will be punished.
Boys will be boys… no boys will be extras from Lord of the Flies unless you create order, enforce the rules, and punish bad behavior… see also: QI and the mysterious case of why more POC end up dead over cops losing their damn minds.
But then we’re expecting parents who while enjoying the 4th glass of wine on the crapper believe this post on FB PROVES that Fauci is a reptile alien inserting 5G kill switches into real red blooded humans and the media won’t report on it because its a huge secret…
Fscking boomers should have taught their kids to not believe everything on the internet…
To be blunt…
Your crotchfruit, your fucking problem.
Stop demanding the entire planet be covered in bubble wrap because you can’t find the time to teach your kid that there is no way thats really a famous tiktoker sliding into their DMs asking for nudes.
‘Rather Than Making The Internet Safe For Kids, Make Your Kids Safe For The Real World’
AMEN TO THAT!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
When will Masnick stop spewing BS and lies
When is Masnick going to stop spewing his personal BS about Section 230? The guy is doing everything he can to post his self-serving pro-corporate propaganda that harms everyday consumers by taking away any internet accountability and privacy. Can’t wait for Section 230 to be repealed so Masnick will shut his immoral piehole.
Re:
I always find comments like this amusing. If you take away 230, you get LESS responsibility and LESS privacy. You get less responsibility, because now things fall back to the 1st Amendment, which requires knowledge for liability. Thus websites now have MUCH LESS incentive to moderate or to take ANY responsibility for the content on their site. Doing so gives them more liability. Looking the other way takes away the liability.
Guess which one people will do?
As for privacy, without 230, smaller companies won’t be able to survive or compete, leaving power only to the largest internet companies, the most rapacious ones who suck up as much data as possible.
In other words, you’re the one pushing a pro-big tech, less responsibility agenda. You’re just too ignorant to realize that.
Re: Re:
I think these people forget smaller sites and companies even exist.
Re: Re:
Facebook says “Go ahead, mess with Section 230.” Because they know they’ll be the only one left standing.
You can’t argue against 230 without playing right into their hands.
Re: Re: Re: Google/Facebook: Dance my little puppets, dance
When trying to ‘stick it’ to a group/company having them standing right beside you cheering on your method of choice should be a huge red flag that maybe it’s not likely to do what you think or want it to.
Re: Re: Re:2
To be fair, if a person is capabable of thinking rationally, it would be impossible for them to say 230 “harms everyday consumers.”
Re:
…projected nobody mentally competent, ever.
Re:
lmao, guess the budget John Smith is back, and it’s not like the original John Smith was a bastion of intelligence either.
Re:
Jhon.
Shut up.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
When will Masnick stop spewing BS and lies
Masnick needs to stop spewing his pro-corporate BS propaganda. Section 230 is bloated, outdated, and needs to be repealed.
Re:
F230 needs to stop repeating themself in the comments.
Methinks you are missing a very important point about the education of kids by their parents.
Parents, themselves.
Most of them are simply unable to discuss these things with their kids because they are themselves utterly devoid of any sort of real knowledge on the topics, beyond the mechanical.
After all, who did you think starts and promotes these moral panics?
In a word.
Parents.
Re:
Then those parents can visit a library or use the Internet to find some answers to the tougher questions and talk to their kids. If they can’t (or won’t) do that, they can enroll their kids in sex ed classes.
Re:
If you don’t know he answer when asked by a child, admit it and the show them how to use the Internet and/or library to find it. Sometime show them how to find an answer you know, as teaching them how to find an answer will be more valuable to them in he long term than just giving them answers.
Re: Re:
Or WITH your kids.
Because, you know, start parenting.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
oscarwildequote
When trying to ‘stick it’ to a group/company having them standing right