National Geographic’ just made history with its new cover--9 year Old Transgender Activist

so humans in their modern iteration are supposed to be the result of hundreds of thousands of years of refining evolution right? So going forward from that premise is it not logical to reason that anomalies that do not conform to the standard "build" of human are basically mistakes? For example, two headed children....are mistakes....they are anomalies and without serious medical intervention they would most likely die. This is true of many anomalies of human form. Some anomalies are not life threatening such as six fingers but those traits die out rather quickly assuming that person breeds with a 5 fingered human whos genes are stronger.

But when it comes to the trans issue what we are seeing are NOT examples of physical anomalies such as being born with BOTH sets of genitalia or extreme reproductive organ variations. We are in fact not seeing anything PHYSICAL at all in these examples. Instead....we are being confronted by IDEOLOGICAL anomalies which are completely invisible, and as far as we know, completely MADE UP.

Before anyone goes crazy on me just think about this for a minute. IDENTITY is a construct. It is HIGHLY variable and often changes throughout a persons lifetime. For example: Say youre an orphan and you live 10 or 12 years in an orphanage or in foster care. During that time you have a particular self image that is probably not very stable because your environment is constantly changing and suvival instinct dictates that for one to make it they must adapt to the constantly changing situations. This doesnt contribute very well to a unified, wholistic self concept, i would imagine. Kids in general dont really know "who they are anyway", so environmental factors can make that better or worse depending on many factors. Now imagine that same orphan gets adopted by a very religious, stable family. Now, this family doesnt even have to tell the child "who they are" and "what they are about". But by merely having a stable atmosphere with consistent, predictable behaviors, situations, consequences, etc. , the child who for 12 years of their life had no solid ground under their feet is now in an environment that they can TRUST will be the same tomorrow as it was today. Consistency, predictability....are HUGE factors in the development of the self concept and identity.

Now imagine that this orphan later at age 18 joins the military. Yet another huge change in environment, but one in which discipline and consistent behavior are both expected and rewarded. Now the orphan has come from a religious environment where they perhaps developed an identity based on the group they were with during that time, and yet must adapt that identity or augment it in yet another way to conform to the current status quo. Now they identity not just as a member of a religious family, but also now as a brother in arms, or fellow solider of a much larger group.

Excuse the poor analogies. My point is that there are many experiences in life that can profoundly alter the self image all throughout the lifespan. I see it as incredibly short sighted, and incredibly, profoundly illogical to assume that a child knows ANYTHING at all about who they are in the broader sense, and more importantly, what their sexual identity is, which is perhaps even more complicated than just how you see yourself in the world as far as roles you play or identities you assume when a part of a particular group.

As far as im concerned the bandwagon jumping going on here flies in the face of science and the psychology of socialization and how our identities and self concepts are formed and CHANGE all throughout our lives.

originally posted by: tribal

Excuse the poor analogies. My point is that there are many experiences in life that can profoundly alter the self image all throughout the lifespan. I see it as incredibly short sighted, and incredibly, profoundly illogical to assume that a child knows ANYTHING at all about who they are in the broader sense, and more importantly, what their sexual identity is, which is perhaps even more complicated than just how you see yourself in the world as far as roles you play or identities you assume when a part of a particular group.

Yeah, we should tell them who they are!! Especially sexually! Who knows sexuality better than Conservatives? Why should individuals get to make their own choices? These ideas should be narrated and enforced by Conservatives!!! There's clearly already a book that has made choices for us, all the hard parts done! The only part left is being mindless identical drone-slaves!!! Gosh how hard is that people???

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: seasonal

National Geographic’ just made history with its new cover--9 year Old Transgender Activist

I agree.

They have sunk to a new low.

ETA: I just unsubscribed from their newsletter and other mailings. They need to know that there are consequences for their actions.

Yeah!!! Boycott them educational organizations!

That'll show them transqueers who's boss!!!

Let me guess, huge History Channel fan tho-

They are no longer exhibiting the traits of an educational organisation when they push identity politics. Why would I show support for a group that displays such open disregard for my values and pushes immoral agendas?

If this sort of thing appeals to you then by all means support them. Just don't expect others to agree with you.

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: seasonal

National Geographic’ just made history with its new cover--9 year Old Transgender Activist

I agree.

They have sunk to a new low.

ETA: I just unsubscribed from their newsletter and other mailings. They need to know that there are consequences for their actions.

Yeah!!! Boycott them educational organizations!

That'll show them transqueers who's boss!!!

Let me guess, huge History Channel fan tho-

They are no longer exhibiting the traits of an educational organisation when they push identity politics. Why would I show support for a group that displays such open disregard for my values and pushes immoral agendas?

If this sort of thing appeals to you then by all means support them. Just don't expect others to agree with you.

No totally, we should judge this book by it's cover. I mean how much other information distributed by Nat Geo is involved with Gender Politics? Basically all of it! It's fake news trash! Lets add it to the list! They need to know we're not sensitive pansies! They need to know we won't read any material if we're offended by a single issue! Those don't contradict each other, they just sound like they do!

#BoycottNatGeo

a reply to: imjack

You are obviously very emotionally invested in this issue and aren't able to discuss it logically. I will leave you with this...you should follow your conscience and I will follow mine.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: imjack

You are obviously very emotionally invested in this issue and aren't able to discuss it logically. I will leave you with this...you should follow your conscience and I will follow mine.

Right sorry, okay so logically:

1. You disagree people should have equality,

2. You think people should be mandated by the Government when it comes to sexuality, and their preferences should be uniformly forced.

3. You think Nat Geo isn't educational because of a single article that hardly represents their demographic audience or even general content.

Nothing is wrong with your knee-jerk reactions other than you jerk at the knee. I'll agree to that much. How about that for your conscience?

Nothing is logical about your boycott statement. They sold your information already, they already made money off you, you think their "Newsletter" runs the business? What you do is out of spite. Not of 'consequence'. Especially when considering odds of the next article being gender related. So you're going to miss SharkFest? 'Big whoop' for your political statement.

a reply to: imjack

1. You disagree people should have equality, 

I never said that and you are being disingenuous.

2. You think people should be mandated by the Government when it comes to sexuality, and their preferences should be uniformly forced. 

Once again, I never said that. This is simply your failed attempt to understand my position.

3. You think Nat Geo isn't educational because of a single article that hardly represents their demographic audience or even general content. 

Obviously I am not in their demographic if they think I read them for their political opinions. I find identity politics offensive and I find what is being done to this child to be abusive.

If I wanted a biased political opinion I could go to any number of MSM news organizations. National Geographic isn't a news organization as you pointed out. They are supposed to have an educational mission.

Clearly they now believe people want their political bias. They are incorrect.

a reply to: Metallicus

I still fail to see how you missing SharkFest isn't a loss for you, but okay lolololol. Blinders activated over single article.

originally posted by: rockintitz

"Oh, you're a 9 year old boy that thinks you are a girl? Let's start the hormone treatments."

Just so you know, 9-year-old trans kids don't take hormones. I'd hate for misinformation to be spread on this thread.

Thanks.

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: Metallicus

I still fail to see how you missing SharkFest isn't a loss for you, but okay lolololol. Blinders activated over single article.

This is by far your best post of the thread.

You went from replying to others with failed attempts at satire to attributing false statements to them to some honest dialog.

Congratulations.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: rockintitz

"Oh, you're a 9 year old boy that thinks you are a girl? Let's start the hormone treatments."

Just so you know, 9-year-old trans kids don't take hormones. I'd hate for misinformation to be spread on this thread.

Thanks.

Why no misinformation on this thread? You always seem so fond of spreading it on others.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: rockintitz

Good point, these are not little decisions they are life changing decisions. As a whole I don't care, and by I don't care I mean, I hope that makes you happy. But I don't need to be informed, it's your decision. At 9 that is a big deal.

You are correct that these are not little decisions. That's why trans kids get lots of therapy to help them through this process, as well as to make sure this is what they really need to become healthy, happy, well-adjusted adults. Therapy is a good thing when it comes to issues like this, right?

I don't care a bit about guns and I don't need to be informed about how all the gun rights are being taken away, and yet I get that shoved down my throat all the time in the media, on the internet, etc.

We both may just have to live with the fact that everyone has their priorities and what's important to them, and the rest of us just have to put up with it sometimes. No one is forcing you to watch this kid's youtube channel, or to buy a National Geographic magazine. Some people like to be educated on this issue.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

The brain, on the other hand, is still too complex for us to fully understand, that's another fact.

True! We are only starting to learn why a person feels so strongly they are a different gender then how they were born. More and more research is telling us that this isn't simply a psychological issue, and that it may be a physical or neurological issue.

Talking about this is good for society, acknowledging it even better BUT it's when the propaganda insists pushing (subtly) for full acceptance on certain demographics of what they have determined is a departure from the fundamental social axiom of 2 base genders.

We may as a society have to accept that gender identity may not be as simple as we once thought. Other societies have.

Good luck kiddo.

a reply to: kaylaluv

and what societies would those be? keeping in mind the difference between 'societies' and 'demographics' within said societies because I've traveled and am yet to find any society 100% onboard with this notion, however certain demographics within those same societies do indeed support the notion.

Is this what you meant?, if so, I agree.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
Good luck kiddo.

I was looking for some sort of message to convey.

You said it best.

a reply to: kaylaluv
Oh great!

Here we go again.

I'm at a place without internet. Can't help much.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

What an important specific distinction, considering a "Society" can be literally be three people who have book club together on Fridays.

I also find it interesting you never found one at 100%. So you've asked every member of entire societies is what you're saying? Care to name one?

What exactly is the difference between a society and demographics? I'd love to know.

There is this 'synonym' thing that could help, "community"

Perhaps you should talk to the LBGT community? Or are they not part of your definition of a 'society'?

a reply to: thesaneone

And the ones that die from starvation every hour.

Glory to God.

a reply to: Annee

oh snap Annee how will you win over minds?