The evidence shows its way higher than 1%, and the lack of information on the spectrum of gender expression is actively harmful to even cis kids. Teaching them its normal to not always conform to your gender is a benefit even if you aren't trans.

There is evidence for the share of trans people being "way higher" than 1%?
Or does this refer to the share of people who have exhibited any kind of (in most cases mild and short-lived) gender fluidity at any point in their lives?

i mean i said in my initial post that the church was the one doing the real harm, but that i think the other side can improve some things. you asked for examples, i gave some off the cuff, then you cherry pick and call me a boomer? ok.

LGBTQ book readings are largely a non-issue, and aren't a grooming ground for pedos, but that doesnt mean we should give them carte blanche and not monitor where it goes. children have very impressionable minds, so much so that i wouldn't personally support those same kids going to most churches. so im not going to turn around and give a pass to other people just because they have a lower documented rate of raping kids.



much harm, very hurting.

gender identity is as overblown of an issue on the macro scale as i can think of from the left. but hey thank goodness we moved on from racism and homophobia in the public discussion (that affect a serious chunk of americans) to over-focus on a fringe issue that affects almost no one. /s

i'd love studies that show "way higher than 1%" so i can see how many effeminate gay males they captured in their numbers. the only way to budge over 1% IMO from what ive read is to really broaden the target.

How is it a benefit? It sounds to me like you are subtly influencing the kids to be trans--"Hey kid, it is perfectly fine to act like or identify as another sex!"

What are you talking about?

>"I gave examples".
>"I've literally never been to one. It's all second hand".

Second hand from whom, exactly?

Edit: And imagine saying "The things I've seen" only to backtrack immediately afterward and cry about "cherrypicking". So yes, it is Big Boomer Energy to cry about "cherrypicking" when someone asks you to provide even 1 example after you literally claim to have seen examples. Why not just admit that you're ignorant on what happens at such reading events? It's not like there's a score system in PaRD.

This post was edited by Handcuffs on May 22 2023 11:52am

The number of people 13-17 is estimated to be ~1.4%, which should be considered to be a low number since we're just now broaching acceptance.

I expect it'll fall somewhere around 2-3% when the dust settles.

It isn't the left bringing these things into the spotlight. It's Republicans using another minority boogeyman to the forefront and the left fighting back.

My take is that they're focusing on drag because they really want to target transgender people but they know they likely won't be able to get away with it due to the illegality of it. They can't outright say "Transgender people shouldn't be allowed around children".

So, instead, they try and say that you "can't be in drag around children". Only issue is, the people who believe that also don't believe transgender people are real and subsequently would refer to transgender people merely existing as "being in drag".

This post was edited by Handcuffs on May 22 2023 11:56am

More or less what's happening. They're doing their damndest to define being trans around children as abuse, and then saying anybody who abuses kids should be killed, imprisoned, what have you.

Maybe this is because Trans people are widely disliked.