2SLGBTQQIA+

[Ron in Regina]

I’ve only made it just over 4 minutes into this video so far. The “video essayist” makes a point of pointing out that she’s a former teacher and not a lawyer, and pointing out that her perspective comes from ‘pretending’ to be a conservative for her video research…by immersing herself is the right-wing ‘perspective’ on schools.

She completely avoids mentioning whether or not she’s a parent herself for some reason & I think that’s an important and potentially intentional omission. She does stress that she’s left leaning politically, a (former) teacher and not (assumably) a parent, with a degree in rhetoric.

So with that set up by her in less that the first two of the four minutes I’ve watched so far….& her use of the term “bogeymen” to describe the things she believes all parent must believe if they’re parents trying to have a voice with respect to their children and some are just more “transparent” about it. I wonder where she’s going to go with this now?

(I think I’m going to add “Trans-Parent” to both “Captain” & “Doctor” for my personal identifying pronouns…)

I’ve made it to the point where’s she’s plugging her sponsor after calling an author a “silly little man parody of a Bond villain” so pretty predictable so far…

After the advertisement, an bunch of “what if” leading questions about parent’s motives to demonstrate that parents must not care about what their child wants if they want to know the decisions their children are making at school and how that leads to devastating consequences.

Some extreme examples from the Bible for justification. The “ownership” idea of children by parents because they must all believe the same things except their level of transparency to demonstrate this.

I’ve made it this far and the summary I’ve gotten to this point so far is this:

(Isn’t this some kind’a closet hand signal for white supremacy, or only sometimes, depending on who’s accusing whom?)

Parents, if Conservative, must believe their children are their property, be against gun control and school lunch programs, believe in censorship of school library contents and corporal punishment & this is her lead up to explaining what parents ‘must’ believe about the pronouns argument if they want to know if this is happening at the school regarding their children. Is she going to say it’s because most parents genuinely love and care for their children, and their wellbeing and success in life are a lifelong commitment???

Not so much. Conservative parents just objectify children as property and thus they must be negligent of their children.

Then, in a big reveal as if it wasn’t blatantly obvious in less than the first two minutes of this video, the “video essayist” reveals that as of 2023 she is not a parent, and that about half of her viewers are below collage graduate age (so still students).

Sorry if I seem overly negative or cynical about this video, but this is my honest take away from it. She knows who her audience is, and is catering to its demographic while flexing her degree in rhetoric.

 

[petros]

So... everyone has rights except kids.

Kids are property, or not human, or something other than, so they don't get the rights they should have.

Really? Is that where you want to go with this?

Parents are Legal Guardians with Power of Attorney and are in charge until 18. At the rate youre craziness going, yours will be up for grabs.

If you had children youd understand what parenting involves and how parents will fight for them.

This doesnt involve you in any way shape or form so shut the fuck up nutjob.

 

[petros]

I’ve only made it just over 4 minutes into this video so far. The “video essayist” makes a point of pointing out that she’s a former teacher and not a lawyer, and pointing out that her perspective comes from ‘pretending’ to be a conservative for her video research…by immersing herself is the right-wing ‘perspective’ on schools.

She completely avoids mentioning whether or not she’s a parent herself for some reason & I think that’s an important and potentially intentional omission. She does stress that she’s left leaning politically, a (former) teacher and not (assumably) a parent, with a degree in rhetoric.
View attachment 19450
So with that set up by her in less that the first two of the four minutes I’ve watched so far….& her use of the term “bogeymen” to describe the things she believes all parent must believe if they’re parents trying to have a voice with respect to their children and some are just more “transparent” about it. I wonder where she’s going to go with this now?

(I think I’m going to add “Trans-Parent” to both “Captain” & “Doctor” for my personal identifying pronouns…)

I’ve made it to the point where’s she’s plugging her sponsor after calling an author a “silly little man parody of a Bond villain” so pretty predictable so far…
View attachment 19451
After the advertisement, an bunch of “what if” leading questions about parent’s motives to demonstrate that parents must not care about what their child wants if they want to know the decisions their children are making at school and how that leads to devastating consequences.

Some extreme examples from the Bible for justification. The “ownership” idea of children by parents because they must all believe the same things except their level of transparency to demonstrate this.

I’ve made it this far and the summary I’ve gotten to this point so far is this:
View attachment 19454
(Isn’t this some kind’a closet hand signal for white supremacy, or only sometimes, depending on who’s accusing whom?)

Parents, if Conservative, must believe their children are their property, be against gun control and school lunch programs, believe in censorship of school library contents and corporal punishment & this is her lead up to explaining what parents ‘must’ believe about the pronouns argument if they want to know if this is happening at the school regarding their children. Is she going to say it’s because most parents genuinely love and care for their children, and their wellbeing and success in life are a lifelong commitment???
View attachment 19455
Not so much. Conservative parents just objectify children as property and thus they must be negligent of their children.

Then, in a big reveal as if it wasn’t blatantly obvious in less than the first two minutes of this video, the “video essayist” reveals that as of 2023 she is not a parent, and that about half of her viewers are below collage graduate age (so still students).
View attachment 19456
Sorry if I seem overly negative or cynical about this video, but this is my honest take away from it. She knows who her audience is, and is catering to its demographic while flexing her degree in rhetoric.

She is a propagandist. The type that doesn't exist in Serryah's world.

PS definitely no kids or a husband. She'd never have time to crochet a queen size afghan if she did.

 

[Serryah]

I’ve only made it just over 4 minutes into this video so far. The “video essayist” makes a point of pointing out that she’s a former teacher and not a lawyer, and pointing out that her perspective comes from ‘pretending’ to be a conservative for her video research…by immersing herself is the right-wing ‘perspective’ on schools.

She completely avoids mentioning whether or not she’s a parent herself for some reason & I think that’s an important and potentially intentional omission. She does stress that she’s left leaning politically, a (former) teacher and not (assumably) a parent, with a degree in rhetoric.
View attachment 19450
So with that set up by her in less that the first two of the four minutes I’ve watched so far….& her use of the term “bogeymen” to describe the things she believes all parent must believe if they’re parents trying to have a voice with respect to their children and some are just more “transparent” about it. I wonder where she’s going to go with this now?

(I think I’m going to add “Trans-Parent” to both “Captain” & “Doctor” for my personal identifying pronouns…)

I’ve made it to the point where’s she’s plugging her sponsor after calling an author a “silly little man parody of a Bond villain” so pretty predictable so far…

So this far, you're dismissing her because starting at 22 seconds in she admits that in doing research for a video on the negativity of the education system - which rightly DOES come from the right side of the spectrum - she admits to immersing herself into it and somehow doing that is bad? That she validly calls the right's belief of CRT and GLBTQIA+ issues as "boogymen" - not, as you put it, is the thing ALL parents believe - is somehow... wrong (really, have you not been paying attention then? Explain how CRT - which isn't a thing in schools - and GLBTQIA+ issues AREN'T being pushed as some sort of 'boogyman' issue, something to push fear at people?) That she explains she's doing that as part of a larger video she's researching, but as she looked into the idea of Parent's Rights, things she discovered deserved it's own video? That she's a former teacher, she at this point doesn't provide that she has kids herself, and her opinion about an extremist belief in how to raise kids is... what, not valid?

Also, yes, a Degree in Rhetoric.

Majoring in Rhetoric and Communications | Rhetoric, Writing, and Communications | The University of Winnipeg

www.uwinnipeg.ca

Guess it's a thing...

I will not for the author, she was being polite; I would have called that SOB far worse.

As for the ad/sponsor; she's a youtuber - most of them do it, it's how their videos get income. Or was that not something she's allowed to do?

View attachment 19451
After the advertisement, an bunch of “what if” leading questions about parent’s motives to demonstrate that parents must not care about what their child wants if they want to know the decisions their children are making at school and how that leads to devastating consequences.

Yeah, notice you're complaining about what she said, but doing nothing to disprove it what so ever.

Her point being, despite what parents what, what about what the KIDS want?

Every point she is making is EXACTLY what you and others have brought up. Repeatedly.

And her response to that is everything I'VE been saying - what about what the KIDS want?

Some extreme examples from the Bible for justification.

Taken in context of that in the US, there are these Parent's Rights type people who USE the Bible as justification for their beliefs makes it absolutely a valid point of use. Are you actually saying that the book she gave - which is a REAL book that people DO use to raise their kids - is somehow not abusive? Really?

The “ownership” idea of children by parents because they must all believe the same things

She's not saying ALL parents. What she is saying is that these Parent's Rights people in the US want to influence THEIR beliefs on all parents. That only THEIR opinion/voices matter.

Seriously, Ron, are you denying ANY of her points are legitimate? Do you live in that much of an echo chamber you don't know the things she brought up does exist?

Do you, or do you not, agree with her statement that: "But when you have full control over something else, not just a responsibility to keep it safe but a right to use it however you want shy of actually harming it, that's not how you treat human beings. It's how you treat property."

And considering the quotes used from the sources before that statement, where these people ARE advocating for CONTROL of kids...

How is she wrong to put forth that this IS just about control of children?

How is she wrong to put forth that these people believe they OWN children, when she provides the proof of them saying so?

Perhaps you should go back and rewatch from timestamp 1107 to 1138.

I’ve made it this far and the summary I’ve gotten to this point so far is this:
View attachment 19454
(Isn’t this some kind’a closet hand signal for white supremacy, or only sometimes, depending on who’s accusing whom?)

.....

Parents, if Conservative,

No. Already you're showing you paid no attention what so ever to what she was saying.

Unless you are presenting that all Conservatives/Republicans are Right Wing? Or maybe it's a difference in how we see right wing - Right wing in this context is the extremists. Hopefully that clarifies things for you.

must believe their children are their property,

In this case, yes, because she's proven it, repeatedly.

be against gun control

Are you saying that the 2nd amendment rights of adults to have guns ISN'T more important than the safety of kids in schools? Well damn, then any second now there will finally be responsible gun laws passed and everyone will be happy!

(come on, Ron... really? At this point are you being contrary for contrary sake?)

and school lunch programs,

Proven.

believe in censorship of school library contents

Uh... have you been paying attention lately? That IS true.

and corporal punishment

Again, she gave proof.

So you're pointing out the summary of everything and... it's all right.

So what's the issue?

& this is her lead up to explaining what parents ‘must’ believe about the pronouns argument if they want to know if this is happening at the school regarding their children. Is she going to say it’s because most parents genuinely love and care for their children, and their wellbeing and success in life are a lifelong commitment???

...

No.

That was not what she was leading up to.

What she was leading up to was this.

1137 "All of this is to say that when we prioritize the power of parents to control their children, we actively dehumanize the very people we are allegedly trying to protect."

How is that not a wrong assessment?

View attachment 19455
Not so much. Conservative parents just objectify children as property and thus they must be negligent of their children.

Right Wing parents, and from the proves she showed; yes.

Then, in a big reveal as if it wasn’t blatantly obvious in less than the first two minutes of this video, the “video essayist” reveals that as of 2023 she is not a parent,

And? As she put it - does that mean she doesn't have a right to be concerned about this? Have opinions? Or give a damn about how kids are treated? I don't have kids, despite wanting them; it just was not in the cards. So should I just sit back and shut up and not give a damn?

There are two words for that, Ron; I'm sure you can guess what they'd be, to response to that.

and that about half of her viewers are below collage graduate age (so still students).
View attachment 19456

She's a young youtuber.

So what?

Half her audience is "young", yes. The other half is spread out above age 24.

So what... they don't factor into this at all?

Sorry if I seem overly negative or cynical about this video, but this is my honest take away from it. She knows who her audience is, and is catering to its demographic while flexing her degree in rhetoric.

Wow... just... wow.

I can't believe you were that... blind and I'm not sure wilfully ignorant or not to her point of this.

Perhaps go to 1456 in the video and watch again from that point on. Cause she says from then to 1517 EXACTLY what the point of all this is.

Unless and until you come back with actual counters to the very valid points and proof she gave, I'm gonna step back from this thread again because while discussion is great, give and take is great... there is no give and take here, there is just people not giving a shit about the kids in this situation and I'm tired of trying to convince people to give a damn about them when clearly that's not going to happen.

 

[Ron in Regina]

My point was, most of the traits that she states that Conservative Parents have with the variance between them being their levels of transparency is beyond stereotyping from the outside looking in as neither a parent or conservative, as is her claim as of 2023 anyway.

I’m sure she has some good points, as do most people. I’m made it through what came across as a pretty condescending video this morning front to back, and I did pause (the sponsor point was just one of those points) to give my impression of what I was hearing.

Perhaps in her mind she’s only stereotyping American parents that she considers right wing and conservative and that stops at the 49th parallel, and maybe she isn’t, but she knows her viewers demographics and caters to them accordingly. All the power to her, but I’ve done that video start to finish and I’ll pass on a repeat.

I don’t have school age children any longer, but we do have school age grandchildren…but we don’t directly have a dog in that hunt so I’m more of an observer than a participant in the pronoun debate. I lived through the school deciding what I need and didn’t need to know about my own child (the bullying), and that was my interest in this debate. Ultimately the bullying stopped and I didn’t end up in prison, so it got resolved

Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe’s vow to use Section 33 to protect the province’s new policy on students who wish to “socially transition” at school is a needless escalation in a larger culture war that Moe, and New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs, seem too eager to fight. Some potentially very vulnerable kids are caught in the crossfire.

Both provinces’ policies are entirely reasonable as written, and could be even more so with a few tweaks: Basically if you’re over 16, you can “socially transition” on request. You are free to go by a different name or assume a different gender identity at school.

If you’re under 16, parental consent is required — but importantly, parental notification of the child’s request is not. The oft-invoked spectre of schools “outing” kids to their perhaps violently intolerant parents is in fact explicitly ruled out in both provinces’ policies.

“In situations where it is reasonably expected that gaining parental consent (for changing name or gender at school) could result in physical, mental or emotional harm to the student, the student will be directed to the appropriate school professional(s) for support,” Saskatchewan’s policy reads. “They will work with the student to develop a plan to speak with their parents when they are ready to do so.”

New Brunswick’s policy, while broadly similar, even stipulates that schools can use a child’s preferred name and gender so long as that student is consulting with appropriate professionals on a plan to bring their parents into the discussion.

Now perhaps this is different on the south side of our southern border. Specific policies on social transitioning are hardly an essential item in a modern conservative platform, after all. “I have a non-binary family member, and I believe these decisions are very personal, and it should not be debated in public,” Alberta Premier Danielle Smith said while running for the United Conservative Party leadership. “We shouldn’t be making any child feel like the issues they’re struggling with are something that’s a political football.”

Chris Selley: Premiers with reasonable school gender policies need to cool their jets — National Post

I suspect Moe's and Higgs’ policies will eventually be vindicated in the courts, which would be the best possible outcome in terms of calming everyone down

apple.news

 

[Ron in Regina]

Unless and until you come back with actual counters to the very valid points and proof she gave, I'm gonna step back from this thread again because while discussion is great, give and take is great...

I’m more than willing to step back and out of this one also, or instead. I just aren’t that vested in this one, as it’s more of a curiosity than anything else.

…there is no give and take here,

I concur with your assessment of the situation. There isn’t any give and take on either side on this issue, and earlier I tried to find middle ground but it’s not middle enough for either side if it isn’t completely their way….on either side.

there is just people not giving a shit about the kids in this situation and I'm tired of trying to convince people to give a damn about them when clearly that's not going to happen.

…& both sides can and do say the same thing about the other side. There is no middle ground on this one, so once it’s imposed, both sides are going to be disappointed unless they completely get their way.

On that note, I don’t remember the exact figures, but the last poll I heard on the pronouns thing for children and the schools keeping the parents in the dark was something like 80% against, 10% for, & 10% undecided, with a margin of error of me trying to pull that out’a my butt without bothering to look it up….& Moe and Higgs aren’t pandering to the 10% or whatever the exact figure was. Doesn’t mean they’re correct, but it doesn’t make them a fringe element with unacceptable views.

Actually, here: A total of 78 per cent of Canadians polled suggest parents should be informed by schools if their child wants to change their name or pronoun.

Roughly 14 per cent of Canadians polled say that the parent should have no role in the decision. A remaining eight per cent were undecided.

Chris Selley: Premiers with reasonable school gender policies need to cool their jets — National Post

I suspect Moe's and Higgs’ policies will eventually be vindicated in the courts, which would be the best possible outcome in terms of calming everyone down

apple.news

 

[petros]

I’m more than willing to step back and out of this one also, or instead. I just aren’t that vested in this one, as it’s more of a curiosity than anything else.

I concur with your assessment of the situation. There isn’t any give and take on either side on this issue, and earlier I tried to find middle ground but it’s not middle enough for either side if it isn’t completely their way….on either side.

…& both sides can and do say the same thing about the other side. There is no middle ground on this one, so once it’s imposed, both sides are going to be disappointed unless they completely get their way.

On that note, I don’t remember the exact figures, but the last poll I heard on the pronouns thing for children and the schools keeping the parents in the dark was something like 80% against, 10% for, & 10% undecided, with a margin of error of me trying to pull that out’a my butt without bothering to look it up….& Moe and Higgs aren’t pandering to the 10% or whatever the exact figure was. Doesn’t mean they’re correct, but it doesn’t make them a fringe element with unacceptable views.

Actually, here: A total of 78 per cent of Canadians polled suggest parents should be informed by schools if their child wants to change their name or pronoun.

Roughly 14 per cent of Canadians polled say that the parent should have no role in the decision. A remaining eight per cent were undecided.

Chris Selley: Premiers with reasonable school gender policies need to cool their jets — National Post

I suspect Moe's and Higgs’ policies will eventually be vindicated in the courts, which would be the best possible outcome in terms of calming everyone down

apple.news

There is no reaching this one Ron. She "my body, my choiced" herself out of the greatest joy in life and now its "your children, my choice" to fill the emptiness. For her it has nothing to do with "saving children" its about taking revenge on her parents by proxy for not accepting her lifestyle choice.

Here is the obvious kicker, in the end if she didnt want to be a mother she would never fill her life with 4 4 legged proxy children which completely throws nonbinary out the window.

 

[Taxslave2]

So this far, you're dismissing her because starting at 22 seconds in she admits that in doing research for a video on the negativity of the education system - which rightly DOES come from the right side of the spectrum - she admits to immersing herself into it and somehow doing that is bad? That she validly calls the right's belief of CRT and GLBTQIA+ issues as "boogymen" - not, as you put it, is the thing ALL parents believe - is somehow... wrong (really, have you not been paying attention then? Explain how CRT - which isn't a thing in schools - and GLBTQIA+ issues AREN'T being pushed as some sort of 'boogyman' issue, something to push fear at people?) That she explains she's doing that as part of a larger video she's researching, but as she looked into the idea of Parent's Rights, things she discovered deserved it's own video? That she's a former teacher, she at this point doesn't provide that she has kids herself, and her opinion about an extremist belief in how to raise kids is... what, not valid?

Also, yes, a Degree in Rhetoric.

Majoring in Rhetoric and Communications | Rhetoric, Writing, and Communications | The University of Winnipeg

www.uwinnipeg.ca

Guess it's a thing...

I will not for the author, she was being polite; I would have called that SOB far worse.

As for the ad/sponsor; she's a youtuber - most of them do it, it's how their videos get income. Or was that not something she's allowed to do?



Yeah, notice you're complaining about what she said, but doing nothing to disprove it what so ever.

Her point being, despite what parents what, what about what the KIDS want?

Every point she is making is EXACTLY what you and others have brought up. Repeatedly.

And her response to that is everything I'VE been saying - what about what the KIDS want?



Taken in context of that in the US, there are these Parent's Rights type people who USE the Bible as justification for their beliefs makes it absolutely a valid point of use. Are you actually saying that the book she gave - which is a REAL book that people DO use to raise their kids - is somehow not abusive? Really?



She's not saying ALL parents. What she is saying is that these Parent's Rights people in the US want to influence THEIR beliefs on all parents. That only THEIR opinion/voices matter.

Seriously, Ron, are you denying ANY of her points are legitimate? Do you live in that much of an echo chamber you don't know the things she brought up does exist?

Do you, or do you not, agree with her statement that: "But when you have full control over something else, not just a responsibility to keep it safe but a right to use it however you want shy of actually harming it, that's not how you treat human beings. It's how you treat property."

And considering the quotes used from the sources before that statement, where these people ARE advocating for CONTROL of kids...

How is she wrong to put forth that this IS just about control of children?

How is she wrong to put forth that these people believe they OWN children, when she provides the proof of them saying so?

Perhaps you should go back and rewatch from timestamp 1107 to 1138.



.....




No. Already you're showing you paid no attention what so ever to what she was saying.

Unless you are presenting that all Conservatives/Republicans are Right Wing? Or maybe it's a difference in how we see right wing - Right wing in this context is the extremists. Hopefully that clarifies things for you.



In this case, yes, because she's proven it, repeatedly.



Are you saying that the 2nd amendment rights of adults to have guns ISN'T more important than the safety of kids in schools? Well damn, then any second now there will finally be responsible gun laws passed and everyone will be happy!

(come on, Ron... really? At this point are you being contrary for contrary sake?)



Proven.



Uh... have you been paying attention lately? That IS true.



Again, she gave proof.

So you're pointing out the summary of everything and... it's all right.

So what's the issue?




...

No.

That was not what she was leading up to.

What she was leading up to was this.

1137 "All of this is to say that when we prioritize the power of parents to control their children, we actively dehumanize the very people we are allegedly trying to protect."

How is that not a wrong assessment?



Right Wing parents, and from the proves she showed; yes.



And? As she put it - does that mean she doesn't have a right to be concerned about this? Have opinions? Or give a damn about how kids are treated? I don't have kids, despite wanting them; it just was not in the cards. So should I just sit back and shut up and not give a damn?

There are two words for that, Ron; I'm sure you can guess what they'd be, to response to that.



She's a young youtuber.

So what?

Half her audience is "young", yes. The other half is spread out above age 24.

So what... they don't factor into this at all?



Wow... just... wow.

I can't believe you were that... blind and I'm not sure wilfully ignorant or not to her point of this.

Perhaps go to 1456 in the video and watch again from that point on. Cause she says from then to 1517 EXACTLY what the point of all this is.

Unless and until you come back with actual counters to the very valid points and proof she gave, I'm gonna step back from this thread again because while discussion is great, give and take is great... there is no give and take here, there is just people not giving a shit about the kids in this situation and I'm tired of trying to convince people to give a damn about them when clearly that's not going to happen.

You really are nuts. Why is a raving loon non parent even given a voice in what parents and their offspring should be able to do or not do? These people(for lack of a better term) are hell bent on fukking up an entire generation with their garbage.

 

[Dixie Cup]

"Her point being, despite what parents what, what about what the KIDS want?" Seriously? What the KIDS want? The majority of "kids" don't know what the hell they want which is why parents are there to guide them along. Are you suggesting Serryah that the parents simply "allow" their kids to do what they want? That's incredibly "liberal" for you but most parents would prefer to guide their kids along & instill their values. Once these "kids" are adults, they can either carry on said parental values or not - at that time they can make their own decisions. Minor children cannot & "white" liberals who are imposing this crap do not & should not have a say. This is incredibly dangerous & harmful to our kids but these "white" liberals don't care - after all they're not "THEIR" kids. I pity the kids who are!

 

[Dixie Cup]

I’m more than willing to step back and out of this one also, or instead. I just aren’t that vested in this one, as it’s more of a curiosity than anything else.

I concur with your assessment of the situation. There isn’t any give and take on either side on this issue, and earlier I tried to find middle ground but it’s not middle enough for either side if it isn’t completely their way….on either side.

…& both sides can and do say the same thing about the other side. There is no middle ground on this one, so once it’s imposed, both sides are going to be disappointed unless they completely get their way.

On that note, I don’t remember the exact figures, but the last poll I heard on the pronouns thing for children and the schools keeping the parents in the dark was something like 80% against, 10% for, & 10% undecided, with a margin of error of me trying to pull that out’a my butt without bothering to look it up….& Moe and Higgs aren’t pandering to the 10% or whatever the exact figure was. Doesn’t mean they’re correct, but it doesn’t make them a fringe element with unacceptable views.

Actually, here: A total of 78 per cent of Canadians polled suggest parents should be informed by schools if their child wants to change their name or pronoun.

Roughly 14 per cent of Canadians polled say that the parent should have no role in the decision. A remaining eight per cent were undecided.

Chris Selley: Premiers with reasonable school gender policies need to cool their jets — National Post

I suspect Moe's and Higgs’ policies will eventually be vindicated in the courts, which would be the best possible outcome in terms of calming everyone down

apple.news

The issue is that parents DO give a damn which is why they're protesting. It's THEIR KIDS!! I don't know why this is such an issue!

 

[petros]

The issue is that parents DO give a damn which is why they're protesting. It's THEIR KIDS!! I don't know why this is such an issue!

The soup can't have kids so they want yours. They are lonely.

 

[Serryah]

You really are nuts. Why is a raving loon non parent even given a voice in what parents and their offspring should be able to do or not do? These people(for lack of a better term) are hell bent on fukking up an entire generation with their garbage.

The only one that's nuts are assholes like you, Tax, who are convinced that kids are property of their parents, that they are owned by them and only they can determine who and what they will be.

If you'd watched the video - and I knew you wouldn't - you would have gotten why. Or maybe not. Sometimes intelligence and actual rational thought isn't in your wheelhouse of talents.

 

[petros]

The only one that's nuts are assholes like you, Tax, who are convinced that kids are property of their parents, that they are owned by them and only they can determine who and what they will be.

If you'd watched the video - and I knew you wouldn't - you would have gotten why. Or maybe not. Sometimes intelligence and actual rational thought isn't in your wheelhouse of talents.

Do you have kids you fucked up cunt?

 

[petros]

#GFC

youtube.com

 

[Taxslave2]

The only one that's nuts are assholes like you, Tax, who are convinced that kids are property of their parents, that they are owned by them and only they can determine who and what they will be.

If you'd watched the video - and I knew you wouldn't - you would have gotten why. Or maybe not. Sometimes intelligence and actual rational thought isn't in your wheelhouse of talents.

Projecting much. The simple fact is that people that do not have kids have no right telling those that take the time out of their lives to raise a family how kids must be raised.

 

[Taxslave2]

Interesting article on True North this morning. I don't know how to link it, so if you want facts, you have to look yourself. Coles notes version: 600+ minors had breast removal surgery. 300 were under 16. youngest is 14. This is only those done in the public system. Private hospitals are not required to report.
How many are going to be irrevocably traumatized by this is anyone's guess.

 

[Serryah]

Projecting much. The simple fact is that people that do not have kids have no right telling those that take the time out of their lives to raise a family how kids must be raised.

Then take my taxes out of providing for said kids. All money that comes out of my taxes so that means no education, no child funds rebate or whatever it is....

Why should I pay into it when I don't have a say, right?

Except I DO have a say, not only because of taxes, but because I'm as much a member of society as you or anyone else.

I wanted kids. I couldn't have them.

So you are going to say that of all who want kids, but can't? Regardless of reasons?

Two words for you Tax.

And it's not projection if it's the truth. Or do you deny the proof she gave that SAYS from the very people themselves that they own their kids? That they're property?

Cause of the two 'evils' - not having kids or considering kids property - no brainer to see which is worse.

 

[petros]

Who paid for you? SantafuckingClaus?

 

[Dixie Cup]

Then take my taxes out of providing for said kids. All money that comes out of my taxes so that means no education, no child funds rebate or whatever it is....

Why should I pay into it when I don't have a say, right?

Except I DO have a say, not only because of taxes, but because I'm as much a member of society as you or anyone else.

I wanted kids. I couldn't have them.

So you are going to say that of all who want kids, but can't? Regardless of reasons?

Two words for you Tax.

And it's not projection if it's the truth. Or do you deny the proof she gave that SAYS from the very people themselves that they own their kids? That they're property?

Cause of the two 'evils' - not having kids or considering kids property - no brainer to see which is worse.

Since when do parents who want to keep their kids "kids" consider their kids as "property?" That's more likely a "progressive term" being applied to people who want to keep their kids safe from B.S. I have never heard any parent describe their kids as being property. That's simply disinformation!

 

[Serryah]

Note that Chris is an athlete - and a trans man.

Chris Mosier - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And yet all the freak out about trans people is in sports, is about trans women.

Which to me proves this isn't about 'trans issues', this is about misogyny.


Part 2

And don't tell me this is about 'the kids'. People aren't giving a damn about 'the kids'.