We Need To Classify Gender Dysphoria As A Mental Illness Again
By: Jordan Boyd
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
When a tragedy like the one at Annunciation Catholic School on August 27 unfolds, the knee-jerk reaction from Democrats and their allies in the corporate media is to demand more gun grabs and recruit Republicans to pass red flag laws.
There is a solution, however, that wouldn't require any further encroachment on law-abiding Americans' Second Amendment rights. In fact, the answer lies in the very paperwork and background checks that leftists often claim aren't enough of an obstacle to guns.
Curbing the alarming rise of shootings committed by people pretending to be the opposite sex starts with treating transgenderism as a serious mental health issue.
Page two of the 4473 transaction record required for any gun purchase from a federally-licensed firearms dealer includes a series of yes or no questions designed to determine someone's eligibility to purchase and own firearms. Question 21 subhead g specifically asks a potential buyer whether they have "ever been adjudicated as a mental defective OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?"
As the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms has repeatedly clarified, this provision does not apply to "a person in a mental institution for observation or by voluntary admission." Instead, it bars people who were "formally committed to a mental institution by court, board, commission or other lawful authority" involuntarily for "mental defectiveness or mental illness" or other reasons such as "drug use."
For centuries, an open desire to masquerade as the opposite sex was defined and treated as a weighty mental and behavioral disorder. By 1980, transgenderism was officially classified as a psychosexual disorder in third edition of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. More than 30 years later in 2013, however, APA's fifth edition DSM removed gender identity disorder as a diagnosis and replaced it with gender dysphoria, which focused less on fixing gender-bending and more on doing whatever it took to relieve the "marked incongruence."
Widely recognized American and global health and medical institutions quickly followed APA's lead in shying away from dubbing transgenderism a mental illness. Some, such as Johns Hopkins, went as far as opening centers devoted to "affirming" those struggling with accepting their sex. By 2019, the World Health Organization removed "gender incongruence" from its list of official imbalances.
These irreversible interventions euphemistically referred to as lifesaving "gender affirming care" paired with rhetoric from Democrats who undoubtedly incite violence by insisting Republicans are "erasing trans people" have had more than a decade to take effect.
The results, as seen in both science and culture, are less than ideal. Not only are more people than ever struggling with the social contagion of the LGBT movement, but more of those people are also resorting to deadly acts of violence often linked to and motivated by their struggle.
In olden days, the genderbending and deranged musings of the alleged shooter who sprayed bullets through the stained glass during a Catholic school's mass would get him institutionalized and easily disqualify him from lawfully obtaining a gun, as law enforcement officials claim he did. Instead, the disordered impulses and feelings of those like the deceased suspect are indulged by his parents, the people who govern him, and leftist-led brainwashing.
Tags
Who is online
101 visitors
Thank goodness that we have finally realized that there are different categories and gradations of mental illness, and that people can display vast differences of behaviors whilst being gender conscious. Most are relatively well adjusted, especially those that are accepted in society as equals. Some may display a bitterness towards people who do not treat them as equals but look down on them as some sort of moral inferior and mentally deficient being.
Still others may have issues other than this dysphoria and may not be deemed by a professional to undergo a transition of such magnitude. It is the presence of these other issues that needs to be determined. Not the gender dysphoria all by itself.
If we look back at statistics, until the trans phenomenon of the past 5 years, people who suffered from "gender dysphoria" were a very tiny fraction of 1% of the population. It was an absolute rarity almost unheard of.
In the past 5 years the left has used it as a new civil rights cause, and they exaggerated the numbers to normalize it. And then the trans people kind of became the tip of the spear for the gay community.
It has become a tragedy for American children.
The left is 100% responsible for it.
In the past 5 years the right has used it as a campaign cudgel to drive a hostile agenda and divide people, and they exaggerated the numbers to promote it
It has become a tragedy for American children.
The right wing propagandists are 100% responsible for it.
Yes.
Yes... and no. They have also created an environment celebrating it, which will attract people who would not otherwise consider themselves trans.
Meh. It seems to me like this is less about the gay community and more about the militant angry liberal white girls determined to be "advocates" so they can feel like they are acting on their self righteousness.
Children have a lot of issues that genuinely require our public policy focus, but this is probably not one of them. Get your nose out of their business, and let families and doctors deal with it as they see fit. Whatever is happening with trans people isn’t impacting your life unless you’re in a romantic relationship with someone, or you’re their parent or doctor.
The drugs are dangerous, and the surgeries are life altering and traumatic. It is a mental health issue and must be treated as such.
I only wish Robin Westman had left others alone.
Well, if you or a loved one ever decide you might be trans, you deal with it however you like. Let other families deal with these issues on their own. Why do you need to inject yourself into their lives?
If a man claims they are napoleon or a dinosaur we recognize it as mental illness and treat it as such, if that same man believes they are a woman the delusion is celebrated by half the country. It’s truly bizarre.
What is truly bizarre is that any body cares.
Anybody cares about what?...
About whether a person has gender dysphoria as a reason to discriminate against them.
Acknowledging reality is not discrimination.
Define reality. Is it in your mind that you define reality? How then is it different for others? You see things one way, and other people see them differently. You are arguing that your way is the only "right" way. Who died and left you final arbiter?
I feel sorry for bigoted people. They have such a limited world view.
I still respect your rights, even if you don't respect other people's rights.
Ahhh, there's the schism....
Actually that is something every individual has the right to do , but only for themselves .
as for discrimination , when it comes to social interactions , it has always existed and always will, and that discrimination will differ on the different levels of social interpersonal interactions . you have a particular partner or friend type your attracted to I take it . like it or not there is most likely some level of discrimination at play .
personally i have 4 levels , there is what i call the outer ring , those people that one meets during the day with no expectation of ever really interacting with or meeting again . rule of thumb here , be nice .
then comes the 2nd ring of interaction , people one sees from time to time and interact with like a cashier at a favorite store , or someone you habitually do business with through the course of your day . again rule of thumb is be nice .
3rd ring or level , is the one where it starts to become more intimate, you share more as the trust in this level is at a higher level and is most likely earned by the individual , this is also the level where individuals can be selected to enter the final and 4th level.
the thing those 3 levels or rings have other than being nice in all of them , is they are all platonic .
The 4th level is the level where intimate physical interaction takes place ,definitely not platonic, and is the hardest to get into , and how hard it is to get into also depends on the person and also the person trying to get in . This is also the level where both people are most vulnerable . To put it crudely , if one enters this level , they have passed a discriminatory shopping list of traits and attributes the other person finds desirable .
Agreed. It is when people start trying to push their definitions onto others and telling them "this is how it will be" that puts my libertarian back up.
While interesting, and I thank you for the input, that is not the sense that I was using the word discriminate in.
I was using the word discriminate to denote conditions that are applied to a group, as the article is ham-handedly trying to do. It is conflating the feeling of gender dysphoria with a mental illness and using the stigma of a mental illness to leap to the conclusion that if gender dysphoria were treated as a mental illness, there would not be crazy people trying to shoot up churches and schools. This of course ignores the fact that most of the crazy people who shoot up churches and schools and what have you are just straight crazy people, and the role that society plays in the creation of all of these crazy people.
Another problem that I see with this conflation is the attempt to fix the "problem" while ignoring the fact that we can in fact align the person's gender with the feelings. But some people don't want to do that, even though it has no effect whatsoever on their lives. They wish to control the minds of others and make the feelings conform to the gender, which seems to me to be realistically much more difficult.
So would you would oppose people losing their jobs for "misgendering" or "deadnaming" someone?
I’m not Thomas, but I want to answer.
I would fire someone for being a dick. If you misgender someone because you forget how they identify, that’s fine. You may even really struggle with it and make the mistake a lot. But if you repeatedly do it on purpose, with the intention of imposing yourself on others like a bully, you should be fired.
Having said that, I think trans people need to be patient about this and understand that people use pronouns on instinct. If you present in a way that seems female, even though you identify as male, you need to have some grace about it and realize you’re going to be referred to as “she” now and then. I have multiple trans friends, and every once in a while, I say the wrong thing. I say “sorry” and we get on with our day.
Also, once in a while, I call one of my kids by the dog’s name. People make mistakes.
That would depend on company policy and the extent that those actions were carried out. If the place of employment has a policy that expressly forbids those actions and the employee continues them regardless, the company is well within its authority to fire someone. Even in cases were the employer has no written policy, there are state and federal laws protecting employees from harassment, and if the misgendering or deadnameing raises to the level of harassment, then the offending employee should face consequences for harassment and creating a toxic work environment.
All that said, I would hope that the once addressed by management, the employee would realize that it is everyone's responsibility to do their jobs regardless of personal issues. That includes calling someone by the name that is in their personnel folder.
If the employee continues, that's hard cheese for them.
Cut the bull. MAGA supporters can not stop 'ogling' people on the other side of the fence, because of having a meddlesome and self-righteous nature. and obsessing over control of all of society. Hey MAGA supporters: "Get a LIFE!"
Bingo, well said!
Well, Napoleon was uniquely one man and dinosaurs are extinct, trans-people are science-based and we have them with us today in this country (as evidence of their existence). So, . . . .
We don’t give anorexic people liposuction and we don’t surgically attach wings to schizophrenic people who think they can fly. Any doctor who did so would lose their license and likely face charges. Transitioning a confused child should be seen the same way. It’s just pure evil.
Funny how the devil is always defining the sin with a crooked tongue, a straight face, and specious non sequitur argument.
[✘]
How “alarming,” is it, exactly? What does the data say? I’m not going to delve too deeply into the data, but a quick search gave me this:
So, we seem to be talking about an awful lot of effort for what? 2% of mass shooters? 0.11%? What about the other 98%?
And we’re not even talking about gun violence, generally. This is just the mass shooters, which are already a minority of shootings.
Are we ever going to tire of scapegoating our most vulnerable, fringe minority groups?
Why can't we just let people live the lives they want to as long as they aren't a danger to themselves or others?
This most recent mass shooter was all over the place in their hatred. Definitely needed therapy but their transgenderism had nothing to do with mental illness. The mental illness was all that other stuff flying around in their head. And that's my opinion. Unfounded or not
Because they won't let us. They demand we participate. Or else.
I agree the guy was obviously very mentally ill. I'm guessing the whole trans issue was probably just a manifestation of that rather than an authentic gender dysphoria case.
While it seems inaccurate to connect the shooting to the idea that trans people are somehow dangerous, there does seem to be a secondary complication where declaring oneself transgender seems to create a situation where nobody can call bullshit and address the real underlying mental issues.
What's the percentage where mental illness was a factor?
Should be 0% since mentally ill people should not have guns, yet this turd bought several, legally.
I will point out something that everyone so far has either been avoiding , or simply dont know .
when it comes to firearms laws , they are mostly reactive , meaning something has to take place before a law can be enforced . doesnt matter what the law is .
when it comes to mental health issues , it is pretty straight forward , the person involved must either have had to have been committed for treatment , or they have to voluntarily sign away the right to possess. or have some other protective order placed against them .
I wont even get into red flag laws because i feel there are just too many ways that can be screwed up and violate rights. which is the direction i think this discussion would go if allowed .
Address what makes heterosexuals 'raging' homicidal murders of the masses. At least, it would be something you help us understand - at least?
Why do you, or anyone else, have the right to call bullshit on someone else’s life?
The general public also does not have a right to monitor what someone may or may not be doing for their mental health. Take for example, a different mental health issue: anxiety. Some people - especially ignorant lay people - have opinions about how people generally should respond to anxiety.
Some will say a person should just “man up” and get over it. Others might recommend counseling, but there are different types of counseling. Others think certain drugs are the way to go, while others think those drugs are bad. But none of this is someone else’s business. We don’t get to say what the right course of action is for an individual.
This is not to say we have no regulations at all, of course. Certain drugs are restricted because they are habit forming or dangerous to the body. But there is, in my opinion, way too much of that ignorant lay opining in the public sphere about what trans people - or gay people, for that matter - should or should not be doing for themselves.
For many years, people who didn’t know any better called bullshit on PTSD in our veterans. Now we’re doing a lot better on that issue than we used to, but it’s still wrong when we do it to other people and we haven’t walked in their shoes.
Depends on the definition of "mass shooter".
Some sources will call any incident with 4 or more casualties a "mass shooting". (Great example of manipulating statistics for political persuasion, BTW) But that can just be a gang fight or a drug deal gone wrong.
For what most of us consider a "mass shooting"... there is a 100% mental illness factor. You don't shoot up a school or a church if you're sane.
They're not. That's just insane.
There is some very obvious and exceedingly basic math involved.
Public safety. That's well established law. I'm not sure how that's in question.
I'm talking about medical professionals.
This guy was very obviously, very seriously mentally ill. He may or may not have actually been gender dysphoric, but once he says he is, the whole treatment program changes.
The public is not in any special danger from trans people.
Maybe. Not everyone who kills has a disorder. Sometimes they are radicalized by propaganda. Or they are seeking some personal revenge for something.
That's not a public matter.
Bullshit. You are free to just go about your business. No one compels participation.
Bullshit, again. If the underlying issues are evident, they should automatically take precedence. This is, to my understanding, part of the process of determination of a subjects mental state that is a prerequisite to any gender-based transition.
Nothing more than just some random dude’s numbers that amount to zero and zero evidence
It’s like putting up numbers that blacks are responsible for more than half of all violent crimes in the country..
Oh…..wait
What?
What?
Which is why I said "it seems inaccurate to connect the shooting to the idea that trans people are somehow dangerous".
No. There is no maybe on this.
I don't think the law supports you here. There is longstanding legal precedent allowing authorities to take preemptive action when people are deemed a threat to themselves or the public at large.
Peter Vlaming says hello. So does John Kluge.
*eyeroll*
Riiiiiight. Nothing ever goes wrong in Happy Lefty Land.
Ok, well, that’s just like, your opinion, man. I wouldn’t say one way or the other just yet.
Sure, but gender dysphoria does not per se make a person a threat to themselves or others. That’s ridiculous. Absent such a finding, an individual’s treatment (if any) of gender dysphoria is no one else’s business.
Yes. It is my opinion that somebody who shoots up a church or a school is necessarily seriously mentally ill.
Not sure how that's possibly a "maybe".
But I guess this works in many other areas of life, also.
A guy lifts 400 lbs.... maybe he's strong, but maybe not... the jury's still out.
Swim the English Channel... maybe you can swim.... we're not sure yet.
I feel like we've established agreement on that.
If a person is crazy enough to present a potential risk to public safety, a gender dysphoria diagnosis should be immaterial.
Sure, it’s likely. But what you mean by “mentally ill” is pretty vague. I would say it’s crazy, but that’s not a diagnosis.
For example, Israel has killed a shit ton of Palestinians who aren’t actually attacking them - even in places like schools, hospitals, and so on. Obviously many are attacking Israel, but many also aren’t. Especially at this stage of things. Is Israel, or its leadership mentally ill? What about Russia and Ukraine. Mental illness? I’m sure some would say yes, but others would say they have good reason.
It's really not vague. It's actually pretty obvious.
Why would a diagnosis be required? That's a bit strange. No other ailment seems to require the approval of a medical person before it afflicts. It's quite difficult to do a thorough psychiatric evaluation posthumously, not to mention pointless.
We're not talking about acts of war, though, are we? We're not even talking about terrorist attacks. We're talking about (usually) lone, unhinged maniacs who attack soft targets with no political gain in mind.
If this is your best explanation, then you don’t have an explanation at all.
Because if you want to take action on a person or group - perhaps using the power of government - it should be based on more than just your drive-by opinion about someone’s mental health.
Why make this exception? Any atrocity becomes ok if you just label it an “act of war.” Mentally ill people can’t start wars? What’s the mental health difference between a guy who shoots up a church and Osama bin Laden? Or Hamas?
This is a cloudy statement which clearly states nothing, but leaves much to the reader's imagination. A fool who shoots and kills kids is a murderer and should be treated appropriately by courts of law. And to be be clear, anybody who tries to connect mental illness to transsexualism generally-speaking, is somebody with a solution "in hand" searching for a problem to attach it to.
They used to call that the “final solution.”
What MAGA supporters could ask themselves: Is lying on others for expediency sake and abuse indicative of mental illness?
It doesn't require one. It's axiomatic.
Obviously. However we do not need a licensed psychiatrist to tell us that this particular shooter was mentally ill. You already used the term "crazy".
Because violence during war has been treated differently by every society for thousands of years.
There is a saying about glass houses and stones.
And one who does so simply to inflict harm with no prospect of personal benefit is mentally ill.
I think that jury is still out. That said, there does not appear to be any data to establish that people with gender dysphoria are any more dangerous than anyone else.
That does not mean that a person with a dangerous mental illness would not claim gender dysphoria in order to manipulate the system.
Since the words, "mental illness" are being bandied around in this discussion. . . we can add nosy, insistent, aggressive, and abusive people to the list of people with a mental illness. That's my opinion.
Okay Jack, I think we are in agreement on 99.99 percent of your comment. The above quote does seem 'to up the ante' in various ways, nevertheless. I am not sure gender dysphoria is something shooters would claim as a pretext or 'cloak' for any crime spree. After all, trans-murderers do 'walk the walk' in their body presentation. As for the church shooter last week, s/he actually wishes he was a girl or woman (but without need for medications to sustain being so).
Not what I'm saying.
Did he? Or was he just saying that as part of the overall barrage of crazy?
Crazy people claim things all the time. That doesn't make them true. They claim membership or affiliation with all kinds of groups... that doesn't make that true, either.
I look at it this way... We (reportedly) have tens of thousands of trans people in the US. To my knowledge we've had two people claiming to be trans while shooting up a school. Two.
None of the other trans people behave that way. So why would we believe someone to be a member of a group when they don't act like anybody else in the group?
It's like me claiming that I've converted to Islam.... but I eat bacon, drink whiskey and don't go to prayers. You would call bullshit (I hope).
Well, s/he took himself seriously enough to commit mass injuries and murders and finally suicide. So, the thing speaks for itself! No 'room' really for such wonderings about gender-identity when you plan or resolve to kill yourself.
You are questioning motivation/s. That is not in the news accounts. So I can not deny or confirm. I choose not to speculate about motivations.
Here is the news account on his desire to be (born) female:
I think that's the point.
He was a complete nutcase. Whatever he claimed should be viewed with great skepticism.
He could just have easily said God told him to do this in defense of Taylor Swift fans everywhere. Not only would that not implicate other Swifties, it wouldn't necessarily mean he was one.
When people show you they're insane, believe that and nothing else they say.
Makes no difference. He was insane.
But here is the point.... had his crazy ass manifesto expressed allegiance with any other group of people who don't normally go around shooting shit up for no reason.... nobody would be taking that seriously. Nobody would be talking about his desire to be a Boca Juniors player or a Toledo fireman or a Victoria's Secret model or whatever else he might have claimed.
But because he claimed transgenderism, suddenly that's credible? Nah. I don't buy it.
We have thousands of trans people in this country. Almost none of them are violent, and the overwhelming majority of them are less mentally ill than the people constantly trying to defend them.
Yes! In every case possible, guns/weapons should be kept out of the hands of mentally ill people (up to and including criminals of the 'regular' variety).
Living in Texas, I know hundreds of gun owners. Every single one would agree with what you have just said.
The disagreement comes when we start talking about how to do that.
"How to do that." - It's what we employ "highly paid" politicians to accomplish, but instead they resolve to squander and restrict ordinary and everyday people rights and liberties. . .while people using guns (a tool) go 'wild' on the masses! Shame on the Shameless for not caring that the collective, we, are reaping the whirlwind: injuries and deaths.
Circular is still circular.
It’s a colloquialism, not a psychological or medical term. I also think it’s crazy that Americans keep voting for Donald Trump, but I don’t go around saying they have a mental illness.
Yes, it is treated differently by different societies, across generations, and given different contexts. But for you, it’s proof of mental illness - at least when it’s convenient.
The disagreement will start when we have to define mental illness for the purpose of depriving someone of a constitutional right.
Some conditions are so extreme that there will likely be universal agreement. For example, Schizophrenia or Dissociative Identity Disorder. But others, not so much. Will we include PTSD? You’d be taking a lot of guns away from veterans. And if they think they can lose their guns, they won’t seek help.
What about Depression? Anxiety? Bulimia? Homosexuality? Agoraphobia? Arachnophobia? Insomnia? Irritability? Racism? Misogyny? Autism? Shyness?
Alternatively, we could demand more responsibility of gun owners.
It would be nice if that were true. Sadly, we employ politicians to get re-elected.
My 'free' gun proposal for the state and federal system (though I am pretty sure it will be ignored or given contrarian treatment): Anybody, and I do mean anybody, who uses a gun to MASS murder should be given one sentence: Capital Punishment.
At least, they will know going in that they will not 'rot' in prison over a lifetime. Commit mass murder (with their stupid, ridiculous, 'crazy' butts and its 'curtains' for them too - at the earlier convenience of convening a death schedule for him or her!)
That's exactly the opposite of what I said.
Shame of us then for letting them get paid for inefficiency/ies.
Possibly before that.
You're becoming a conservative, CB.
I completely agree, but we probably need to remember that most of these nutjobs intend their actions as their suicide. So I don't know how much of a deterrent capital punishment is going to be.
That's not a reason to oppose your idea, BTW.
Then law enforcement should do everything in their power to make sure they succeed.
If a fool does not fear his or her own death, then there is little one can do to combat mass shootings. Maybe another try at 'free' advice (that will go ignored I am sure):
Public Service Announcements )(PSAs) about the hazards of allowing mental health problems to fester in the mind of citizens. Let them air for as long as necessary. Tell the public if you think you wish to harm someone-Call or Come in and get help for those 'thoughts' before destroying the lives of many, many innocent people.
Afterwards, remind them that individual death is REQUIRED if they create a mass casualty event on the way and into deeper 'insanity.' It will correct a percentage of the fools that are not too far gone! As 'mental patients' often still have an intact survival instinct.
Another solution (freely offered): 'Catch and serve' the mentally ill preventively. See people losing their 'marbles' early onset: Mandate they get free help and the states (closest to the individual) will cover the cost!
(Notice I left guns completely out of any offered options.)
Because as it stands now, there is little incentive for a mentally ill person NOT to 'execute' on his or her insanity.
Another 'free' suggestion: Let's do the science and figure out what makes mentally ill people 'tick.' That is, what they commonly fear - if not death. That way we can offer them 'deliverance' instead of temporary or permanent insanity (if practical).
Let me state this for the record (with emphasis): I am a liberal because it makes sense for me to be so. Also, this is the point of this comment) I am a PRAGMATIST. I believe if their is a proper, proven, and better way respectively of doing good then choose that way—if only temporary.
It was a joke, CB.
But trans are less than 1% of the population.
And so is 0.13% of the population.
Wrong. A fraction of 1% committed 13% of the mass shootings. That is what it means.
Read it again. It says .13%, as in 0.13%. It kind of makes sense if 98% are straight males, that only leaves 2% to divy up between the rest of the population.
I had chatGPT do some research and checked out that research. The long and short of that research is summed up quite well by saying that the proportion of trans/non‐binary perpetrators of mass murders is lower than their proportion in the population in general.
So this makes me wonder if the extreme right is adopting the President's strange fascination with false mathematics.
Thats a pretty common mistake. They either dont see or dont understand the decimal point.
How many school shootings have we had by trans shooters in the past 10 years?
Did you take math in school?
Did you?
Well according to my research assistant chatGPT when prompted with your exact question:
When asked: How many school shootings have there been in the past ten years?
So, if we pull out our calculator: 3/390*100=0.77%
Which is less than 1%.
Perfect example of the dishonest framing I was talking about.
On the one hand, use the "school shootings" definition only where a shooter randomly murders innocent students during the school day for a numerator.
For the denominator, switch it to include almost all shootings on school grounds, including accidental ones or drug dealers shooting guns near a school.
Unless you include all school shootings the sample size isnt large enough to draw any conclusions.
Why not?
So you should definitely intentionally misclassify the data you do have??
That makes negative amounts of sense.
First and foremost, all of these murderers need to stop making 'worry' and stress for society. All murders are a bad thing. And sickening to the heart, mind, and spirit of a great People (meaning ALL of US!)
Dishonest? All I did was ask the questions posed by your compatriot.
What are you trying to prove here? I will tell you that you are trying to discredit me as a source of information. If you take the mass shootings, you have only (thank goodness) 20 to 30 total mass shootings, which makes the apparent number of shooters 10 to 15%. The problem with using that for a denominator is the numbers are so small as to make them statistically meaningless. Last month it was 6.9 to 10.5%. The sample size is too small to draw a meaningful conclusion. If it were only 1 trans shooter , that would still be between 3.6% and 5.5%.
So all of this playing around with percentages is really the disingenuous part of the discussion. What we should be discussing is how to make all children feel welcomed instead of telling them continuously that they are bad for having perfectly natural feelings.
How many total shootings is the figure of three trans being applied to?
I'm not sure I understand the question.
In post 6.1.56, we're using 390. But according to that post and your own admission, that number includes incidents that are not mass shootings. As Thomas points out in 6.1.63, it turns out that the overwhelming majority of those incidents are not mass shootings.
To his credit, Thomas rectifies that misclassification and then correctly states that a sample size of 20 - 30 is too small to conduct any sort of valid statistical analysis. So that's the correct answer. "We don't have enough data".
What we don't do is try to save bad math with worse math, which is what you were attempting.
Answer:
Not sure why you're citing a source that doesn't answer the question.
The article explains itself. . .thus, it was not for me to just 'cast about' a number without context. If you do not not like "it" - bring your own article with data and context to this! One thing that the article points out is not everyone claiming or being alleged to being transgender is proven to be so. As for me, I can only tell you what others are saying as I don't have any relationship to the issue or the problem itself.
As we have already established, the data presented in the article you cite relates to a different, broader topic than the one we're discussing here.
Of course to you. I have not established any such thing, so what do you mean "we"? No "we" here. Read the link. (The information is there, but it is disbursed throughout the whole of the thing. Best I can do for 'us'!) :)
Even though the rampage shootings get most of the press, I think that the statistic that most sticks out to my mind is the total death count. Over the past 10 years, well over 250 deaths have resulted from firearms in school settings, which means that the problem that we are all arguing about is only a part of the gun problem in schools.
Well.... the rest of us have.
Yeah... I think there are lot of different facets. You would need to talk about how many of these deaths are on school grounds but not school related, like drug deals gone bad or gang violence that happens on the campus simply because they know where everyone will be. But you're absolutely right, there will be a lot of variables to consider.
For the purposes of this seed where we started with this idea that trans kids were somehow more dangerous than anybody else, you hit the nail on the head. There just isn't enough data. What you didn't say but could have is that it is also statistically indefensible to presume trans kids as a group are somehow more violent until proven otherwise. We would not apply that standard to anyone else, so it's incorrect to apply it here.
They would be the "we" then. But, but, this forum is repeatedly told that MAGA supporters are not groupies. Now, the truth comes out. MAGA is a team effort and an identity..
I was responding to Jack_TX who repeated the quote accordingly. But, go ahead. . .it does not matter to me one way or another.
Anybody who's paid attention to politics will recognize the pattern, which this guy lays out succinctly.
The pattern is always the same:
Present an emotional story. 
Frame any opposition as cruel and harmful. 
Rebrand neutrality as complicity. 
Make the policy solution an empathy test.
A trans person just shot up a school. Notice how fast the narrative shifted: a) Not about the victims. b) Not about parents who will never see their kids again. But about “protecting the trans community from backlash.” It's empathy, pointed the wrong direction... It's not just the trans issue... immigration. They say: “It’s just families seeking a better life.” Ok... but then you learn about the fentanyl, gangs, human trafficking? That's not good. But if you bring that up, suddenly you’re “heartless and racist.” See the game?
Why are you focused on the person being trans? Do you have specific evidence that that is why this crime was committed?
Catholic Mass shot up and kids killed. Progressive response:
Transgender Minnesotans on alert after Annunciation Church shooting.MN trans community worried about comments from conservatives...
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey warned the public against succumbing to anti-transgender “hate” after the suspect in Wednesday’s deadly school shooting was
We are watching the Norm MacDonald joke play out in real time.
I’d say they’re right to be concerned. Look at all the conservatives talking about how dangerous trans people are.
A bunch of self-righteous fools obsessed with agendas and the 'capture of Others is what is really going on here. MAGA supporters are showing us everyday what they are about. . . the public just has to be believe it already.
Lol. It's the Norm MacDonald joke on endless repeat.
When the victims of an atrocity aren't favored by progressives, it's always the backlash that never happens that progressives care about.
It’s got nothing to do with being favored. We’ve got people claiming there is something inherently dangerous about trans people.
right here on NT
Lol. Who do you think you are kidding? If a catholic conservative shot up a trans meeting, progressive politicians and media aren't going to spend their time warning against a violent backlash against catholics.
Right. because the obvious point that gender dysphoria is a mental illness is the same as the progressives here who post their fantasies on this site about murdering Trump voters, Christians etc... I guess I missed the progressive outrage at that.
‘gender dysphoria is a mental illness is the same as the progressives here who post their fantasies on this site about murdering Trump voters, Christians etc’
Slight correction. They post their fantasies of murdering what they call thumpers and xtians……….and get plenty of thumbs up for it
Yep.
Big on propaganda, short on fact! Since you can just declare a thing to be without any evidence, then I conclude that Trump and MAGA supporters are Mentally Ill!
Yeah, you don’t see that a lot, and I’ll tell you why. Demographic groups that exist in large numbers relative to the rest of society tend not to be subject to discrimination because they have too much power for that.
White people, men generally, Christians, straight people, and so on tend not to be the subject of this kind of fear mongering, not because they’re better people, but because they exist as a majority group (do not confuse this with being 50+% of the population).
On the other hand, LGBT, Muslims, Jews, atheists, Native Americans, immigrants, brown people generally, and yes, even women - in spite of their numbers - are subject to discrimination and fear mongering because they lack the numbers and/or the traditional social and political power to push back.
Because of this, you’re not going to see media or anyone else, generally, going on and on about how we need to do something about the white people or the Catholics - at least nowhere to the degree that you see it with the other groups.
You take lots of liberties with your 'narrative' and your 'frustration is noted. Now then, share with this group your reasons for writing this into your narration:
This article is not specifically about the recent shooting at the Church, is it?
"Social contagion of the LGBT movement. . . ." Sean, why do MAGA heterosexuals dislike, harass, mock, and kill LGBT people? Why? What moral authority do MAGA supporters 'offer' this discussion to condone such continuing molestation?
Improper attribution aside, the lack of self awareness displayed by the author of the piece is startling yet somehow familiar. The author tells the reader how they are going to be led down a path, then proceeds to lead the reader down the very same path.
Gullible much?
I would think. Comparing people with the devil for not sharing your toxic empathy. He could be describing your posts to a T.
A strawman is a strawman, no matter who creates it.
The author shifted the dialog to be about tran's.
It is irrelevant as far as I can determine.
Your author, and presumably you since you posted this propaganda driven drivel, disingenuously go right into reframing the discussion to one of empathy for the trans community being somehow wrong. From there he expands his list to more people we are not supposed to have empathy for with more disingenuouty for examples, then comes back to lying some more about how he says people are discussing this, and tops it all off with a whopper about control... It is so comical that anyone with a fifth grade reading level should be able to see his incoherent babbling for what it is: total bullshit spread on wrapper of fear and miscomprehension, fed to the willingly ignorant.
I dont think there is ANY pervasive evidence of that. It is what the political right says.
What good would that do when Trump and Republicans allow anyone, including the mentally ill to purchase and own guns???
Check recent Trump orders and various state Republican laws which do not prohibit the mentally ill from purchasing or owning a gun.
Add to the reality that Republicans refuse to pass budget legislation to increase funding for helping the mentally ill.
RFK wants to restrict the use of certain mental health drugs and there is ZERO chance after shutting down the Children's Brain Cancer Research department that they will fund any kind of mental illness aid to patients or fund any research.
Is this a PROFESSIONAL analysis or is transsexualism a phobia of MAGA supporter group-think?
There is nothing professional about this article, CB.
It preys upon people who lack the ability to discern truth from fantasy.
MAGA's obsession with creating life crises for Others on the 'march' AGAIN! It's non-stop abuse of Others.
The title of this seed has been manipulated-and, I am not sure that is acceptable by NT terms.
Put it out there where it can get put. Who cares? You drive across it, either reflect on it or don't reflect on it (as you would with LGBTQ remembrances) and keep traffic moving. The second-time 'one' crosses it: It won't be nearly as shocking as the first time and by the third time 'old-hat'!
This is bull. ON one hand some conservatives are trying to group and clown on trans-people while lying and stating they are freedom-lovers (but not for trans-individuals), want people to prosper (but they can't have a decent job without MAGA-collective approval), and now the DOJ is rumored into taking away trans-individuals' gun possession. It's MAGA-collective which won't take away guns from 'anybody' heterosexual even when they 'break' a gun across and against the heads (and blood-spurting from the hearts) of kindergartners and first-graders (Sandy Hook).
The MAGA-collective is arbitrary in its decision-making for the rest of us, and not objective in the least!