Should misinformation be banned from the major platforms?

[Daedalus X]

For this topic misinformation is any information that promotes needle hesitancy or anti authoritarian approved information.

Here is an example of misinformation that can't be posted to YouTube, twitter, Facebook or any mainline medium. Is this good public policy?



This is a MUST WATCH.

https://www.therealanthonyfaucimovie.com/viewing/

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #309]

It's bad enough that a doctor only has limited access to the child - it's profoundly worse for people on the internet decide what is right or wrong for some parents child.

Exactly my point ... in addition to the incredible usefulness of the internet for distribution of knowledge, it is also full of garbage not suitable for kids who have not developed sufficiently (mentally or physically) to understand all of the implications of transitioning to the opposite sex (or trying to). Keep this stuff within a family, with their doctors, and don't expose kids to the idea that sex change, or becoming LBGTQ++, etc. is trivial and not without potential consequences should they grow up and change their mind later (which happens all the time of course ... detransitioning is also real).

I can safely say that you, and we, have no knowledge of each case. Why would we offer an opinion? Do you really feel so confident in your ability to decide the fate of someone, you can read an article and decide the right decision for the rest of their lives? I would say you shouldn't feel that way.

I never said or implied such a thing. Again, my point was about exposing young kids to some of these ideas. A kid may have no gender disphoria, get his/her hands on some trans or LGBTQ++ site or platform who pushes information to kids and explicitly tailors it for kids, and get ideas that it is all a game.

[Daedalus X]

We get it, you like the old patriarchal construct. But, things change - due to chemicals or not.

it's gets exhausting to hear people keep saying "I just want things they way they were! Why can't we refocus our attention on the needs of the White, Cis Male hegemony!? When will White Cis Males finally get a break!!?! Who will listen to the whining of White Cis Males when people keep talking about 'those' people?

It's so shallow - basing our social mores on what is desirable - as if that's the goal to life. Your view is so barbaric and rapey.

Yeah right, they are poisoning our food, but that is fine because it is turning us gay. A little poison is a small price to pay for that.

Here is the mating ritual of the White, Cis Male hegemony. What more can I say?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #309]

- it's profoundly worse for people on the internet decide what is right or wrong for some parents child.

Would you think this video (found in 2s on Youtube) is a good thing to show to little kids which it is clearly tailored to?

[Jose Fly]

Okay, we agree that no genetic link has been found with LGBTQ+ behavior.

It may be found one day, who knows. They have identified a lot of mutations that predispose people to cancer but a lot of cancer , like lung cancer, can happen from years of smoking where many mutations happen. Two people can present the same symptoms even though the mutations are very different.

I think that the rise in LGBTQ+ is not genetic. We need to study the chemical soup that we now inhabit. One likely source is atrazine.

Another difference is that before women's lib, we would celebrate the difference between men and women. When young men reached maturity the culture would present women in a very desirable way, there was a reason for the colorful ethnic costumes. Look at this video, this is how men saw women as a thing to be desired and vice versa. I think it would be nice to learn from that time.



Here is an even older culture.

Noted

[Jose Fly]

]First of all, being transgender is not about sex. Get that ridiculous notion out of your head right away....please.

I never said or implied that it was, so not sure what the point of that comment was.

You likened "exposing kids to trans issues" to taking them to a porn movie. Again, you need to think of trans people as people, rather than strictly in terms of sex.

My comment was about exposing kids to the idea that they can change their sex and become the opposite sex before their brains have developed enough, and they have had sufficient life experience to understand the whole subject. An 8 year old doesn't, whether its sex is male or female.

So you would force transgender people to hide their existence from kids? How would that work? Ban them from being in public? Ban them from holding specific jobs? Be specific.

This is all over the place today if you happen to use social media like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. (I don't, and never have used any of these, but it is impossible to ignore the relays from various social media platforms to mainstream news outlets of all kinds). Not everyone bases there source of information on Yale Medical School articles or science articles. Far more people these days get it from the internet, TV, the social media platforms, school gossip, etc. so what kids are exposed to there can influence their (and their parents) views on things and much of it is anything but scientifically accurate.

Even if those unsubstantiated claims are true, when it comes to actually doing anything it all still has to be done with parental approval and under the care of medical professionals (who will follow the procedures and steps in the Yale article).

Sure there are legitimate oranizations who actually deal with gender dysphoria in a medical and psychological way, but if you're claiming that a very visible and vocal subset of the trans or LGBTQ ... community are not advocating the exposure of young kids to trans and LGBTQ++ lifestyles and glossing over the serious implications of surgeries and other treatments you're living in a cave.

What specifically do you mean by "exposure of young kids to trans and LGBTQ+ lifestyles"? And again, what would you change? Ban LGBTQ+ people from being in public? Holding certain jobs?

Also, you really need to read the Yale article because you seem to be thinking that kids see trans people on social media, think "I want to be like that", then just stroll into a doctor's office, and get surgery.

Please, at least educate yourself on the basics of this topic.

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #309]

- it's profoundly worse for people on the internet decide what is right or wrong for some parents child.

Would you think this video (found in 2s on Youtube) is a good thing to show to little kids which it is clearly tailored to?

I don't find anything in it that kids shouldn't be exposed to based on the kind of material it is. There is nothing wrong with explaining sexual intercourse to children. There is nothing wrong with explaining male and female to children. There is nothing wrong with explaining gender to children. However, as far as drag queen story hour: Would a cis woman be able to wear those same clothes and be invited to a school to read to children? If no, then the clothes are over-sexualised and should not be allowed in a school on a biological male either. If the clothes are fine for anyone then go for it. That's equality.

I do find it fallacious to say that the doctors who assign gender can just be wrong when they assign gender, but you should make whether you identify with that potentially wrong judgment or not a permanent aspect of your life. If that's so why do trans people get special protections? If the doctor was just wrong and that's all there is to it, this should not be a protected class.

When I was born the doctor said I was an alien parasite. That was not correct, but I'm still going to make a huge deal out of the fact that I don't identify as an alien parasite and use it as my identity going forward. If I say I'm trans-species and I identify as human, that is admitting that I wasn't born human and the doctor was correct. If the doctor was just wrong, then he was just wrong, and I get over it and move on with my life.

I adamantly deny that a woman with a penis should get special consideration and protection over women without penises, just because she has a penis. At that point we're just enforcing old-school sexism/patriarchy and shuffling around what we call things.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #315]

You likened "exposing kids to trans issues" to taking them to a porn movie. Again, you need to think of trans people as people, rather than strictly in terms of sex.

You either missed the point or intentionally strawmanned what I said to make your own point above. I didn't make any connection between trans people and sex. The point was that little kids do not have the mental development or life experience to understand sexuality at a level that allows them to process all the implications of becoming trans, homosexual, etc. They will have this knowledge and experience when they are adults, and can then make any decisions they like about their identiies and sex lives.

So you would force transgender people to hide their existence from kids? How would that work? Ban them from being in public? Ban them from holding specific jobs? Be specific.

I said nothing about hiding their existence from kids. I'm arguing that explaining transgenderism to little kids (eg. 8 year olds) is premature, and especially if it is done in such a way as to encourage it and coax kids into thinking they should pursue it when you have a general group of kids in a classroom (for example) who may or may not exhibit gender dysphoria or any other issue. There are teachers doing this all the time and making Youtube videos advocating for transgenderism and LGBQT++ to kids who are too young to understand it. That is my specific complaint. There is no need for a trans person to explain to a little kid that they were once a member of the opposite sex and why they wanted to change, etc. If a trans woman wants to present as a woman, then do that and the kid will probably assume they are a woman without any need for the trans person to get into any details on why/how they transitioned.

Even if those unsubstantiated claims are true, when it comes to actually doing anything it all still has to be done with parental approval and under the care of medical professionals (who will follow the procedures and steps in the Yale article).

Fine ... just don't introduce kids to trans, LGBTQ++ ideas, etc. before they are old enough to have any chance of understanding it all. If a kid as gender dysphoria then work with that kid, but don't have presentations to a general class of 3rd graders by drag queens or trans activists to coax the kids into thinking it is all a game.

What specifically do you mean by "exposure of young kids to trans and LGBTQ+ lifestyles"? And again, what would you change? Ban LGBTQ+ people from being in public? Holding certain jobs?

See above.

Also, you really need to read the Yale article because you seem to be thinking that kids see trans people on social media, think "I want to be like that", then just stroll into a doctor's office, and get surgery.

Another strawman. The first part of that sentence I agree with (the "I want to be like that"). You added the second part to make your strawman. I never implied that I think kids can stroll into a doctor's office and get surgery. My problem is having them exposed to this stuff in such a way that it is encouraged, harmless, reversable, etc. before they are old enough to understand the many implications. If they reach adulthood and are genuinely homosexual, or convinced they would rather live as the opposite sex, then they can make their own decisions and go for it. I have no problem with that and never said otherwise.

Please, at least educate yourself on the basics of this topic.

I'm not uneducated on the topic just because I don't agree with you on certain aspects (eg. that it is OK to introduce little kids to this stuff as harmless fun and games).

[brunumb]

Also, you really need to read the Yale article because you seem to be thinking that kids see trans people on social media, think "I want to be like that", then just stroll into a doctor's office, and get surgery.

Another strawman. The first part of that sentence I agree with (the "I want to be like that"). You added the second part to make your strawman. I never implied that I think kids can stroll into a doctor's office and get surgery.

Although, that is not very far off the point. There are testimonies from people who have said that there was little or no evaluation of their situation before being offered puberty blockers and referrals to surgery. Whistleblowers from clinics have said the same thing. I do not subscribe to platforms like TikTok or Twitter etc. but one can see excerpts from what goes on in news and other channels on YouTube. A lot of the allegedly transgender people appear to be young men with no signs of gender dysphoria flamboyantly displaying some stereotypical feminine features. Dylan Mulvaney is a classic example. A study showed that the majority of a group of young men who expressed gender dysphoria at a young age outgrew it and simply presented as being gay. Children are far too impressionable to be exposed to all these elements of sexuality, particularly where it is kink oriented. Books in junior school libraries with explicit depictions of sex scenes, or instructions on how to perform oral sex are what is now proposed as normal and commendable. If it is acknowledged that they are too young to make informed decisions about so many other life-altering decisions, I cannot understand why this most significant one is somehow made an exception.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to brunumb in post #318]

Children are far too impressionable to be exposed to all these elements of sexuality, particularly where it is kink oriented.

Exactly ... they just don't have the mental development to process this stuff and understand all the implications. And they, like their parents and older siblings and relatives, etc. are far more likely to get their information from social media and the internet these days than from medical schools and science papers (by a huge margin). Just inappropriate IMO to get into the nitty-gritty of transgenderism, LGBTQ++ stuff, etc. with 8 year olds.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #309]

It's bad enough that a doctor only has limited access to the child - it's profoundly worse for people on the internet decide what is right or wrong for some parents child.

Exactly my point ... in addition to the incredible usefulness of the internet for distribution of knowledge, it is also full of garbage not suitable for kids who have not developed sufficiently (mentally or physically) to understand all of the implications of transitioning to the opposite sex (or trying to). Keep this stuff within a family, with their doctors, and don't expose kids to the idea that sex change, or becoming LBGTQ++, etc. is trivial and not without potential consequences should they grow up and change their mind later (which happens all the time of course ... detransitioning is also real).

I can safely say that you, and we, have no knowledge of each case. Why would we offer an opinion? Do you really feel so confident in your ability to decide the fate of someone, you can read an article and decide the right decision for the rest of their lives? I would say you shouldn't feel that way.

I never said or implied such a thing. Again, my point was about exposing young kids to some of these ideas. A kid may have no gender disphoria, get his/her hands on some trans or LGBTQ++ site or platform who pushes information to kids and explicitly tailors it for kids, and get ideas that it is all a game.

Given that people are generally uninformed and can act badly, I expect there are cases where a parent misguidedly forces a sex change on a child. That's obviously wrong - but I would propose - obviously rare.
However, in the case where it is clear to the parent, child and doctor, we the public shouldn't be 1. giving our opinion 2. making that child's life, or the parent's life miserable by making it seem they are the former case. (which is what I think is the predominant chatter on the internet).
Information can be used in both cases for good or ill. It's not wrong for a site to talk about how great a sex change is for a child - when it has been great for a child.


Perhaps you can cite examples of the horrors you are mentioning? If you do, please weigh them against the good examples.