CatBus

moviefreakedmind said:

CatBus said:

You also overlook the genuine need for self-defense in rural areas in which the police can’t get to your property in any helpful time, as well as in cities with terrible police departments and high crime rates like Detroit.

That’s covered under fantasy scenarios.

That’s not a fantasy scenario. So people that live over an hour from the nearest police station or in a place like Detroit where the police response time is almost an hour are just fucked?

It is absolutely a fantasy scenario. They are slightly more fucked with a gun than without one, but they get one anyway because the scenario where they are the big hero defending their family gives them a happy, and the scenario where that gun is ultimately used against their family doesn’t even register (although it’s approximately forty times more likely–via suicide, domestic violence, accident, criminal). And that’s not even taking into consideration that criminals are more likely to burglarize a home if they know there are guns in it due to the high resale value/easy transportation of the guns (the sign may look like it says “Protected by Smith & Wesson”, but it really says “Easily-fenced valuables inside”). Now, both scenarios are “lightning strike” rarities–for the most part, guns purchased exclusively for self-defense serve as teddy bears to help people sleep better and don’t ever actually do anything at all. But if you buy a gun to protect your family, you either didn’t consider the odds very realistically, or you don’t like your family very much.

EDIT: To make the picture less bleak, you’re not without options. It’s just that buying a gun is a stupid option. You live in a democracy, you can lobby city hall, your county council and work to get better police protection for you and your neighbors. But it’s a lot less fun, and more work, to be Mr. Smith Goes to Washington than it is to be Dirty Harry.

moviefreakedmind said:

Heirlooms are important; I don’t think anyone’s possessions that they’ve had for decades should be taken away, nor should collections be broken up. Heirloom also implies that it’s an antique, which is important to consider also.

Take for example someone I knew. This wasn’t exactly an heirloom, but it was “my dad just died and holy crap would you look at this?” There were many things he discovered in a little secret basement enclave, many of which were definitely illegal and probably a war crime to actually use. But I’m going to focus on the mortar right now. It was a nice mortar, great example of the period, and so on. The son (bless him) filled his father’s prized mortar with concrete. Now it still looks great on the outside, but is functionally a paperweight. Heirlooms can be similarly decommissioned, if they’re dangerous enough to warrant it.

You also overlook the genuine need for self-defense in rural areas in which the police can’t get to your property in any helpful time, as well as in cities with terrible police departments and high crime rates like Detroit.

That’s covered under fantasy scenarios.

moviefreakedmind said:

If you’re in favor of the government actually confiscating guns from law-abiding owners, there will be a significant amount of violence. A lot of police wouldn’t even enforce such a law.

They wouldn’t be law-abiding if they kept the guns after they were illegal, would they, and police who don’t enforce laws can easily look for more suitable jobs, right? 😉 (snark… kinda)

The complete ban is an ideal end state–I admit implementation isn’t easy and anything in between would be a good start. It could take hundreds of years–no confiscation at all, just the gradual reduction as generations don’t get new guns and the old ones slowly get destroyed. Luckily, the second amendment doesn’t protect any important rights, so nothing’s lost by its repeal. Modern gun ownership is mostly about entertainment, heirlooms, and fantasy scenarios, which can be easily managed via less dangerous means. But with a very rare practical use case of deer and varmints, which is why I’m still fine keeping basic rifles around (Winchesters, not AR-15s). As a Pest Control Amendment, I’m still all for the Second.

EDIT: Admittedly, I agree with the NRA’s interpretation of the 2nd amendment, which is why I feel it needs to be repealed ASAP. The amendment doesn’t mention guns at all, just “arms”. As written, it applies equally to handguns, machine guns, longbows, halberds, tanks, surface-to-air missiles, nuclear weapons, mustard gas, and anthrax. The second amendment says you have a right to keep and bear all of these things, all because of well-regulated militias that don’t really exist anymore but kinda sorta live on in the National Guard to some degree. With that interpretation, it’s a dangerously idiotic amendment, but frankly the other interpretations I’ve seen seem very preciously crafted with the purpose of reaching saner conclusions, rather than just interpreting it as written. The only thing protecting us from the full impact of this amendment is five justices looking the other way, and that may not last.

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:

There are those who favor the abolition of all guns in the hands of the public (and I believe–correct me if I’m wrong–that Warbler is part of this crowd)

I’m sure I want a total ban or not. Perhaps a ban on auto and semi-auto rifles might be enough, or maybe a ban on all auto and semi-auto weapons. At the very least, I think a lot more training and psychological testing should be required before being allowed to own firearms. I also think maybe one shouldn’t allowed to own firearms if they live with someone with dangerous mental issues or if they live with someone who has a criminal record.

Screw semi-auto, I’m for a full-on handgun ban. Plus auto and semi-auto. Plus ammunition. Sure it’s unconstitutional, I’m for repeal.

moviefreakedmind said:

Trump’s victory is almost entirely to blame on Hillary.

I think a teensy sliver of blame falls on the Electoral College.

TV’s Frink said:

CatBus said:

Jeebus said:

chyron8472 said:

What I want to know is–and I’m asking the conservatives and/or Republicans here–why in God’s name conservatives voted for Donald Trump. Not necessarily against Hillary, as she has more than enough obvious reasons to be thoroughly disliked–but in the primaries.

I know people liked him as a protest candidate against the status quo, but voting for a protest candidate is one thing; voting for Donald Trump is something completely different. So many people knew for the longest time that he cares little for anybody but himself, he’s short tempered, uneducated, listens to conspiracy theorists, and is generally out of touch with the common man.

This is a legitimate question, not a rant nor a flamebait.

I don’t think there are any Trump voters left in here.

No, we don’t even have Trump supporters brilliantly disguising themselves as Bernie supporters anymore. But people may know Trump supporters, have spoken with them in person, etc–probability favors Republicans/Conservatives knowing them, but Democrats may as well.

I met a guy who considered voting for Trump. I have no idea if he actually did or not. He thought it was all an act. A decades-long 24/7 campaign to act like a racist, incoherent asshole with no impulse control. How could a guy like that end up a multi-millionaire*? No, had to be an act. So, between Hillary and this mysterious wild card, he was really torn.

* Hint: The same way most people end up multi-millionaires. They’re born that way.

Also, he may just have been a little on the casually racist side of things (demographic: older working-class divorced white man with some pent up resentment over all kinds of things). But nah, he said that didn’t enter into it. Nosiree. Nope.

And this guy considered himself an independent. All the Republicans I know (in person) voted for Hillary.

I know a woman at work who (unprompted, believe me) told me she would be voting for Trump and then spent ten minutes tearing apart Hillary. I never did find out what Trump brought to the job.

In some ways that’s the same story as mine. Candidate A has two decades of conspiracy theories about her (and maybe there’s a chance one is even true!) and a not-so-great record as a Senator. But Candidate B is a Rorschach test, and when I look at it, I see winning!*

* That or urine-soaked sheets, they look very similar.

Jeebus said:

chyron8472 said:

What I want to know is–and I’m asking the conservatives and/or Republicans here–why in God’s name conservatives voted for Donald Trump. Not necessarily against Hillary, as she has more than enough obvious reasons to be thoroughly disliked–but in the primaries.

I know people liked him as a protest candidate against the status quo, but voting for a protest candidate is one thing; voting for Donald Trump is something completely different. So many people knew for the longest time that he cares little for anybody but himself, he’s short tempered, uneducated, listens to conspiracy theorists, and is generally out of touch with the common man.

This is a legitimate question, not a rant nor a flamebait.

I don’t think there are any Trump voters left in here.

No, we don’t even have Trump supporters brilliantly disguising themselves as Bernie supporters anymore. But people may know Trump supporters, have spoken with them in person, etc–probability favors Republicans/Conservatives knowing them, but Democrats may as well.

I met a guy who considered voting for Trump. I have no idea if he actually did or not. He thought it was all an act. A decades-long 24/7 campaign to act like a racist, incoherent asshole with no impulse control. How could a guy like that end up a multi-millionaire*? No, had to be an act. So, between Hillary and this mysterious wild card, he was really torn.

* Hint: The same way most people end up multi-millionaires. They’re born that way.

Also, he may just have been a little on the casually racist side of things (demographic: older working-class divorced white man with some pent up resentment over all kinds of things). But nah, he said that didn’t enter into it. Nosiree. Nope.

And this guy considered himself an independent. All the Republicans I know (in person) voted for Hillary.

CatBus said:

chyron8472 said:

I wish someone could explain to me the appeal of Trump. Why the heck do people (still) like him? It’s like with Sarah Palin… there are people who like her, but WHY?!? I just can’t even.

1. He’s (supposedly) rich. No doubt about it, Americans love rich people and over-the-top opulence. Why? Because 1) You have to be inherently good to be rich (Calvinism), and 2) I wanna be like that someday and I can live vicariously through their success.
2. He’s a honey badger. Literally no shits to give about anything or anybody who’s not him. And it’s so entertaining that it’s easy to forget that this includes you.
3. He’s unpolished. Which is how his serial lying actually makes him seem more honest to his supporters.
4. He’s racist. It’s no coincidence he kicked off his Presidential exploration by becoming the world’s loudest birther, just as that movement was starting to reach maximum idiocy. And the hits just kept coming. And yes, this causes people to like him.
5. He’s unqualified. Every public official leaves a trail of political decisions you can criticize. He leaves a trail of bankruptcies, fraud lawsuits, and unpaid bills, but see reason #1 for why none of that matters. He was, in the mind of far too many, a blank slate. People literally thought there was no way to predict what he’d do, which was appealing. These were the people waiting for the “pivot to the general” and then waiting for the “pivot to acting presidential” and now still “giving him a fair chance” in spite of the ongoing pileup of evidence that he’s just as bad as everyone else predicted.

Quoting myself for my take Trump’s appeal.

doubleofive said:

CatBus said:

darth_ender said:

Fair enough, but I do want to be clear, I favor the morning-after pill, as it prevents conception instead killing a fertilized ovum.

I am not 100% sure on this, but I think the morning-after pill prevents implantation, not conception. There’s this brief period where there’s a free-floating fertilized egg, but there’s no pregnancy because it hasn’t implanted anywhere. The morning-after pill prevents implantation, so the pregnancy never starts (thus it’s not abortion because you can’t abort a pregnancy that doesn’t exist)… BUT the egg is fertilized, and it’s lost because it can’t implant. So if fertilization is your point of no return, I think this means this is out.

The morning after pill prevents ovulation, so it only works if the woman hasn’t ovulated yet. It just delays it long enough for the sperm to die off.

IIRC, it does that, but if the woman has already ovulated, it does the former as well.

oojason said:

Paul Manafort: FBI ‘raided home of former Trump chairman’…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40879798

Fake raid!

Man, that never gets old.

darth_ender said:

Fair enough, but I do want to be clear, I favor the morning-after pill, as it prevents conception instead killing a fertilized ovum.

I am not 100% sure on this, but I think the morning-after pill prevents implantation, not conception. There’s this brief period where there’s a free-floating fertilized egg, but there’s no pregnancy because it hasn’t implanted anywhere. The morning-after pill prevents implantation, so the pregnancy never starts (thus it’s not abortion because you can’t abort a pregnancy that doesn’t exist)… BUT the egg is fertilized, and it’s lost because it can’t implant. So if fertilization is your point of no return, I think this means this is out.

So after digesting darth_ender’s post for a bit, I’ve come to the conclusion that pro-choice is a bad label, for a different reason. While darth_ender’s position really amounts to wanting to prevent the abortion from happening (although the logic also appears to apply equally to abortions and some forms of birth control like the so-called morning-after pill), my position (and I can really only speak for myself here) is twofold: that abortion is a catch-all safety net for the woman if everything else fails, but that the ultimate goal is to prevent the woman from having to make the choice whether or not to have an abortion at all. i.e. prevent unwanted pregnancies, improve access to healthcare, promote fetal health, provide financial support, etc.

So reaching the “choice” at the end of that string of policies (or lack thereof) really in most cases marks some sort of societal failure. If the goal is to prevent the situation from ever reaching the “choice” phase, it’s hardly a pro-choice position. It’s really just the position that you prefer the legal safety net to the illegal safety net, not that you want anyone to actually get there.

It does mark some common ground, though. Although I see the choice as the final safety net in case society fails, darth_ender sees the choice itself as a failure (but is it less of a failure if it’s done illegally?). But aside from that (and I realize, it’s a big “that”), the pre-choice stuff – preventing unwanted pregnancies, improving access to healthcare, promoting fetal health, providing support for families – seems like plenty of common ground for policy ideas. And assuming these common ground policies continue to reduce the number of abortions overall as they have already done, that would be considered forward movement by both sides. Of course, there may be some friction on specifics (sex ed, access to contraception, etc), but the issue still seems way more navigable on that end.

…and this is why you need to be more active here, darth_ender. Not because you’ll find a lot of agreement, and not because you’ll find a satisfyingly wide range of opinions, because who am I kidding?

But because without a vocal conservative on board (and I’m intentionally excluding our libertarians because they agree with liberals half the time anyway), there’s no balance. Not the Fox News “Fair and Balanced” where bullshit is provided to balance out facts (Fo, we hardly knew ye), but real balance, where fundamental differences in values make for a consistent, logical, and fundamentally different view of the exact same facts we all share.

Thanks for the time and effort you spent spelling it out. And no I don’t agree with you, but that’s okay. I’d still be happy to invite you over for beer soda water sometime 😉

Do you think it’ll work, guys? Do you think I suckered him in? Boy I sure hope so! (maniacal liberal laugh)

Jeebus said:

No, not Guam!

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/08/politics/north-korea-considering-guam-strike-trump/index.html

You know, if they actually gave people enough time to evacuate, that may be the only way to get rid of all the goddamned snakes.

SilverWook said:

Trumpy makes threats, now North Korea ups the ante. This isn’t looking good.

Never engage Trump in a pissing match. It’s his element. There will be liar and worry like the world has never seen.

Warbler said:

CatBus said:
I’d say the rate of kids who prefer the activities of the other gender is the same among trans kids as it is among cis kids–that is, pretty low.

when you say “of the other gender” in regards to trans kids, are you talking about their physical gender or the gender they identify with?

Heh, good catch. Trans talk is fun, no?

So what I’m saying is that for biological boys who identify as male and prefer traditional girl activities, that’s a pretty low rate but it exists. For biological girls who identify as female and prefer traditional boy activities, that’s also a pretty low rate. Among the small-but-larger-than-most sampling of trans kids I’ve met, I’ve met one trans kid whose preferred activities match their biological sex and not their identification. Admittedly completely anecdotal, and using a sample size that goes down to one, that does not seem out of line with the rates for the other cis-gendered kids above. So I don’t really see any evidence, from what I’ve seen, that trans kids are more inclined to stick to the activities prescribed by their gender identification than any other kids.

EDIT: Also, I only know a handful of trans adults, and the story is totally different. Absolutely every single one came out as an adult (although they knew they were as long as they can remember), so the whole concept of kids who say they’re trans out loud while still in grade school or even earlier is as new to them as it is to me.

TV’s Frink said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

TV’s Frink said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

TV’s Frink said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

human or an animal.

NO DIFFERENCE

READ THE NOVEL, YOU PHILISTINE!!!11111>?

WHY WOULD I WASTE ANY MORE TIME WITH WORDS THAN I ALREADY HAVE TO HERE QUESTION MARK QUESTION MARK EXCLAMATION MARK QUESTION MARK EXCLAMATION MARK NUMBER ONE

TO EXPAND YOUR DATABASE

SOMETHING THAT IS ALREADY INFINITE CANNOT BE EXPANDED

ALSO PLEASE STOP SHOUTING

I am so glad you’re not dating Willow anymore.

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

But the point is, they start doing that before they even know they are transgendered. They don’t go “oh! I transgendered! Now let me see how everyone thinks girls should act and I will act like that”, I think it is more like they start out preferring girls and then realize later on that they are transgendered.

Sure. As far as they know (with the examples I know), they’re a girl and they have a penis. They’re not trans, they’re a girl.

Wait, I’m not allowed to a call a transgendered person, transgendered anymore? When did that happen?

Context. If you’re talking about a four-year-old trans child, they don’t have the vocabulary to say trans, but they do know boy and girl. It’s okay to use words children don’t understand, but don’t expect them to understand you.

And sure, they’ve heard adults say that boys have penises and girls don’t, but they can look down their own pants for proof the adult is wrong, QED. It’s not until they learn a little more about society works that they identify as trans. Until then they’re just a girl like any other girl.

And despite everyone trying brainwashing them with how people with penises should act and what they should like, they still end up liking girl things.

No, that’s the thing. There are very few penises in your average media or parental message to kids. The message is that boys do this and girls do this, and they by and large accept these messages. It’s just when someone tells them that only boys have penises that they roll their eyes because they’ve got the proof right there.

I am not so sure of that. I don’t think A four year old trans child realizes yet that they are a girl with penis. I think they are only realize that they are different from other boys and prefer girl things. I think they only realize they are a girl with penis when they are little bit older.

From the sounds of it, CatBus has “dealt” with these children before. Therefore, what you think is moot. He’s the only one with experience in this conversation.

Yep. My kid’s school is kindof a magnet for parents of trans kids, basically because if you hear that there’s a school somewhere in the country where your kid won’t get the crap kicked out of them for being your kid, you pack your bags. A trans parent mass migration.

Awareness of sex differences in general is wildly variable. I’ve got an almost-five year old who really just figured out boys and girls, and I’d say he’s slightly later than most. But he still has trouble with using the right pronouns, which is more of an unrelated language/grammar issue. Some trans kids know with certainty right away, right out of the gate (about four): I’m a boy, period. Some have an uneasy feeling about the whole topic for a while and finally declare around eight or so. Some take a lot longer (adulthood). But if you ask them how long they’ve known, they reach pretty far back… often saying they’ve always felt this way but never felt confident enough about what this feeling was to finally put a name on it until now. Or worse, that they felt that had to go incognito until they moved out of their parents’ house.

I am still willing to bet that some start to prefer the things of the gender opposite from their physical gender, before they realize they are transgendered.

Hard to say. For those who like things that don’t match their biological sex, that liking would also pre-date lasting memories. So if they started liking girl things at two and feeling they were a girl at four, or vice-versa, by the time they’re old enough to relate their story, both go back as far as their memories so there’s no way to say.

Nevertheless, I can say that I know at least one trans girl who is biologically a boy and likes boy things, and always has. The trans tomboy, as I mentioned. I’d say the rate of kids who prefer the activities of the other gender is the same among trans kids as it is among cis kids–that is, pretty low. The lower trans population makes it harder to find examples, and I know only one.

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

But the point is, they start doing that before they even know they are transgendered. They don’t go “oh! I transgendered! Now let me see how everyone thinks girls should act and I will act like that”, I think it is more like they start out preferring girls and then realize later on that they are transgendered.

Sure. As far as they know (with the examples I know), they’re a girl and they have a penis. They’re not trans, they’re a girl.

Wait, I’m not allowed to a call a transgendered person, transgendered anymore? When did that happen?

Context. If you’re talking about a four-year-old trans child, they don’t have the vocabulary to say trans, but they do know boy and girl. It’s okay to use words children don’t understand, but don’t expect them to understand you.

And sure, they’ve heard adults say that boys have penises and girls don’t, but they can look down their own pants for proof the adult is wrong, QED. It’s not until they learn a little more about society works that they identify as trans. Until then they’re just a girl like any other girl.

And despite everyone trying brainwashing them with how people with penises should act and what they should like, they still end up liking girl things.

No, that’s the thing. There are very few penises in your average media or parental message to kids. The message is that boys do this and girls do this, and they by and large accept these messages. It’s just when someone tells them that only boys have penises that they roll their eyes because they’ve got the proof right there.

I am not so sure of that. I don’t think A four year old trans child realizes yet that they are a girl with penis. I think they are only realize that they are different from other boys and prefer girl things. I think they only realize they are a girl with penis when they are little bit older.

From the sounds of it, CatBus has “dealt” with these children before. Therefore, what you think is moot. He’s the only one with experience in this conversation.

Yep. My kid’s school is kindof a magnet for parents of trans kids, basically because if you hear that there’s a school somewhere in the country where your kid won’t get the crap kicked out of them for being your kid, you pack your bags. A trans parent mass migration. There were two trans kids in his fourth grade classroom of almost thirty last year alone, let alone the entire school, which is very disproportionate for the nation at large.

Awareness of sex differences in general is wildly variable. I’ve got an almost-five year old who really just figured out boys and girls, and I’d say he’s slightly later than most. But he still has trouble with using the right pronouns, which is more of an unrelated language/grammar issue. Some trans kids know with certainty right away, right out of the gate (about four): I’m a boy, period. Some have an uneasy feeling about the whole topic for a while and finally declare around eight or so. Some take a lot longer (adulthood). But if you ask them how long they’ve known, they reach pretty far back… often saying they’ve always felt this way but never felt confident enough about what this feeling was to finally put a name on it until now. Or worse, that they felt that had to go incognito until they moved out of their parents’ house.

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

But the point is, they start doing that before they even know they are transgendered. They don’t go “oh! I transgendered! Now let me see how everyone thinks girls should act and I will act like that”, I think it is more like they start out preferring girls and then realize later on that they are transgendered.

Sure. As far as they know (with the examples I know), they’re a girl and they have a penis. They’re not trans, they’re a girl.

Wait, I’m not allowed to a call a transgendered person, transgendered anymore? When did that happen?

Context. If you’re talking about a four-year-old trans child, they don’t have the vocabulary to say trans, but they do know boy and girl. It’s okay to use words children don’t understand, but don’t expect them to understand you.

And sure, they’ve heard adults say that boys have penises and girls don’t, but they can look down their own pants for proof the adult is wrong, QED. It’s not until they learn a little more about society works that they identify as trans. Until then they’re just a girl like any other girl.

And despite everyone trying brainwashing them with how people with penises should act and what they should like, they still end up liking girl things.

No, that’s the thing. There are very few penises in your average media or parental message to kids. The message is that boys do this and girls do this, and they by and large accept these messages. It’s just when someone tells them that only boys have penises that they roll their eyes because they’ve got the proof right there.

Also, some of the girls with penises like boy things. They’re tomboys. Trans tomboys.

but most “girls with penises” like girl things. A lot of the time, is that not usually the first sign to the parents that they are dealing with a “girl with a penis”?

It really has nothing to do with what activities you like, although there’s a large overlap.

disagree.

Sure.

yhwx said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

But the point is, they start doing that before they even know they are transgendered. They don’t go “oh! I transgendered! Now let me see how everyone thinks girls should act and I will act like that”, I think it is more like they start out preferring girls and then realize later on that they are transgendered.

Sure. As far as they know (with the examples I know), they’re a girl and they have a penis. They’re not trans, they’re a girl. And sure, they’ve heard adults say that boys have penises and girls don’t, but they can look down their own pants for proof the adult is wrong, QED. It’s not until they learn a little more about society works that they identify as trans. Until then they’re just a girl like any other girl. Also, some of the girls with penises like boy things. They’re tomboys. Trans tomboys. It really has nothing to do with what activities you like, although there’s a large overlap.

I’m confused by this paragraph.

Most people are, thus the societal uproar. Basically boys who like girls things and girls who like boy things are not trans. If you think that’s what trans is, that’s the first problem. Trans is not a newfangled word for tomboy. It’s when you look like one sex (in terms of chromosomes, secondary physical attributes, etc), but feel at a deep level that you aren’t that sex. I’m not exactly how that feeling manifests internally, because I’m not trans. But basically to outsiders it’s when a little boy says he’s a girl and he’s not just having pretend-time. He consistently and always says he’s a girl. Not that he likes girl stuff, not that he wants to be a girl, but that he is a girl. That’s trans.

chyron8472 said:

CatBus said:

chyron8472 said:

I am a father to a 2.5 year old daughter, and her preferences, while influenced by me, are so very obviously to me not altogether of my or my wife’s making.

As a parent, I grow increasingly annoyed at accusations that parents brainwash or wrongfully indoctrinate their kids.

Absolutely agree. But I believe the current thinking is that by the time the average child is 2 years old, their parents are no longer the primary external influence on them.

I think people who say so either don’t have kids or assume most kids are babysat by the TV all day. My wife and I are still the two people with whom my daughter interacts the most, by a long shot. At some point, yes that is true that we will not be the primary influence, but not so at two years old.

I agree with the 2 year old stat for both of my kids, and I’m one of those “you can watch TV when you have your own house” parents for the most part. Siblings, neighbors, daycare. Children beyond the toddler stage pick up an astounding amount from other kids. And those kids may have access to TV, etc, but that’s not really the point. The point is that the world is a big and fascinating place, and parents are not the most exciting thing in it.

Warbler said:

But the point is, they start doing that before they even know they are transgendered. They don’t go “oh! I transgendered! Now let me see how everyone thinks girls should act and I will act like that”, I think it is more like they start out preferring girls and then realize later on that they are transgendered.

Sure. As far as they know (with the examples I know), they’re a girl and they have a penis. They’re not trans, they’re a girl. And sure, they’ve heard adults say that boys have penises and girls don’t, but they can look down their own pants for proof the adult is wrong, QED. It’s not until they learn a little more about society works that they identify as trans. Until then they’re just a girl like any other girl. Also, some of the girls with penises like boy things. They’re tomboys. Trans tomboys. It really has nothing to do with what activities you like, although there’s a large overlap.

chyron8472 said:

I am a father to a 2.5 year old daughter, and her preferences, while influenced by me, are so very obviously to me not altogether of my or my wife’s making.

As a parent, I grow increasingly annoyed at accusations that parents brainwash or wrongfully indoctrinate their kids.

Absolutely agree. But I believe the current thinking is that by the time the average child is 2 years old, their parents are no longer the primary external influence on them. So while there’s a hell of a lot of internal causes, there are also a hell of a lot of external causes, and the parents really barely factor into it beyond the first couple years.

That said, I know some trans kids. They are not boys who see all the media’s messaging (and parental/peer messaging) about how boys should act and reject it. They do not see other boys and say “I’m a boy but I don’t want to be like that”. They are girls who see all the media’s messaging (and parental/peer messaging) about how girls should act and largely accept it. They see other girls and usually say “I’m a girl too and I want to be like that.” But they have a penis.

Damn it, don’t they know I’ve got better Arabic subtitles in the works? Have they no shame?