LGBTQ+ Is good for society or is it not?

conservativebritish

Argument Topic: I believe The LGBTQ+ movement is inherantly bad for humanity in general

the LGBTQ+ movement is dangerous because it destroys gender roles a man should be the teacher to the child and the women should look after the child and care for them. moving on making men weak and teaching them its ok to be weak is wrong and when something bad happens you will need a strong man to solve the problem  

Nomenclature

@conservativebritish

I believe The LGBTQ+ movement is inherantly bad for humanity in general

It doesn't really matter mate, because you can't stop people being born gay. I think people like you are far more inherently bad for humanity, because you seem to want to force your arbitrary way of life onto everybody else. 

conservativebritish

Nomenclature said:

@conservativebritish

I believe The LGBTQ+ movement is inherantly bad for humanity in general

It doesn't really matter mate, because you can't stop people being born gay. I think people like you are far more inherently bad for humanity, because you seem to want to force your arbitrary way of life onto everybody else. 

i could say the same thing about LGBTQ+ people they force their way of life on the people around them i mean think about gender neutral bathrooms why cant they just stay in their own bathrooms where they arent causing discomfort to the people around them 

Barnardot

@conservativebritish ;a man should be the teacher to the child and the women should look after the child and care for them

Says who like says you thats who and who says that that is so just because you said it you thats who. So youre Mr God and just because you say something dum and ofencive its thats what every one else has to do . Well for your info since your been on another planet for the past 30 years every body here is different and if you think that every one should be the same as an igoramis dufis that uses only half his brain and is scared of different people then its tough cookies for you and you should go back to mars.

MayCaesar

I think that overemphasis of these weird identities is a sign of a certain intellectual sickness of the society. In a healthy society people do not feel the need to constantly talk about their "sexual identities" and preferences: whether you prefer to sleep with men or women should have about as much relevance to your identity as a person as whether you prefer espresso or latte.

I do not care if someone is gay or straight: it makes no difference to me and is only relevant in those rare cases when I am considering getting romantically involved with someone. Someone telling me that he is an "LGBT" person out of the blue is like someone telling me what color his panties are out of the blue. My reaction is, "Mmm, okay, so?"

I derive my identity not from the color of my skin, the shape of the organ between my legs or the shape of the breasts of the people who cause said organ to swell - but from my personality and accomplishments. People who derive their identity from their sexuality create an impression of having nothing else to show. Imagine that you are both a lesbian and a CEO of a major IT company - is being a lesbian really what you want to emphasize out of the two? Would you rather introduce yourself as, "Hey, I am Jane, and I get aroused by girls", or as, "Hey, I am Jennifer Black, a CEO of Microtech"?

Barnardot

@MayCaesar ; In a healthy society people do not feel the need to constantly talk about their "sexual identities"

Well its not a healthy society is it and the reason is that why LBGTQs talk about there sexuality is not because they want to show off but because they have been bullied and laughed at and treated like worthless skim for years and told that they have no rights because there not normal. So is it any wonder that they have marchers and tell people lod and clear that they are normal people because some people need to be told because there scared of hommos. Are you scared of hommos?

Barnardot

@conservativebritish ;they force their way of life on the people around them

Since when and since when did one force there way on you. And since when do people force there way on them. Like right now thats when When ignorant dum dufises start saying that LBGTQs are dangerous and saying what they should do. So its all right for you to force your way of life on them is it?

Nomenclature

@conservativebritish

i could say the same thing about LGBTQ+ people they force their way of life on the people around them

Stop talking absolute rubbish. They don't open up threads on debate sites asking if being straight is good for society.

It's fairly obvious from engaging you for even five minutes that you're an offensive bigot with opinions from the middle ages.

just_sayin

@Nomenclature said: http://

It doesn't really matter mate, because you can't stop people being born gay.

Born gay?  Is that what science has found??  Actually, science has definitively shown that there is not gay gene.  See Nature, Harvard Magazine reported “It’s effectively impossible to predict an individual’s sexual behavior from their genome,” said Neale, the director of genetics in the Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research at the Broad and an associate professor in medicine at Harvard Medical School (HMS), during a Tuesday teleconference introducing the paper’s findings. 

In fact, if you delve into the research mentioned in the Nature article, you will find that heterosexuals are more likely to have the indicators that many have theorized are related to being gay.  Wow, talk about an idea being busted.  Studies of identical twins demonstrate that many, even though they have identical chromosomes and developed in the same uterus will have different sexual preferences.  

To answer the question of whether it is good for society or not, you'd have to define what you consider good.  If denying biological science is good, then I guess biological males who say they women, and should be allowed to compete against biological women in sports, and  enter  biological women's showers or bathrooms, are really good people.  If however you believe that social constructs do not alter physical reality, then no it isn't good.

Nomenclature

@just_sayin

Born gay?  Is that what science has found?

Yes. 

A recent article argued that sexuality is down to choice, not genetics. But the scientific evidence says otherwise, and points to a strong biological origin.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2015/jul/24/gay-genes-science-is-on-the-right-track-were-born-this-way-lets-deal-with-it

just_sayin

@Nomenclature quoted:

A recent article argued that sexuality is down to choice, not genetics. But the scientific evidence says otherwise, and points to a strong biological origin.

Blah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!  (Laughing with you, not at you).  

The same "study" also notes that a larger percentage of heterosexuals have the "genetic markers'" that denote being gay than did those who identify as gay - in other words, a greater percentage of heterosexuals had the alleged gay markers than did gays did.  This completely busted the biological argument.  Tell me, did you even think to look at your article?  I'm guessing no.  The massive DNA ancestry test that disproved the gay gene notion was also a death kneel for the couple a dozen other bantered about ideas also.  Those still clinging to the idea that homosexuality is caused by a gay gene would be better off accepting reality.  There may be many things that influence sexual preference, but a gay gene isn't one of them.

Nomenclature

@just_sayin

The same "study" also notes that a larger percentage of heterosexuals have the "genetic markers'" that denote being gay than did those who identify as gay

The article I posted links a wide variety of studies, so I have no idea why you're using a singular and not a plural. Perhaps it's simply because you're a moron who can't read.

Three gene finding studies showed that gay brothers share genetic markers on the X chromosome.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2015/jul/24/gay-genes-science-is-on-the-right-track-were-born-this-way-lets-deal-with-it

I mean, it's pointless even arguing with you because you simply invent your own fake, self-contradictory "facts". If the "genetic markers that denote being gay" were shared by a "larger percentage of heterosexuals" then they wouldn't be genetic markers that denote being gay, would they? 

This completely busted the biological argument

Ah, but you are a delusional religious nutball who desperately wants to believe that being gay is a sin, and this busts everything you write as ridiculous, biased and wrong.

Tell me, did you even think to look at your article?  I'm guessing no.

Interesting. Please explain to me, what precisely is so broken in your completely delusional mind, that you can read the following sentence:-

A recent article argued that sexuality is down to choice, not genetics. But the scientific evidence says otherwise, and points to a strong biological origin.

And believe it means that being gay is a choice?

What is actually wrong with you? 

MayCaesar

Barnardot said:

Well its not a healthy society is it and the reason is that why LBGTQs talk about there sexuality is not because they want to show off but because they have been bullied and laughed at and treated like worthless skim for years and told that they have no rights because there not normal. So is it any wonder that they have marchers and tell people lod and clear that they are normal people because some people need to be told because there scared of hommos. Are you scared of hommos?

No, it is unhealthy not because "LGBT" people have been bullied and laughed at, but because people base identities (both of themselves and others) on superficial characteristics rather than inherent character traits or measurable accomplishments. I have been bullied like there was no tomorrow back in high school, and I am an evil straight white man - should I now make my straight-white-manliness a part of my identity and start most of my arguments with, "As a straight white man..."? People have treated me like a worthless scum for having some odd hobbies and preferences, yet they never have become a part of my identity. I always believed that I would grow up and my actions would speak for themselves, and there would be people out there who would appreciate what I had to offer.

Is it any wonder that those people have "marchers"? No. Is it silly nonetheless? Yes.

What is "hommos"? If you refer to homosexual people, then yes, I am scared of them mortally. So much so that my wallpaper has two lesbian cartoon characters on it. I like a good ol' scare with a morning coffee!

jack

conservativebritish said:

LGBTQ+ is a big part of society nowadays do you think it has a positive impact or a negative impact on society?

Hello c:

As long as you don't require anything from anybody, excersising your RIGHT to BE whatever you want to BE, is GOOD for society.

First they came for the queer, and I did not speak out - because I was not queer.

Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

excon

Luigi7255

@MayCaesar

Exactly.

I only mention my sexuality in passing nowadays, I don't make a huge spectacle out of who I love. I just want to live my life in the crowd and not make a scene. Those who just make their identity on something arbitrary are either 1. obsessed with being such a thing, or 2. insane. Some go for both, and most go for the former.

Luigi7255

@conservativebritish

The only thing that breaks gender norms (or any norm for that matter) is time. Once time passes, things change, and you can't remain in the same social climate. Just a few decades ago it was still normal for women and children to be abused, now that time has passed, that has changed, women work just as hard as men do and children actually have the will to live.

Barnardot

@MayCaesar ;If you refer to homosexual people, then yes, I am scared of them mortally

Well that meens your homophobic and putting cartoons on your wall won’t change that. The only way you can treat your phobia is to stop being so ignorant and stop hating peoples and educate your self that LBGTQ S are not super facial they are real and have a right to be real like any one else.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Vive la différence.

We can't afford to exclude anyone. We are facing existential threats. Alan Turing cracked the nazi code. Without gays we might all be saluting the Nazi flag.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/12/23/256698016/alan-turing-who-cracked-nazi-code-gets-posthumous-pardon

• Nuclear Proliferation
• Pandemic
• Climate Change
• Super-intelligent AI
• Possibility of merciless predator aliens
• All the other unknowns
  

MayCaesar

Barnardot said:

Well that meens your homophobic and putting cartoons on your wall won’t change that. The only way you can treat your phobia is to stop being so ignorant and stop hating peoples and educate your self that LBGTQ S are not super facial they are real and have a right to be real like any one else.

But my friend, lesbian girls turn me on. Why would I want to treat that? Tell you what: I am perfectly okay with being treated by two lesbian girls wearing sexy nurse outfits and punishing me for being a bad homophobic boy.

In the meantime, among all the moans you hear from the medical room, would you be so kind as to take an elementary school English class? "Educate your self", so to speak.

debate_handge

Argument Topic: LGBTQ is bad everyone should know this!

OK LGBTQ Do force there opinions on others when they say they don't, it is not like we are allowed to put up STRAIGHT PEOPLE posters around schools mainly, i see it happen everyday in a modern high school they always do it realizing but saying it is just a opinion. This is terrible kids such as the age of 5 are now identifying as cats and dogs! How possibly could that make the future better? EXATLY IT WONT. What do you think this teach everyone? It teaches that you need to accept or you get looked at funny or bullied for not agreeing with it. I is so bad at schools that they have meetings for the LGBTQ and then if you r not LGBTQ you are not allowed to enter or the teacher has the right to yell at you because you are making the LGBTQ insecure. How does this not make you sick?!

Barnardot

@MayCaesar ;But my friend, lesbian girls turn me on. Why would I want to treat that? Tell you what: I am perfectly okay with being treated by two lesbian girls wearing sexy nurse outfits and punishing me for being a bad homophobic boy.

Well you should have said that before then then I would say hay that is totally so cool but what if they were real strict dikey lesos. Do you reckon there going to give yo so much punishment that they will chop off your doolie because they can get like that you know. So for me I would have to make sure that there bi then when I go to work the next day I will lick my finger and put it in the air and say hay guess what I converted a couple of lesos last night.

MayCaesar

@Barnardot

Oh, my friend, there is no need for concern: I am quite a ladykiller, and for me any lesbian girl will become bisexual.

jack

conservativebritish said:

LGBTQ+ is a big part of society nowadays do you think it has a positive impact or a negative impact on society?

Hello brit:

What you or I THINK about the issue, is beside the point..  The LAW is the point.  Rights are like muscles..  If you don't USE 'em, you LOSE 'em..  The 14th Amendment is clear on the issue, which says, if a person has a right to do something (get married), then EVERYBODY has that right..  Ergo, LGBTQ community share the same rights as everybody else. 

One can stand up for the rights of others WITHOUT endorsing their activity... 

excon

MineSubCraftStarved

@conservativebritish
I consider it rather degenerate and, in the cases of transgender people, delusional. However, it is ultimately a person's choice. If a person wants to shoot themselves in the foot, they should be allowed to, just as if a person wants to have sex with a person of the same gender, they should be allowed the freedom to do that act.

just_sayin

Some specific ideologies being pushed are not good for society.  The belief that a social construct view of gender can be applied to biological sex is not just illogical, but leads to unjust situations.  The reason men and women's sports are divided is not because of the social differences between men and women, but because of the biological differences.  Men, on average, have greater muscle mass, are faster, have longer strides, are taller, and have greater lung capacity.  Some have argued that biological men who identify as women should be allowed to compete in sports against biological women.  This is not fair to biological women.  Studies show that even after a year of hormone therapy biological males retain 95% of their muscle mass, and also retain their other biological advantages as well.  

The belief that parents should not be notified if their child is trying to transition is also a destructive belief, as it puts one's personal political beliefs above the rights of the parent and ultimately the safety of the child.  Children dealing with gender dysphoria are at a much higher risk of suicide.  To hide this issue from a parent is wrong.

Some pushed beliefs are especially dangerous to children.  For example, what the media has labeled "gender affirming care" is really pushing bodily mutilation of children and/or the taking of drugs, like Lupron, which can increase the risk of stroke, heart attack, sterility, bone density problems, and cognitive development issues.  Studies show that there is about an 80% desistance rate that a child who identifies as a gender different than their biological sex will not do so as an adult.  Children do not have the cognitive ability to understand the long term consequences of these decisions.  For these reasons, very liberal countries like Sweden, Norway, France, etc.  have restricted puberty blockers and surgeries like mastectomies for children with gender dysphoria.  Yet, many have put their political agenda before the well being of children.   

These are just a few beliefs involving the LGBTQ+ community which are not beneficial.

Nomenclature

@just_sayin

Some specific ideologies being pushed are not good for society.

Yup. Like the ones which say we should execute homosexuals, you crazy fanatic.

“If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

just_sayin

@Nomenclature

My comments were focused on very specific beliefs regarding LGBTQ+ agenda and addressed 3 specific situations.  Your comment ignored my points and showed a lack of understanding of the Christian faith.  Not only did you falsely suggest I believe homosexuals should be killed, but you falsely characterized the Christian faith.  I've noticed that you have done this multiple times in various discussions.  Probably about 1/5 of the New Testament addresses why it is not like the Old Testament and how Christians are not under the Old Covenant.  The New Testament does not say to kill homosexuals.  Actually, 1 Corinthians points out that some of the believers use to be homosexuals and were still alive and part of the church.  Is the reason you make a false narrative about Christian beliefs because you are unable to make an argument in support of the prominent LGBTG+ beliefs that I identified?  Just wondering.

Nomenclature

@just_sayin

My comments were focused on very specific beliefs regarding LGBTQ+ agenda

Please spare me your ludicrous efforts to justify your own raging hypocrisy. The LGBTQ agenda doesn't recommend murdering anybody like the Bible does. 

You're attacking people for what they are, not what they've done, which is bigotry. You can huff and puff all you like, but the objective fact of the matter is that you're a bigot. 

just_sayin

@Nomenclature
You're attacking people for what they are, not what they've done, which is bigotry. 

Your claim is false.  To suggest that a social definition of gender therefore alters the biological is a also a false claim.  The reason men and women's sports are separated is because of biological differences, not social ones.  Therefore to claim that biological men who identify as women should be allowed to compete with biological women is not logical.  It is unfair to biological women.  This is not "bigotry" to the biological male to ask him/her to compete with his/her own biological sex.  It is however sexist to take away opportunities to win sporting competitions and scholarships for winning these events from women.

Nomenclature

@just_sayin

Your claim is false.

No it isn't. You're a fanatical Christian bigot criticising gays for being gay.

To suggest that a social definition of gender therefore alters the biological is a also a false claim.

I'm not interested in your bizarre straw man arguments you unhinged lunatic.

The reason men and women's sports are separated is because of biological differences, not social ones. 

Men and women's sports don't have anything to do with being gay. You're an imbecile.

just_sayin

@Nomenclature made a bunch of personal attacks You can be part of the LGBTQ+ community and think that biological males should not compete with biological females, even if they the biological males identifies as a female. So, rather than engaging in ad hominem attacks, why not address the argument that it is unfair to biological women for biological men, who identify as women, to compete in women's sports? Unless, you are not able to refute the argument. As pointed out, and never refuted, the average biological male has more muscle mass, is taller, has a longer stride, is faster, and has greater lung capacity. Even after a year of hormone therapy, biological males retain their advantage, retaining 95% of their muscle mass.

just_sayin

@Nomenclature made a bunch of personal attacks You can be part of the LGBTQ+ community and think that biological males should not compete with biological females, even if they the biological males identifies as a female. So, rather than engaging in ad hominem attacks, why not address the argument that it is unfair to biological women for biological men, who identify as women, to compete in women's sports? Unless, you are not able to refute the argument.

 As pointed out, and never refuted, the average biological male has more muscle mass, is taller, has a longer stride, is faster, and has greater lung capacity. Even after a year of hormone therapy, biological males retain their advantage, retaining 95% of their muscle mass.

Nomenclature

@just_sayin

made a bunch of personal attacks

Oh, the fanatical gay-hating bigot is accusing me of personal attacks? That's awesome.

just_sayin

Argument Topic: The bodily mutilation of children is immoral

A popular belief is that one should support a child's gender dysphoria with what has been labeled "gender affirming care".  Often what is meant is that surgeries which cut off a girl's healthy breasts or surgeries which alter the penis or vagina should be done on minors.  Generally puberty blockers, like Lupron, are given to prevent the child from experiencing their normal sexual development.  Why would anyone oppose "gender affirming care"?  Actually, most countries, even very liberal ones, recommend against the "gender affirm care" approach.

First, it is important to realize that, on average, 80% of minors who identify as a gender different than their biological one, will not identify as that gender as an adult.  The vast majority of long term studies show this with 15 more showing a range of desistance rates of between 50 - 96% (80% being the average).  Why would any one advocate for mutilating a child's body if there is an 80% chance that the child will identify as the gender they were born with when they become an adult?

Secondly, there are some risks involved in using puberty blockers for gender dysphoria.  Puberty blockers, like Lupron, were not authorized for long term use for gender dysphoria.  The FDA lists the following as possible side effects of Lupron, the most common puberty blocker prescribed: strokes, heart attack, severe bone density loss and deformity, sterility, depression, loss of interest in sex, dizziness, cognitive development issues, and rapid weight gain.  Some will argue that there are no longer term  risks of using Lupron.  However, that is false as the FDA and CDC have noted.  In fact the lead tester for Lupron has spoken out against its use for gender dysphoria, pointing out that the testing done on the drug was not for gender dysphoria in children and not for long periods of time.

Third, bodily mutilation can leave a child physically and emotionally scared.  Cutting off healthy breasts or transitioning  a penis into a vagina can result in permanent health issues.

Fourth, countries considered quite accepting of transgender youth, such as Sweden, Norway, and France have changed their guidance regarding treatment away from surgery and hormone therapy for minors.  

Nomenclature

@just_sayin

The bodily mutilation of children is immoral

That's a bit of a strange thing to say given that you worship a Jew. You're aware of what Jews do to newborn males, yes?

just_sayin

@Nomenclature
So are you saying the bodily mutilation of children is wrong?  It seems like you may the hypocritical one.  Claiming that Jews are wrong to circumcise a child, but LGBTQ+ extremists are just for loping off a pair of healthy breasts from a 10 year old girl.  At least when the Jews cut the penis, its only the foreskin, and they aren't turning it into a vagina.

Nomenclature

@just_sayin

So are you saying the bodily mutilation of children is wrong? 

I'm saying that you're a hypocrite. I thought that was fairly obvious.

Claiming that Jews are wrong to circumcise a child, but LGBTQ+ extremists are just for loping off a pair of healthy breasts from a 10 year old girl

What are you even talking about? Number one, I never claimed anything of the sort. Number two, I've never met any gay person who wants to cut the breasts off a 10 year old girl, whereas circumcising boys is something written into the Jewish culture.

You are utterly mad.

ToniMassari

@debate_handgewhy would you need to put straight people posters all over the place, they're already there.. it's called the WORLD

ToniMassari

Argument Topic: Sources are essential for debate

Could people please cite their sources? Else it's impossible to substantiate without undertaking extensive research for each argument presented... e.g. Lupron, above.

Also, the USA is not the world, what may not be licensed there may be routinely used in Europe, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa or many other Countries.

ToniMassari

Argument Topic: Conflating arguments reveals dishonest intent

@conservativebritishFYI LGBTQIA+ people don't "push their views down peopke's throats" andymore than Black people did, when they demanded the right to exist without persecution and without being relegated to third class status.

ToniMassari

Argument Topic: Gender roles only emerged in settled Agrarian society

@conservativebritish ; I am afraid this only reveals your ignorance of Anthropology...
Please make a habit of researching and READING before writing frankly uterly debunked fantasy.

Regrettably you'd need access to either Jstor, Springer or Science magazine to read the original peer-reviewed academic articles. Below is a summary from The Guardian (UK), a reputable and well-read mainstream British paper (for those unfamiliar with it).

But, by way of a summary: hunter-gatherer societies are still today more egalitarian than settled Agrarian ones, with women contributing a significant portion of the tribes' and clans' food and clothings. This creates status amongst women who are the best leather workers, the best trackers, fruit pickers etc. Some would have also had the skills for hunting that do not necessarily require brute force, arrows, spears, trapping etc.

This means that Elders and less physically able members of the tribe would have been responsible for rearing children, once they were weaned, as well as doing much of the work of grinding grains, preserving meats, and otehr sedentary tasks, so leaving their mothers free to return to daily activities, like collecting flax for cloth, gathering grain, fruit, fishing in rivers etc.

This because the tribes and clans would need ALL the produce they could gather in the good season - whether that be the dry season, in northern latitudes, or the rainy season in dryer climates.

With the Agrarian Revilution, and especially illustrated by Central Anatolia, and the first City Çatal Huyük, the domestication of plants and animals began to relegate women in the newly developed permanent buildings. As males continued to be free to hunt for weeks on end, women instead began to be tied down to the tasks required to process the growing volumes of grains cultivated in the new fields established out in the grasslands of Central Anatolia.

Thic created a set of frictions tha were resolved by the advent of Patriarchal tactics, that ranged from new mytholigies - that demeaned females (until then prominent in the clay figurines of the era) and advent of male gods - to violence, that forced women inside the houses so cleverly built with openings in the roof, so that withdrawing the laddre on exiting would lock women and children in the house, to carry out whatever chores may be deemed desirable by the males.

So, you see, patriarchal, self-serving imperatives are responsible for modern gender roles, and the sequence can reasonably be reconstructed as

Control over crops  > Settled Agrarian Society > Patriarchy > Father Religions > Monotheism >  Appropriation of women's bodies and progeny > Appropriation of land and animals > Capitalism.

I sugest you read a bit around the Agrarian Revolution and its 12,000 years reach.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/14/early-men-women-equal-scientists

ToniMassari

Argument Topic: " why cant they just stay in their own bathrooms where they arent causing discomfort to the people around them ..."

@conservativebritish Not so much a CON-serve-a-THIEF, as much as a NAZI, aren't you?

ToniMassari

Argument Topic: So who are the perpetrators of the worst sex crimes? is it gay men? Or straight ones?

has it occurred to @conservativebritish and others like him that the majority of sex crimes, from unwanted touching, harrassment, stalking, sexual assault, rape, violent rape, abduction, criminal incarceration, sexual torture and murder involves males assaulting women AND CHILDREN???

You might like to take a look in the mirror matey!!! Have YOU ever touched a woman against her will? How would you know? Did you ASK for permission? From your sense of superiority I surmise you would not feel the need, because you might feel fully ENTITLED to take what you want!

anarchist100

ToniMassari said:

@conservativebritish Not so much a CON-serve-a-THIEF, as much as a NAZI, aren't you?

ToniMassari said:

has it occurred to @conservativebritish and others like him that the majority of sex crimes, from unwanted touching, harrassment, stalking, sexual assault, rape, violent rape, abduction, criminal incarceration, sexual torture and murder involves males assaulting women AND CHILDREN???

You might like to take a look in the mirror matey!!! Have YOU ever touched a woman against her will? How would you know? Did you ASK for permission? From your sense of superiority I surmise you would not feel the need, because you might feel fully ENTITLED to take what you want!

Ad Hominins, your indults do nothing to prove your point, they demonstrate emotional investment in these debate issues which is bad for objective reasoning, and it's just not nice. Don't be jerk.

Kekee

The problem is not that people are gay and such. The problem is that who you sleep with should have no effect on who you are, promoting are you into men and women comes off as a bit weird.

I have my own preferences but I never tell people about my preferences, cause I think that preferences should remain as private matters.

You can be as gay as you want just no need to tell people about it. 

So answer is no. 

People can stay who they are but the self commercialition should stop.

just_sayin

It is unfair for biological males to compete against females in sports such as track an swimming.  Biological males are stronger, faster, have more muscle mass, larger hearts, greater lung capacity, are taller, and have a longer stride.  This comes from a lifetime of testosterone.  Studies show that biological males maintain this advantage even after a year of hormone therapy (retaining 95% of their muscle mass).  This is simply unfair to women.  The reason that sports are split into male and female to start with is because of the biological differences.  Pretending that this is fair competition for biological women is to not care about their interests and to respect the differences in biologicals males and females.

MineSubCraftStarved

@conservativebritish
It definitely has a negative impact. The fact of the matter is that the acceptance of such practices ultimately will lead to a large diminishing in birth rates, as homosexuals cannot have children... The acceptance of such actions will also ultimately lead to society focusing more on sex, and sexual relations cannot aid the productivity, intelligence, and civility of any community.
I think the transgender movement especially is destructive towards society, the abandonment of biological differences between men and women in favor of constructivist ideas of gender identity will only result in a worse culture. Gender differences exist, and to ignore that and permanently change your body, and confusing yourself can only hurt you. A man cannot become a woman, for a woman cannot do the same things as a woman, is not built as a woman, and does not think in a feminine mode, and vice versa.