Etherton wrote:
This right here. Pushing an agenda through at any cost. And, the cost here is this child's whole life's trajectory has been significantly redirected. There were outside influences.
My goodness. The question is who do think has an agenda?
From what we have been told, it is not the parents. Denny points out they are trying to be neutral, neither encouraging or discouraging the behavior.
Denny has not said why he posted the photograph. We can't know from the information presented and just because he chose to post the image doesn't necessarily mean he has an agenda.
I guess you can say I have an agenda, and that is to promote knowledge and understanding. I'm left handed. Not many years ago forcing a left handed person to use their right hand, especially to write was widespread (sinister means left, eg the sinister hand is the left hand). Small minded, superstitious people even thought we were cursed. Luckily, most people now are more enlightened. There are a number of interesting theories, but us lefties just "are".
New medical, genetic and other research are finding possible explanations for gender identity. When there is gender confusion, it could be biological, such as the XX chromosome phenomenon or the inability of testosterone receptors to properly absorb the hormonal baths in utero.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy".
Hamlet, 1.5.167-168
I want to show a picture and explain its real background.
Although this discussion does not belong in this forum, I think it is interesting.
I wonder what you mean by that it would be detrimental if parents support the child in the sense of being born into the wrong gender? I think the previous comparison with children want to be dinosaur is pretty poor. It is hard to imagine that a child has equally strong desire to be a dinosarie that some children have the feeling of being born into the wrong gender.
I keep hearing things like, Some of us believe..." or "I believe.." Please understand that believing something does not make it true. Maybe you are right, maybe not, but beliefs themselves are meaningless.
In order to be valid at all, a belief must be based on facts, truth, or experience. The facts don't care what you believe. The truth does not care what you believe. And unless you have some scientific evidence to back up your "beliefs," then you are doing a disservice by expressing them as though they had some validity. You should keep your beliefs to yourself. You can believe anything you want, but the more you believe that is not backed up by evidence, the less you can interact with the world in a meaningful way.
The fact that so many people believe things that are demonstrably not true is an existential threat.
KristinSmall wrote:
I agree with Lisa and it's the reason I spoke up. I saw that there was a call to end this topic of conversation, but is it only asked of one side? If not, I have plenty more to say if the attacks are starting. As a mother (and I'm sure Lisa agrees) it's hard not to speak up when children are abused or are being used to justify and affirm adult behavior and ideas. I hope this child is not emotionally hurt should he see his portrait posted on the Internet like this one day.
You are making some big assumptions without knowing the details. The photographer said that the parents (at this stage) are remaining neutral in their child's gender development. Do I interpret you correctly when you say that this child is being "abused," and that abuse is somehow justifying or affirming adult behavior and ideas (e.g., his parents?) What ideas or behavior are those?
You might consider obtaining more facts and context before playing CPS to a little boy in Sweden, or proclaiming (as some others have) that the those encouraging you to keep your beliefs to yourself are pushing an agenda. Alternatively, why not act on your concerns and find a way to report this apparent abuse (it's been documented for you, after all) to the local authorities. Let's see what they have to say about it - I have a few guesses about how that will go down.
You gotta be kidding me. A young child's face photo published with this backstory and the swarming conversation about it --- on the internet? Fuck's sake. The page is no doubt botted and archived already but the thread needs to be deleted posthaste.
I'll throw in my two cents before this string disappears. Where everyone is getting all fired up over Lisa and Kristin's position, you're neglecting to take into consideration one very important thing.
Lisa and Kristin are expressing their position based on their beliefs. It doesn't matter if there is scientific or medical proof behind their beliefs, it is their beliefs and they're entitled to them. Further, they feel so strongly about their beliefs that they feel compelled to express their position. If you think about it, there is absolutely no harm in this. They feel they need to express themselves on behalf of the child, and so they have. Why not accept what they say at face value and not be concerned about whether they are right or wrong?
Here's the thing. We've become so easily offended by anyone saying anything about anybody. It's become ridiculous. I'd like to think that we celebrate those who are willing to stand up and express their opinions, whether we agree with them or not, whether they are based on facts or just their opinion. These are usually the first people to say something when they see wrongdoing in their community, while so many others will stay quiet because no one else is saying anything.
If we disagree with their position, that's okay. If we feel strongly enough to express ourselves, do it. But let's not do it in a way that we silence (or attempt to silence) those who believe differently than us. In today's world, I think we need to be a little more open to opinions that are different from our own. Maybe even consider the opinion as opposed to just discarding it because there's no immediate scientific proof or medical proof or whatever to support it.
If we all thought the same, if we all had the same beliefs, there wouldn't be much progression in humanity or science or whatever. No one would ever challenge anything.
My final thoughts on this are for Doug. As a lefty, Doug, it's a good thing you were forced to click the shutter button with a finger on your right hand or who knows how badly those pics throughout your career would have turned out if shot by a true lefty.
The lighting looks soft and even, but I don't like the solid background. I'd like to see some sort of background transition. Looks like he's floating on my screen.
Dennyw wrote:
Okey, it would be nice to have some comments about the photo.
/Denny
If you had simply posted the pic and not titled it the way you did, or given the background -- all of which is irrelevant to the quality of the image -- you would have gotten comments specific to the photo itself instead of the social commentary. You made this bed, you sleep in it. Next time you want comments specific to the image itself, don't provide provocative context related to social issues. Just sayin'.
friscoron wrote:
If you had simply posted the pic and not titled it the way you did, or given the background -- all of which is irrelevant to the quality of the image -- you would have gotten comments specific to the photo itself instead of the social commentary. You made this bed, you sleep in it. Next time you want comments specific to the image itself, don't provide provocative context related to social issues. Just sayin'.
Good grief! What stupid, insensitive comment. Why don't you find some other forum to vent your anger and hate.
It's really not stupid or insensitive, and I feel no anger or hate. I'm simply explaining why this thread has been focused on the social context around his subject instead of the picture itself. The OP invited the social commentary with his backstory. And that's perfectly fine by me. I appreciated understanding the context behind the photo. But, like it or not, when you provide context like that, there's going to be a lot of focus on the social issues instead of the photo itself. Thus, he made his bed.
By the way, if you think that I'm being judgmental to the child, the child's parents. the photograph, or any related to that issue, you're sorely mistaken. There's not a single word I've written that shares my feelings about that issue. If you knew anything about me, or anything about my education, you might be a little less judgmental.
I do think I'll stick around here awhile but thanks for showing me the door.
Transagendeer kids are going though what gay kids did for centuries. So sad. Yet mister popie pontificates upon a stone age gawd's supposed wisdom. Sadly, the god frankie claims is now so ignorant as to be useless.
friscoron wrote:
If you had simply posted the pic and not titled it the way you did, or given the background -- all of which is irrelevant to the quality of the image -- you would have gotten comments specific to the photo itself instead of the social commentary..
From another post by you: friscoron wrote:
Really nice, thanks for sharing and the backstory.
I think Denny felt the backstory of his image was just as relevant as the other photographer that prompted the above quote.
I feel that his title and explanation helped us understand the photo. No, it wasn't him that ran it off the rails. Take your blinkers off.
Because of the nature of the comments toward Lisa and Kristin, as well as the completely gratuitous comment to Friscoron's completely neutral characterization of the debate, I am prompted to comment as well. Both the title of the post and the backstory of the photo made this a thread about gender dysphoria. Had it been about the photo, the title would be something like "Child in a Pink Dress." To throw down a gauntlet and then feign shock that someone accepted the challenge is disingenuous to say the least.
By the way, Lisa's remark about lions and dinosaurs was more apropos than she possibly realized. One of my freshman composition students this term wrote a paper about the differences between anthropomorphic animals and therianthropes; I went scurrying to the dictionary and learned that some of these "furries" suffer from species dysphoria. It is a slippery slope indeed, and I'm afraid we're sliding fast.
The thing is, I don't disagree with you at all, Doug. But in today's internet world, on a forum, if you show a picture that goes along with a topic -- if the topic is controversial, then a lot of ppl (not everyone, myself included) are going to focus on the topic and not the image. That's just reality. This thread actually proves my point.
I've actually still never said anything about the social issue, nor have I commented on the image itself. Everyone seemed to be going off on each other for expressing their feelings one way or the other on this particular social issue, and I'm just trying to say that's going to happen on an internet forum, and let's just accept each other regardless of our differences of opinions, or our need to express them.
As for you, Doug, don't be going all lefty on me now.
VickiB wrote:
Both the title of the post and the backstory of the photo made this a thread about gender dysphoria. Had it been about the photo, the title would be something like "Child in a Pink Dress." To throw down a gauntlet and then feign shock that someone accepted the challenge is disingenuous to say the least.
This is exactly on the money. I wish I had said it so well.
Archive 2016 · Åke the boy who wants to be a girl
