I want to quote from my late friend Steven Goldberg’s (he went to his judgement in 2022) book When Wish Replaces Thought: Why So Much of What You Believe is False, a work all of you should own.
The Anglican Church, founded by an Adulterer, accepted contraception at the 1930 Lambeth Conference. This was the first "denomination" to break with Christian prohibition on the use of contraception.
No accident that the Episcopal Church in the United States was the first to accept Sodomy, with its 1976 resolution affirming LGBTQ+ individuals' equal claim to the church's love and support, and its 2003 consecration of the first openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson.
Contraception separates-babies-from-the-marital-bond. Making sex ultimately nothing more than mutual masturbation. With that... the societal argument agains sodomy vanishes. Contraception is now so widespread in the Western world that it's beyond thinking (and research apparently). Other consequences of a contraceptive mindset is the need for direct killing when there is a contraceptive failure... and the treatment of women and children as objects.
The greatest kept secret is there is no need for contraception, Today it is possible to accurately know when a woman is or is not fertile and to avoid relations in a fertile period for serious reasons. (not rhythm, but accurate day to day measure... )
The greatest Lynch pin of the LGBTQ remake of Creation is the acceptance of Sodomy... break that and the LGBTQ insanity would melt away...
So is it your contention that it is immoral or wrong that contraception is less acceptable than periodic celibacy?
There are thousands (millions) of homosexual individuals and couples to whom sodomy is abhorrent. Basically the female homosexual has little or no inclination towards anal sex.
I cannot see how you can make the a connection between contraception (in any form) and the treatment of women and kids as objects.
I guess because with contraception, you can screw to your heart's content and not worry about the consequences, aside from STDs and AIDS, for which we now have Prep and Pep. Which leads to promiscuity, or encourages it. So women are seen as interchangeable, disposable people in relationships, not as someone special. Just my opinion.
Without contraception, men screwed to their heart's content. The 'cost' fell on the woman.
Your claim "... women are seen as interchangeable, disposable people in relationships, not as someone special. " applies more so to women ( men are seen as interchangeable, disposable people in relationships, not as someone special.)than to men. 80% of divorce are initiated by women and 100% of divorce, the women get more than the men.
It is the man who is usually the most committed to home, family and fidelity. not the woman (especially since WW2) [Interesting fact, more than 20% of second children are not fathered by the husband. A la Harry et al]
Churchill once said "The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." I contend that the greatest argument against heterosexual marriage (or any heterosexual relationship) is a five minute conversation with the average woman.
This is from a man who has been married for 58 years. (She is not in any way average)
With God being exiled from the lives of Western man, the god in the mirror has replaced Him as final arbiter. And, as Dostoevsky correctly noted, all is permissible at that point, including sex with children-- the final battle of that the sexual revolutionaries are arming themselves for.
Our Lady of Fatima warned of Satan's desire to destroy the family. It's disheartening to see almost all Christian churches assist him in this effort by failing to defend the sanctity of marriage.
Hmm. I don't like the idea of *forbidding* cross-dressing. A bureaucracy dedicated to regulating clothing sounds horrible.
But on the same note we shouldn't be regulating mockery thereof, as has been done in Canada and attempted in some states. We need more vicious mockery of unkempt appearance, regardless of the subject's "sexual orientation". I'd probably catch some of that myself but if the standards were raised I'd be happy to rise to meet them.
And private venues should be allowed to enforce dress codes, and that could include "men musn't wear dresses here." But I'm all for throwing out the unCivil Right to force private businesses and residences to provide entry or service.
If we could fix all that we'd probably get back to the point where we rarely see men running around in dresses, and those I think would end up being rounded up on general mental illness grounds. No sartorial bureaucracy necessary.
As to the rest I don't know what "conservative" is supposed to mean anymore. "Progressives driving the speed limit" was pretty spot-on. I'd rather be called reactionary/regressive/luddite/fascist at this point than "conservative" because "conservative" seems to mean "someone always tragically late to embrace the latest fashion."
Yeah conservatives don't conserve anything, they are just grifters that take money for pushing slightly less lefty sounding statements. Andrew Torba and Vox day said it well here: https://voxday.net/2025/10/17/we-are-not-conservatives/
Charlie Kirk also pushed the same nonsense years before he was killed and when he tried shifting to Gods side he was killed. They are not our friends.
Somehow all societies learned that in order to sustain a civilization, male sexual desire (a most powerful force in the universe) must somehow be constrained.
It is clear that societies learned that allowing such behaviors would create a slippery slope (no pun, well OK a pun) resulting in more abhorrent activities being nominated for normalization. Eventually the society would stop being a civilization and then fail as a society.
Homosexuals should not take it personally (though they love to do so), there is more than enough societal destruction from heterosexual activities that are also (or at least used to be) viewed as unacceptable.
The ladies may be insulted, but I view female homosexual activity as much less dangerous (if at all) as that of males. Equality is not symmetry.
Homosexuality has been around for millennia, which is not an excuse for normalization; however, it must be taken into account when trying to "manage" such intractable behaviors.
The notion of immorality was used as a technique when we had a more illiterate society as well as more god fearing. Alas, the best that liberal societies could do is to tolerate "grey zones" allowing a degree of subjective judgement by the authorities when enforcing morality laws.
While far from a perfect solution, it at least allowed some "steam" to be released while maintaining a public somewhat moral environment. This was not acceptable to some as the societal guilt was too much to bear and besides the hetero population was able to have their morals loosened up, so why not the rest of us?
Find it ironic that the founding myth of homosexual rebellion in the US (the Stonewall "riot") was apparently a police action aimed at a bar in New York known to be a homosexual prostitution site (allowed as part of the grey zone) but also a distribution point for child pornography.
Periodic "continence".... respect for women, respect for fertility, respect for new life.. -are all related. The sad part is the effects were all predicted and ignored... a frog in the water effect too.
"American Conservative" needs a clear definition: "In this I believe...."
Stan Evans wrote a declaration, back in the 70s, of what American conservatism was.
We need the same thing now.
Since then, we've had waves of fakers (neo-conmen) inserting themselves into American conservative organizations and media. Each time it looks like a Normal Conservative movement is gaining strength and support from Normal Americans, the usurpers quickly co-opt and destroy it: see the TEA Party and MAGA.
These fakers pretty much have one agenda--force American Conservatives to pay homage to Israel.
It would be interesting to see the correlation of fake "conservative" influencers/pundits who are celebrating perverts/fags/cross-dressers/fake "marriages/etc with those who are full-throated supporters of Israel, especially the recent Netanyahu sponsored $7000/trick whores. That Rubin worm is probably the best example--full-on pervert, full-on Israeli dual-citizen, full-on fake "Conservative American."
Those fakers have never cared about cultural conservative issues, except insofar as their support for such issues allows them to worm their way in to actual Conservative American circles, in order to press for American blood and money for their hostile foreign sponsor.
You illustrate a very common misunderstanding here. The political/moral conflict is not between capitalists and socialists, right vs left, or conservatives vs progressives - it is between those who see people equally responsible for their own actions and those who see only a heirarcy with the king or state ultimately responsible for every action.
Modern republicans are generally conservative because we drag down, but do not stop progressive change - but remember that the GOP started as the very liberal anti-slavery party. Understand the New Testament as the Covenant come again and the American revolution as Christian in both essence and execution, and you see why we support Isreal - Exodus was, after all, the first real example of a people declaring themselves free of kings and ndependently responsible for themselves.
No misunderstanding on this side, Paul. My research and analysis has revealed very clearly that "right vs left" is meaningless in America today.
"But, for the last 50 years or so, the paradigm of "Left" vs. "Right" in the USA is meaningless. The only dichotomy that makes sense is PC-Progressive vs Normal American.
Considering social/economic/political beliefs, what might be considered "Left" or "Right" beliefs switch back and forth constantly (in slow motion, but constantly). Lots of examples of this."
But that's not the issue here--it's American political movements being co-opted by a hostile foreign power. All the babble about "chosen ones," and Pharaoh, and all the other nonsense is nearly treasonous. Nothing to do with America, Americans, or American interests. If you are loyal to a hostile foreign power, that's called treason, doesn't matter if you think that nation's people are "special" or not. There's nothing holding any Protestant Zionists to stay in the USA. If they revere that hostile foreign power over America, then go there. Leave Americans alone.
As for the Founding Fathers and Jews:
"President Thomas Jefferson offered abstract support for religious liberty combined with Deistic disdain for Jews and Judaism: “Jews hold ideas that are degrading and injurious to Jesus … possess imperfect and immoral ethics, and … their social behavior is repulsive.”
"John Quincy Adams was brought up on Bible reading, but had a less charitable attitude towards Jews. He reiterated his father’s hope for the “rebuilding of Judea as an independent nation.” Yet, as early as the 1790s, he complained in his diary about Jewish money changers in London, and publicly recoiled from the Jews of Frankfurt because the “word filth conveys an idea of spotless purity in comparison with Jewish nastiness.”
Not until the Schofield Bible were misguided American Protestants twisted into worshiping the self-proclaimed Chosen Ones.
"Understand the New Testament as the Covenant come again and the American revolution as Christian in both essence and execution, and you see why we support Isreal - Exodus was, after all, the first real example of a people declaring themselves free of kings and ndependently responsible for themselves.:"
You've distilled the essence of the Zionist influence payload: "You Americans are nothing without Jewish history. You are a pitiful appendage to the Chosen Ones' glorious past, present and future. America's struggles for freedom, liberty, individual rights, free enterprise are just poor imitations of the glorious Godly Jewish race. Shut up and do as you're told."
This view is pitiful cuckoldry at its most debased. Those Americans who accept this self-hating foreign influence are nothing short of traitors. They need to be expelled from all American political life. That is why we need a Conservative Creed. We need to explicitly delineate that MAGA is conservative, and MIGA is traitorous.
The shining example of Zionist "Christianity:"
"Zionist pastor John Hagee at Christians United for Israel conference: Jews are a "chosen people" who are "above all the people on the face of the earth."
That includes the United States of America," he says."
From the perspective of how ideas evolve, "Lowering the age of 'consent'" is the wrong way of looking at it. What is evolving is an IDENTITY of consent. We have, on the one side, children having sex with children, which is perfectly "natural and okay" so long as it´s "consensual", and the same thing on the other side for adults. It´s this strict, but impossibly foggy, line of demarcation that will be eventually obliterated, with the creation of a new moral identity. This "consensual" identity will not be merely a revision of the existing moral code, but something entirely new, as certainly as Christianity was entirely new in its duel with Roman paganism.
But, should you think this is a REALLY BAD IDEA, then you have to start banning kids from having sex altogether, just like in the good old days of old-time Catholic middle-school. And once again, you must ensure that the Sisters will be placing the fear of God into the imagination of young boys - or at least the fear of GOING BLIND - if they "do it".
And I apologize for the length of this comment, but it´s my intention to give Briggs a more solid foundation for his PIUS X line of argument - a servant of God who was, by the way, one of the last, truly great reactionary Popes (see his thinking on doing the TANGO, for example).
There is still a stubborn cohort of conservatives who rightly see sodomy as diabolical. These are the proles as opposed to the beautiful people though. You already see the goalposts being shifted as conservative pundits now only express how sex-change operations should only not be done on children, and adults should have the right to. Forget that any sort of surgery, at any age, is malpractice.
From 107 583 patients, matched cohorts demonstrated that those undergoing surgery were at significantly higher risk for depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, and substance use disorders than those without surgery. Males with surgery showed a higher prevalence of depression (25.4% vs. 11.5%, RR 2.203, P < 0.0001) and anxiety (12.8% vs. 2.6%, RR 4.882, P < 0.0001). Females exhibited similar trends, with elevated depression (22.9% vs. 14.6%, RR 1.563, P < 0.0001) and anxiety (10.5% vs. 7.1%, RR 1.478, P < 0.0001). Feminizing individuals demonstrated particularly high risk for depression (RR 1.783, P = 0.0298) and substance use disorders (RR 1.284, P < 0.0001).
Clinical implications
Findings suggest the necessity for gender-sensitive mental health support following gender-affirming surgery to address post-surgical psychological risks."
This seems like closing the barn door after the horse has escaped. Would it not be more to the point to offer mental health support when an individual has first been diagnosed with body-dysmorphic disorder?
Yes it would be more to the point and also obviously better for the patient but neither of those two factors are more important than long-term profitability to those running the show. With surgeries, they have not only a patient for life but a patient in need of ever increasing and high profit margin treatments. Surgical trans are their goose laying golden eggs. And taxpayers are increasingly going to pay for it. Our societies seem hell bent on self destruction.
I know it’s cliche to say, but it is true: conservatism is merely liberalism (revolution) at slow speed. Left and Right liberals believe in the same utopian vision. They only differ on how to get there; Left liberalism via social justice (as a collective). Right liberalism via ‘merit’ (as individuals). And that is why the discourse is fake and gay—and so tiresome. Sigh!
Support for the reduction in age of majority for purposes of marriage and its accompanying activities may rise in future with a demographic shift toward more followers of a certain religion stuck in the sixth century. Taboos against multiple marriages and marrying cousins and uncles may also wane for the same reason.
The great conundrum to me is "the philosophical idea that one can be 'born in the wrong body.'" It seems that this belief has been accepted without proof or evidence, instead of asking why, when an individual exhibits symptoms of "gender dysphoria", it is automatically the body rather than the brain that needs alteration. It could just as easily be (and also without proof or evidence) that one can be born with the wrong brain.
The Anglican Church, founded by an Adulterer, accepted contraception at the 1930 Lambeth Conference. This was the first "denomination" to break with Christian prohibition on the use of contraception.
No accident that the Episcopal Church in the United States was the first to accept Sodomy, with its 1976 resolution affirming LGBTQ+ individuals' equal claim to the church's love and support, and its 2003 consecration of the first openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson.
Contraception separates-babies-from-the-marital-bond. Making sex ultimately nothing more than mutual masturbation. With that... the societal argument agains sodomy vanishes. Contraception is now so widespread in the Western world that it's beyond thinking (and research apparently). Other consequences of a contraceptive mindset is the need for direct killing when there is a contraceptive failure... and the treatment of women and children as objects.
The greatest kept secret is there is no need for contraception, Today it is possible to accurately know when a woman is or is not fertile and to avoid relations in a fertile period for serious reasons. (not rhythm, but accurate day to day measure... )
The greatest Lynch pin of the LGBTQ remake of Creation is the acceptance of Sodomy... break that and the LGBTQ insanity would melt away...
So is it your contention that it is immoral or wrong that contraception is less acceptable than periodic celibacy?
There are thousands (millions) of homosexual individuals and couples to whom sodomy is abhorrent. Basically the female homosexual has little or no inclination towards anal sex.
I cannot see how you can make the a connection between contraception (in any form) and the treatment of women and kids as objects.
I guess because with contraception, you can screw to your heart's content and not worry about the consequences, aside from STDs and AIDS, for which we now have Prep and Pep. Which leads to promiscuity, or encourages it. So women are seen as interchangeable, disposable people in relationships, not as someone special. Just my opinion.
Hi Kathy,
Without contraception, men screwed to their heart's content. The 'cost' fell on the woman.
Your claim "... women are seen as interchangeable, disposable people in relationships, not as someone special. " applies more so to women ( men are seen as interchangeable, disposable people in relationships, not as someone special.)than to men. 80% of divorce are initiated by women and 100% of divorce, the women get more than the men.
It is the man who is usually the most committed to home, family and fidelity. not the woman (especially since WW2) [Interesting fact, more than 20% of second children are not fathered by the husband. A la Harry et al]
Churchill once said "The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." I contend that the greatest argument against heterosexual marriage (or any heterosexual relationship) is a five minute conversation with the average woman.
This is from a man who has been married for 58 years. (She is not in any way average)
A black pill with my black coffee.
With God being exiled from the lives of Western man, the god in the mirror has replaced Him as final arbiter. And, as Dostoevsky correctly noted, all is permissible at that point, including sex with children-- the final battle of that the sexual revolutionaries are arming themselves for.
Our Lady of Fatima warned of Satan's desire to destroy the family. It's disheartening to see almost all Christian churches assist him in this effort by failing to defend the sanctity of marriage.
Homosexual priests abusing children is indeed a great tragedy.
As is divorce.
The standard is set by Christ. Without Him, all is permissible. And here we are.
It turns out public schools and friends and family outnumber priests by an enormous margin.
Publicity, however, goes the other way.
https://wmbriggs.substack.com/p/french-perverts
Perceptive but depressing.
Hmm. I don't like the idea of *forbidding* cross-dressing. A bureaucracy dedicated to regulating clothing sounds horrible.
But on the same note we shouldn't be regulating mockery thereof, as has been done in Canada and attempted in some states. We need more vicious mockery of unkempt appearance, regardless of the subject's "sexual orientation". I'd probably catch some of that myself but if the standards were raised I'd be happy to rise to meet them.
And private venues should be allowed to enforce dress codes, and that could include "men musn't wear dresses here." But I'm all for throwing out the unCivil Right to force private businesses and residences to provide entry or service.
If we could fix all that we'd probably get back to the point where we rarely see men running around in dresses, and those I think would end up being rounded up on general mental illness grounds. No sartorial bureaucracy necessary.
As to the rest I don't know what "conservative" is supposed to mean anymore. "Progressives driving the speed limit" was pretty spot-on. I'd rather be called reactionary/regressive/luddite/fascist at this point than "conservative" because "conservative" seems to mean "someone always tragically late to embrace the latest fashion."
This is an important point. Keep clothes unregulated but let opinions be unregulated also.
Yeah conservatives don't conserve anything, they are just grifters that take money for pushing slightly less lefty sounding statements. Andrew Torba and Vox day said it well here: https://voxday.net/2025/10/17/we-are-not-conservatives/
Charlie Kirk also pushed the same nonsense years before he was killed and when he tried shifting to Gods side he was killed. They are not our friends.
Somehow all societies learned that in order to sustain a civilization, male sexual desire (a most powerful force in the universe) must somehow be constrained.
It is clear that societies learned that allowing such behaviors would create a slippery slope (no pun, well OK a pun) resulting in more abhorrent activities being nominated for normalization. Eventually the society would stop being a civilization and then fail as a society.
Homosexuals should not take it personally (though they love to do so), there is more than enough societal destruction from heterosexual activities that are also (or at least used to be) viewed as unacceptable.
The ladies may be insulted, but I view female homosexual activity as much less dangerous (if at all) as that of males. Equality is not symmetry.
Homosexuality has been around for millennia, which is not an excuse for normalization; however, it must be taken into account when trying to "manage" such intractable behaviors.
The notion of immorality was used as a technique when we had a more illiterate society as well as more god fearing. Alas, the best that liberal societies could do is to tolerate "grey zones" allowing a degree of subjective judgement by the authorities when enforcing morality laws.
While far from a perfect solution, it at least allowed some "steam" to be released while maintaining a public somewhat moral environment. This was not acceptable to some as the societal guilt was too much to bear and besides the hetero population was able to have their morals loosened up, so why not the rest of us?
Find it ironic that the founding myth of homosexual rebellion in the US (the Stonewall "riot") was apparently a police action aimed at a bar in New York known to be a homosexual prostitution site (allowed as part of the grey zone) but also a distribution point for child pornography.
Periodic "continence".... respect for women, respect for fertility, respect for new life.. -are all related. The sad part is the effects were all predicted and ignored... a frog in the water effect too.
https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html
(read, and hop out.... )
"American Conservative" needs a clear definition: "In this I believe...."
Stan Evans wrote a declaration, back in the 70s, of what American conservatism was.
We need the same thing now.
Since then, we've had waves of fakers (neo-conmen) inserting themselves into American conservative organizations and media. Each time it looks like a Normal Conservative movement is gaining strength and support from Normal Americans, the usurpers quickly co-opt and destroy it: see the TEA Party and MAGA.
These fakers pretty much have one agenda--force American Conservatives to pay homage to Israel.
It would be interesting to see the correlation of fake "conservative" influencers/pundits who are celebrating perverts/fags/cross-dressers/fake "marriages/etc with those who are full-throated supporters of Israel, especially the recent Netanyahu sponsored $7000/trick whores. That Rubin worm is probably the best example--full-on pervert, full-on Israeli dual-citizen, full-on fake "Conservative American."
Those fakers have never cared about cultural conservative issues, except insofar as their support for such issues allows them to worm their way in to actual Conservative American circles, in order to press for American blood and money for their hostile foreign sponsor.
You illustrate a very common misunderstanding here. The political/moral conflict is not between capitalists and socialists, right vs left, or conservatives vs progressives - it is between those who see people equally responsible for their own actions and those who see only a heirarcy with the king or state ultimately responsible for every action.
Modern republicans are generally conservative because we drag down, but do not stop progressive change - but remember that the GOP started as the very liberal anti-slavery party. Understand the New Testament as the Covenant come again and the American revolution as Christian in both essence and execution, and you see why we support Isreal - Exodus was, after all, the first real example of a people declaring themselves free of kings and ndependently responsible for themselves.
No misunderstanding on this side, Paul. My research and analysis has revealed very clearly that "right vs left" is meaningless in America today.
"But, for the last 50 years or so, the paradigm of "Left" vs. "Right" in the USA is meaningless. The only dichotomy that makes sense is PC-Progressive vs Normal American.
Considering social/economic/political beliefs, what might be considered "Left" or "Right" beliefs switch back and forth constantly (in slow motion, but constantly). Lots of examples of this."
But that's not the issue here--it's American political movements being co-opted by a hostile foreign power. All the babble about "chosen ones," and Pharaoh, and all the other nonsense is nearly treasonous. Nothing to do with America, Americans, or American interests. If you are loyal to a hostile foreign power, that's called treason, doesn't matter if you think that nation's people are "special" or not. There's nothing holding any Protestant Zionists to stay in the USA. If they revere that hostile foreign power over America, then go there. Leave Americans alone.
As for the Founding Fathers and Jews:
"President Thomas Jefferson offered abstract support for religious liberty combined with Deistic disdain for Jews and Judaism: “Jews hold ideas that are degrading and injurious to Jesus … possess imperfect and immoral ethics, and … their social behavior is repulsive.”
"John Quincy Adams was brought up on Bible reading, but had a less charitable attitude towards Jews. He reiterated his father’s hope for the “rebuilding of Judea as an independent nation.” Yet, as early as the 1790s, he complained in his diary about Jewish money changers in London, and publicly recoiled from the Jews of Frankfurt because the “word filth conveys an idea of spotless purity in comparison with Jewish nastiness.”
Not until the Schofield Bible were misguided American Protestants twisted into worshiping the self-proclaimed Chosen Ones.
"Understand the New Testament as the Covenant come again and the American revolution as Christian in both essence and execution, and you see why we support Isreal - Exodus was, after all, the first real example of a people declaring themselves free of kings and ndependently responsible for themselves.:"
You've distilled the essence of the Zionist influence payload: "You Americans are nothing without Jewish history. You are a pitiful appendage to the Chosen Ones' glorious past, present and future. America's struggles for freedom, liberty, individual rights, free enterprise are just poor imitations of the glorious Godly Jewish race. Shut up and do as you're told."
This view is pitiful cuckoldry at its most debased. Those Americans who accept this self-hating foreign influence are nothing short of traitors. They need to be expelled from all American political life. That is why we need a Conservative Creed. We need to explicitly delineate that MAGA is conservative, and MIGA is traitorous.
The shining example of Zionist "Christianity:"
"Zionist pastor John Hagee at Christians United for Israel conference: Jews are a "chosen people" who are "above all the people on the face of the earth."
That includes the United States of America," he says."
https://x.com/i/status/1980824329098232130
From the perspective of how ideas evolve, "Lowering the age of 'consent'" is the wrong way of looking at it. What is evolving is an IDENTITY of consent. We have, on the one side, children having sex with children, which is perfectly "natural and okay" so long as it´s "consensual", and the same thing on the other side for adults. It´s this strict, but impossibly foggy, line of demarcation that will be eventually obliterated, with the creation of a new moral identity. This "consensual" identity will not be merely a revision of the existing moral code, but something entirely new, as certainly as Christianity was entirely new in its duel with Roman paganism.
But, should you think this is a REALLY BAD IDEA, then you have to start banning kids from having sex altogether, just like in the good old days of old-time Catholic middle-school. And once again, you must ensure that the Sisters will be placing the fear of God into the imagination of young boys - or at least the fear of GOING BLIND - if they "do it".
And I apologize for the length of this comment, but it´s my intention to give Briggs a more solid foundation for his PIUS X line of argument - a servant of God who was, by the way, one of the last, truly great reactionary Popes (see his thinking on doing the TANGO, for example).
This has me wondering…whatever happened to anorexia nervosa?
There is still a stubborn cohort of conservatives who rightly see sodomy as diabolical. These are the proles as opposed to the beautiful people though. You already see the goalposts being shifted as conservative pundits now only express how sex-change operations should only not be done on children, and adults should have the right to. Forget that any sort of surgery, at any age, is malpractice.
I'm in that group but because I am Catholic. I wouldn't describe myself as conservative. Not sure what it means these days.
"Results
From 107 583 patients, matched cohorts demonstrated that those undergoing surgery were at significantly higher risk for depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, and substance use disorders than those without surgery. Males with surgery showed a higher prevalence of depression (25.4% vs. 11.5%, RR 2.203, P < 0.0001) and anxiety (12.8% vs. 2.6%, RR 4.882, P < 0.0001). Females exhibited similar trends, with elevated depression (22.9% vs. 14.6%, RR 1.563, P < 0.0001) and anxiety (10.5% vs. 7.1%, RR 1.478, P < 0.0001). Feminizing individuals demonstrated particularly high risk for depression (RR 1.783, P = 0.0298) and substance use disorders (RR 1.284, P < 0.0001).
Clinical implications
Findings suggest the necessity for gender-sensitive mental health support following gender-affirming surgery to address post-surgical psychological risks."
This seems like closing the barn door after the horse has escaped. Would it not be more to the point to offer mental health support when an individual has first been diagnosed with body-dysmorphic disorder?
Yes it would be more to the point and also obviously better for the patient but neither of those two factors are more important than long-term profitability to those running the show. With surgeries, they have not only a patient for life but a patient in need of ever increasing and high profit margin treatments. Surgical trans are their goose laying golden eggs. And taxpayers are increasingly going to pay for it. Our societies seem hell bent on self destruction.
Yes, why is it that one man’s quest for sexual discovery is invariably borne by another man’s wallet?
You’re dead on.
I know it’s cliche to say, but it is true: conservatism is merely liberalism (revolution) at slow speed. Left and Right liberals believe in the same utopian vision. They only differ on how to get there; Left liberalism via social justice (as a collective). Right liberalism via ‘merit’ (as individuals). And that is why the discourse is fake and gay—and so tiresome. Sigh!
Excellent analysis, as always.
Support for the reduction in age of majority for purposes of marriage and its accompanying activities may rise in future with a demographic shift toward more followers of a certain religion stuck in the sixth century. Taboos against multiple marriages and marrying cousins and uncles may also wane for the same reason.
The great conundrum to me is "the philosophical idea that one can be 'born in the wrong body.'" It seems that this belief has been accepted without proof or evidence, instead of asking why, when an individual exhibits symptoms of "gender dysphoria", it is automatically the body rather than the brain that needs alteration. It could just as easily be (and also without proof or evidence) that one can be born with the wrong brain.