Jump to content
  • Welcome to the TransPulse Forums!

    We offer a safe, inclusive community for transgender and gender non-conforming folks, as well as their loved ones, to find support and information.  Join today!

Transphobic World


Mia Marie

Recommended Posts

If we don't pay attention, we will be hunted down and murdered just for being transgender. From what I have read there are 100s of anti-trans laws being pushed through state and federal governments that are created to make us guilty for things we are not guilty of. Most insurances are excluding trans care and gender affirmation. I actually heard that Medicaid has also begun to exclude gender affirmation and I am sure Medicare is also following suit. Why won't the politicians just leave us alone and focus on real crime in this country? I have already had to cancel my bottom surgery last year because my insurance (BCBSTX) said no. The airline I work for put a gender affirmation exclusion clause in the insurance contract but claims they are not breaking any laws, although, I proved them wrong quoting federal laws of non-discrimination. The worst part is they also celebrate pride month. It is just the beginning of trying to ban or existence. 

Link to comment
  • Admin

Some of what you cite, @Mia Marie is true, some are rumors, and some are untrue.  Let's take them one at a time:

 

1.  No one in positions of authority are (yet) advocating for the killing of trans people.  There are some fringe types doing so, but there have always been those types out there.

 

2.  The proliferation of anti-trans youth and a few anti-trans adult legislative bills is real, and getting worse by the week.  Most of the language is copy cat, out of just a handful of ultra-right wing "think tanks" and organizations.

 

3.  I can't say whether the number of insurance companies routinely denying coverage for trans health is "most of" them, or just a few, but yes, there are many.  A very few states such as California have laws making that practice illegal.

 

4.  Medicare includes coverage currently, which will likely change if Congress and the President are both Republican.  Medicaid is run by the States, and so many R-run states deny coverage, may soon do so or are thinking about it.

 

We have to be careful about exaggeration, but I agree that things are looking far more grim these days than they were 5-10 years ago.

 

Carolyn Marie

Link to comment
  • Forum Moderator

I have to only look back a few years to see how far we have come.  More trans folks are out, living and expressing themselves than ever.  It really isn't surprising that conservative cis folks are reacting.  Hopefully time will bring peace and understanding rather than the attempt to make us somehow disappear.  

I am fortunate to be in NJ.  Here and in most of the blue states acceptance is the norm.

 

Hugs,

 

Charlize

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Charlize said:

Hopefully time will bring peace and understanding rather than the attempt to make us somehow disappear.

That would be nice, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Link to comment
  • Admin
14 hours ago, Carolyn Marie said:

3.  I can't say whether the number of insurance companies routinely denying coverage for trans health is "most of" them, or just a few, but yes, there are many.  A very few states such as California have laws making that practice illegal.

 

It will depend on the state they are operating in.  Anthem / Blue Cross's operations here in my State require that it cover LGBT medicine, but in other states it is not required to do so, even though it is proven to be a better money deal to provice the care.  The employers do not pay more for the plan of coverage here so that contract issue does not work as it did in the Hobby Lobby case. 

14 hours ago, Carolyn Marie said:

We have to be careful about exaggeration, but I agree that things are looking far more grim these days than they were 5-10 years ago

 

The folks bankrolling the bills that go to the states (and it is significant campaign contributions money wise) want us to be panicking and want the H8ers to be feeling empowered and thus sending them more money even though they are probably not the ones with real money.  We do seem to be overwhelming things just now, and do not have the ability to provide education and reassurance to the ignorant rumor believers that we are decent and loving members of society that are no threat tho them or heaven help it, their children. 

Link to comment

I know none of what I wrote is a fabrication. I have a friend in Oregon who is trans and medicaid denied coverage for gender affirmation. Today I saw a video of Trump saying if he is re-elected, he will push all the federal anti-trans bills into law to put an end to us. Who do you think control the thoughts of politicians on the subject but the religious groups who regard us as evil and who also are the main culprits of the misinformation being stated. Here in TX the governor has been pushing for the arrest of parents who allow for their children to start transitioning and receiving gender affirming care. Most red states also have been working to make it illegal for trans people of any age to transition and receive gender affirming care. It wasn't that long ago that baptist and new age christian churches began calling for the states to arrest trans people and put them on trial and convict us for treason and put us to death. On my work side, BCBSTX does have gender affirming care yet, the company put in place the gender affirmation exclusion in the contract. From what was told to me, it didn't used to be there and trans people could receive gender affirming care. I have been fighting this injustice since the company does celebrate pride month and it is a necessary care we need. So, pretty much everything I wrote earlier is true from my research and frrom what I have experienced.  

Link to comment

Things look pretty bleak. I'm hoping it's just lip service because I know Trump has no principals, but he's acting as a mouth piece for the republican platform. I'm no organizer, but if this blatant erosion of rights comes to pass and results in protests, riots, etc. I'll treat these bigots and fascists as well as they deserve.

Link to comment

The US republican party is currently running in its entirety on a platform of anti-trans rhetoric.

 

On 2/1/2023 at 11:10 PM, Carolyn Marie said:

1.  No one in positions of authority are (yet) advocating for the killing of trans people.  There are some fringe types doing so, but there have always been those types out there.

 

They are calling for the eradication of trans people from day-to-day life by excluding us from being able to exist in public as ourselves. This will directly cause deaths amongst trans youth who can't figure themselves out without being exposed to other trans people. I think it's fair to say this is advocating for the death of trans people, and I believe that fact should not be dismissed as exaggeration.

 

On 2/1/2023 at 11:10 PM, Carolyn Marie said:

2.  The proliferation of anti-trans youth and a few anti-trans adult legislative bills is real, and getting worse by the week.  Most of the language is copy cat, out of just a handful of ultra-right wing "think tanks" and organizations.

 

All anti trans-laws are anti-trans in general, anti-trans youth is just a way for them to say "protect the youth" and are just used to try to normalize anti-trans legislation.

 

There is no denying it: their ultimate goal is genocide, not with death camps, but by denying us the ability to publicly exist.

The definition of genocide according to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide is:

"

... any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

"

Admittedly, we aren't a "national, ethnical, racial or religious group", but this is from 1948 and the exclusion of political and social groups is acknowledged to be a problem.

 

 

 

On the bright side, that was their strategy for the midterms and that did not go well for them, so maybe we'll be fine.

 

 

PS, if I seem confrontational, it's just because I am sick of US politicians referring to this as "anti-trans sentiment" and other such mild phrases. It's genocide and saying otherwise is harmful.

PPS, yes, I'm from Canada, but I like to stay informed.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, MiraF said:

The US republican party is currently running in its entirety on a platform of anti-trans rhetoric.

By anti-trans rhetoric I mean trans genocide.

Link to comment

.. any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (prohibiting gender affirming care)

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.  ("child abuse" laws)

Link to comment
  • Forum Moderator
10 hours ago, MiraF said:

By anti-trans rhetoric I mean trans genocide.

 

The Lemkin Institude considers anti-trans rhetoric to be genocidal:

https://www.lemkininstitute.com/statements-new-page/statement-on-the-genocidal-nature-of-the-gender-critical-movement’s-ideology-and-practice

Link to comment
  • Forum Moderator
13 minutes ago, Katie23 said:

We need to turn this around nationally.

 

It is not going to turn around until people start calling out his sponsors.  He and other politicians of the same ilk are introducing the anti-trans legislation because they are paid to.  The sponsors need to be identified and shut down.  And there needs to be legislation severely limiting campaign donations, so that those who would purchase politicians lose their main weapon.  It is going to be like turning around a loaded oil tanker.

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, KathyLauren said:

And there needs to be legislation severely limiting campaign donations, so that those who would purchase politicians lose their main weapon.

I'm thinking the SCOTUS already messed this up with the "Citizens United" decision.  (hope I got the name right)

Link to comment
  • Forum Moderator
13 minutes ago, Ivy said:

I'm thinking the SCOTUS already messed this up with the "Citizens United" decision.  (hope I got the name right)

 

Bummer!

Link to comment
3 hours ago, KathyLauren said:

He and other politicians of the same ilk are introducing the anti-trans legislation because they are paid to.  The sponsors need to be identified and shut down.

We all know who pays the politicians. To shut the sponsors down means the taking down and mostly dismantling of the church, sorry to say but it is the truth.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Katie23 said:

"This campaign brought to you by Kellog's of Battle Creek".

LOL

There is some interesting history behind some of those cereal companies.

Link to comment
19 hours ago, Ivy said:

I'm thinking the SCOTUS already messed this up with the "Citizens United" decision.  (hope I got the name right)

They did and you got it right. What's interesting is that the opinion was written by justice ANthony Kennedy; not exactly a conservative and who has been sharply criticized by the right wing. And, if that isn't enough irony, the only dissenter--and that was on the concurrence--was Clarence Thomas regarded as very conservative by most folks. Evfen Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomayor were on board with the court's decision. Kinda makes you wonder...

Link to comment

The way I understand it, the reason medical insurance companies are denying surgeries and gender-affirming stuff is because it is not medically necessary.  "You can live a long and healthy life in your original body" is how they see it.  Of course, they don't take into account the mental health aspects or the self-harm-prevention aspects.  But then, they don't want to pay to prevent cancer or diabetes, so that shouldn't be a surprise.

 

For the foreseeable future, transgender surgical procedures and gender-affirming treatments will remain in the realm of cosmetic surgery.  Check if your plan covers nose jobs, breast enhancement, or liposuction to find out how it will go for other procedures.  We may not like it, but that's the world we live in right now. 

 

On 2/3/2023 at 5:33 PM, Mia Marie said:

We all know who pays the politicians. To shut the sponsors down means the taking down and mostly dismantling of the church, sorry to say but it is the truth.

 

"THE" church is kind of a myth at this point.  Too many different flavors.  You've got Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, Presbyterians...and the list goes on.  I've seen a couple of places in the city flying rainbow flags, which seems a bit odd.  And there's folks on this forum who are clergy, not to mention others like me who are part of a faith community.  I don't believe that churches are a problem.  And even if they were, who has the right to "dismantle" them?  Regulating faith and establishing censorship might help one cause for a while, to the long-term detriment of liberty in general.  

 

I agree that it would be lovely to eliminate most of the methods people use to finance campaigns.  You could shut down nearly all sponsorship, rather than attempting to target individual sponsors.  It would be nice to have political office within reach of common people, not just those who can amass billions for advertising and dinners.  We'd get rid of both Democrats and Republicans that way.  And term limits to get rid of perpetual office-holders in the House and Senate.  Nobody should be making politics into a profitable career.  Do a few years of sacrificial public service, then go away and live a quiet life. 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, awkward-yet-sweet said:

"THE" church is kind of a myth at this point.  Too many different flavors.  You've got Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, Presbyterians...and the list goes on.  I've seen a couple of places in the city flying rainbow flags, which seems a bit odd.  And there's folks on this forum who are clergy, not to mention others like me who are part of a faith community.  I don't believe that churches are a problem.  And even if they were, who has the right to "dismantle" them?  Regulating faith and establishing censorship might help one cause for a while, to the long-term detriment of liberty in general.

True, there isn't a collective "THE" church at this point, but there is a large collection of powerful religious groups who work together to advance their beliefs. Anyone trying to "dismantle the church" is not trying to abolish faith or establish censorship, they're opposing the systemic power religion has on all levels of the US. There is a reason there are so few atheists in power in the US despite atheists not having an innate aversion to politics. There is systemic church power, and it is contributing to bad politics, and it should be stopped, and the difference between this and what you mean when you say "THE" church is that this doesn't include small, local churches and personal faith.

 

Here is a list of all atheist senators, representatives and governors in the US ever with the time they were in power:

 

United States Representatives (3):

Jared Huffman 2013–present

Barney Frank 1981–2013

Pete Stark 1973–2013

 

United States Senators (2):

Kyrsten Sinema 2019–present

Thomas Gore 1907–1921 1931-1937

 

Governors (2):

Jesse Ventura 1999–2003

Culbert Olson 1939–1943

 

Taken from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_in_the_United_States#Public_officials

Link to comment
3 hours ago, MiraF said:

Anyone trying to "dismantle the church" is not trying to abolish faith or establish censorship, they're opposing the systemic power religion has on all levels of the US.

The constitution is pretty explicit about protecting freedom of religion.

Supposedly, churches have to stay out of politics to retain their tax-exempt status.

 

The growing "Christian Nationalist" movement seems like it should be unconstitutional.  But one could argue that it is not tied to a specific organized "church" so maybe no?

 

Another question concerns the difference between the religion of Christianity, and the idea of Cultural Christianity.  Is the US (and Canada as well) a "christian country" simply because we have roots in Europe which has been historically dominated by "The Church"?

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Ivy said:

The constitution is pretty explicit about protecting freedom of religion.

Supposedly, churches have to stay out of politics to retain their tax-exempt status.

 

The growing "Christian Nationalist" movement seems like it should be unconstitutional.  But one could argue that it is not tied to a specific organized "church" so maybe no?

 

Another question concerns the difference between the religion of Christianity, and the idea of Cultural Christianity.  Is the US (and Canada as well) a "christian country" simply because we have roots in Europe which has been historically dominated by "The Church"?

Ivy, you raise an interesting couple of points. This came up recently when I defended my dissertation for my DMin--doctorate of Ministry. It won't be conferred until commencement in June, but hey, it's been a journey. And, this is not my specialty; reformation theology is. However, as the roots of your points date to reformation ideas, I'll offer my few thoughts but don't take them as, pardon the pun, "gospel."

 

The whole tax exempt thing was introduced by the senior senator from Texas, Lyndon Baines Johnson in the 1950s to ensure that African American congregations in Texas were prevented from speaking out and endorsing his republican opponent.  In short to assure his reelection. Ironic.

 

The differences between the religion of Christianity and Cultural Christianity are pervasive and manifest themselves mostly around Christmas and Easter, which have IMHO, been perverted into greed fests by  corporate America. Is America a "Christian country?" The answer to that is complicated and far beyond the scope of this thread. The short answer is, "it depends." If you mean is it a theocracy, the answer is a resounding NO! But, if you mean was it founded on Christo-Judaic principles, then the evidence seems to support a firm yes.  For example, the laws of the country are rooted in the Old Testament (Specifically the first five books, or Talmud), congress always opens with prayer, the motto "In God We Trust" is on our currency and congress uses operating rules based on those of the Presbyterian church in the late 18th century; which goes a long way toward explaining their antics.  All of this ties back to the reformation, specifically to Luther's theses, Calvin's Institutes and the writings of Melancton et al. With a good dose of English common law and Scots-Irish desire for freedom stirred in for good measure.

 

And in a bit of trivia, the "Establishment Clause" as it was originally written was included to prevent something similar to a Church of England happening on this continent as many of the original colonies were formed by folks fleeing religious persecution. So is the United States a "Christian country?" I don't have a definitive answer; you be the judge. It's a personal choice with no right or wrong answer.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, awkward-yet-sweet said:

Nobody should be making politics into a profitable career. Do a few years of sacrificial public service, then go away and live a quiet life. 

 

I couldn't agree more, I believe that this is the single greatest problem with our democratic system today. 

This system clearly doesn't attract the best of the best candidates. Only those who are willing to do what ever it takes to get in and stay there for as long as possible. 

George Santos?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
  • Admin

Folks, once again this thread, like many others before it, has entered uncharted (and unintended) territory.  The issue of church vs. state is an interesting topic, but this isn't the thread for it.  You're welcome to start a new thread elsewhere.  If this thread continues to stray, I'll lock it.  Thank you.

 

Carolyn Marie

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Marcie Jensen said:

the motto "In God We Trust" is on our currency

It is my understanding, that this was only officially adopted in the 1950's.

And "under God" was only added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954.

This was the time of the Red Scare, and also the Lavender Scare.  

(Lavender is such a lovely color, but scary, apparently)

 

 

 

Link to comment
  • VickySGV locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 57 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      80.4k
    • Total Posts
      765.2k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      11,846
    • Most Online
      8,356

    Chris54
    Newest Member
    Chris54
    Joined
  • Today's Birthdays

    1. Elishevak
      Elishevak
    2. thoustan
      thoustan
      (20 years old)
    3. Tony123
      Tony123
  • Posts

    • Carolyn Marie
      https://www.newwaysministry.org/2024/03/04/as-a-catholic-doctor-i-know-gender-affirming-care-is-essential-for-transgender-youth/     Carolyn Marie
    • Birdie
      I'm not sure for most, but in my case all my friends when out and about are cis women. I'm accepted right into the fold and we have normal 'girl talk' conversations.  We talked about everything from female issues (yeah I get some of those) to shopping and sales.  We talked about cute guys, and some of our dates as well.    I really don't have any 'guy friends', more like acquaintances.    Even when I was in boy-mode I was never accepted into the fold with the guys and always hung out with the girls. They could sense I was different. Of course the guys didn't have to deal with monthly cramps and such, but I did. 
    • KayC
      I'm with Vidanjali (... again! 😊).  I agree more with the first half of the statement than the last half.  'Fools and Fanatics ..." hold on to their delusional ideas with a death grip, in part when they are supported by their chosen tribe of similar lost souls. The truly 'wise' understand the human condition and could even have compassion for those who have lost their way.  Ultimately though, the wise WILL often speak out against intolerance.  If not vocally, then more importantly in the example they provide in how to live a Noble Human Life.
    • Davie
      More JK Rowling Transphobia: Rowling Calls Trans Woman Journalist "A Man...Cosplaying" Rowling took to Twitter on Monday to call trans journalist and broadcaster India Willoughby "a man," "cosplaying a male fantasy," the latest in a long list of transphobic remarks from the author.
    • awkward-yet-sweet
      I can't tell if the Moms for Liberty group is focused only on school libraries or if they look at general public libraries as well.  Because the purpose of those venues is rather different.  I see school libraries as a much more focused collection, especially for the younger grades. In this topic's headline story, the South Carolina library in question is a public library   I did check out some of the "60 Minutes" interview, and I'm suspicious.  Seems it was filmed in October but heavily edited and only released recently.  Typical establishment media stuff.  I think one of the worst things you can say about MFL is that they assumed the presentation would be unbiased and consented to participate.  I would have thought they'd be smarter than that.    It seems the book banning efforts aren't particularly coordinated.  They get together in a group and rate books on a 1 to 5 scale on issues like nudity or sexual descriptions.  Local folks then see what titles are on the shelves, and decide whether they want to get rid of everything that's a 3 or greater, or just a 5....something like that.  I doubt efforts are consistent from place to place. 
    • awkward-yet-sweet
      Being stuck with unfriendly parents and not having choices can really suck.  I lived in that situation until I was 26.  I even was forced to attend a "light" version of conversion therapy to get any support from my parents to get the art training I wanted after high school.  I was fine when my sister still lived at home, but she moved in with a girlfriend and left me with my parents.  That was the most depressed I've ever been.    But situations do change - sometimes that change happens to us, and sometimes we make it for ourselves.  Rather than focusing on the dread of what you think might be happening politically, why not make a list of things you'd like to change and how you might accomplish that?  For example, if you want to move out, you'll need money.  Focus on earning money in any way possible, and saving it up while you have the advantage of a roof over your head.  Is there somewhere you would rather live?  Check out what life might be like there.  If you don't know anybody there, maybe meet a couple of people online, or see if a local friend might want to go there with you when the time comes.    Sometimes having a good future means laying groundwork for that future ahead of time.  There are things you can do, and any little way that you can start preparing will make you feel like you have some agency in your life.  It sets a goal and a timeframe, and goalposts by which you can measure your progress.  There is hope, and you can do it!
    • awkward-yet-sweet
      Pretty sure there's a wide gap between how you and I see the world...which is fine, as it makes things interesting!  To me, sending a message to cis folks that I'm not like them is absolutely the opposite of what I try to do.  I'd rather be seen for my similarities than my differences at most times.  You mention people seeking their tribe - which has certainly been a big thing in my life.  But is a trans person's tribe necessarily other trans folks?  Would we expect the same from members of other minority groups?  Are Black people supposed to seek out other Black people to spend time with?  Are Greek people (like me) supposed to seek out members of the Greek diaspora in the US?  What about people of a specific faith - are they supposed to spend time only with their faith community?  What about those of us who are LGBTQ+, an ethnic minority, and of a specific faith?  Which aspect of a person's identity takes priority?    I wonder if by focusing on finding the LGBTQ+ tribe and emphasizing how different that tribe is from others, if some people might be missing out on greater acceptance that they might find otherwise?    Isn't it also a question of degree?  For example, one of my friends works as custodian in the main building of my husband's workplace.  She's trans, very feminine, and she looks really nice in feminine clothes and feels comfortable expressing herself like that.  But isn't there a difference between an outfit of subdued colors/modest cut/small accent jewelry vs. a different outfit that is in bright colors/revealing, or even something overtly LGBTQ+ oriented?  Both hypothetical outfits could be described as feminine, but one attracts attention and the other doesn't.  Which is the better choice for her in the workplace?  In the grocery store?  Is the hypothetical subdued outfit more likely to make my friend look and feel less feminine or experience dysphoria than the one that draws more attention?  (And to avoid the "false dilemma" fallacy, these are just two examples - avoiding vs attracting attention is likely a wide spectrum of options.)    There's also an issue in that we can be misunderstood or misidentified by the clothes we wear (or don't.)  For example, you mention me being a "nudist."  Actually, that doesn't identify me correctly....there's subtle differences in purpose and beliefs.  But I couldn't blame folks for assuming that if I showed up totally without clothing.  The principle applies to how folks dress when they want to express themselves.  Even if they mean to find their tribe and identity with it, what impression is left on those around them?    I think that activism and appearance are very linked in this way - that the intended meaning may be very different than what is actually communicated to those around us.  It is perhaps a source of much of the friction we deal with.        I wonder if people are different on this as well.  If I'm not feeling safe, the last thing I want to do is be noticed.  Since getting assaulted 18 months ago, I definitely am quieter and I don't put myself out there as much.  Is it a privilege to be quiet?  I kind of disagree.  I think the real privilege might be that when you aren't quiet, when you're attracting more attention than necessary, yet not experiencing something negative from that. 
    • Vidanjali
      So like a mathematician to think in binary terms lol. There is illogic in my boy's statement though as he begs the question (logical fallacy when an argument's conclusion assumes the truth of its premise instead of supporting it) by assuming first that there is (1) something wrong with the world and (2) only one thing wrong with the world. Besides that, he seems to denounce the natural diversity in human intelligence & assume that the wise should ideally assume some sort of active leadership or control (not to mention his assertion is elitist). Moreover, isn't it so that those who are full of doubt truly are not so wise? As a counter example, many enlightened sages have said that self-realization is the highest attainment and that exuded genuineness is what inspires others, not activity, per se. 
    • April Marie
      Hmmmm, following Carolyn Marie's lead......I'm not sure. 😉🤣
    • VickySGV
      The MFL group has actually been voted out of several school boards recently, which is a good start to undo their mischief.  How many of them are actually mothers of children, and which of them are under investigation by Child Protective Services agencies?? 
    • MaeBe
    • Ashley0616
      It's fun to do. I found a free editor called Camtasia. I'll start using that. Let me know when you do. I'll be a first subscriber. 
    • MaeBe
      I do not. I might have to with all you superstars putting yourself out there though!
    • Ashley0616
      Thank you! Do you have one?
    • MaeBe
      Good for you, Ashley! Subbed! 🤩   💜Mae
  • Upcoming Events

Contact TransPulse

TransPulse can be contacted in the following ways:

Email: Click Here.

To report an error on this page.

Legal

Your use of this site is subject to the following rules and policies, whether you have read them or not.

Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
DMCA Policy
Community Rules

Hosting

Upstream hosting for TransPulse provided by QnEZ.

Sponsorship

Special consideration for TransPulse is kindly provided by The Breast Form Store.
×
×
  • Create New...