I was in disbelief when I read that first couple sentences, wondering exactly which “LGBT activtists” they were talking about. Again, I’m just presenting the information I found. I tried to find more information about the “lifelong California Democrats” but failed. But I seriously don’t doubt you thanks for the heads-up
1 Like
I’m disappointed that Newsweek bought into it.
I don’t think Klayman is particularly foolish for buying it.
It is legitimately hard to discern real documentaries from propaganda. And it’s not unlikely that a advocacy group would try to stop both.
3 Likes
There is so much misinformation floating around that it is easy for anyone to be manipulated by it. Not trying to denigrate Klaymen here. If it came off that way I apologize.
(though really Newsweek lost my trust in the “Global Cooling” fiasco of '75.)
You mean spreading lies again and again after being told that you are spreading a lie?
If you want to have a reasonable conversation, you should react when some of your “facts” are clearly shown to be lies that someone is trying to get you to spread.
How is not wanting a movie shown erasing anybody?
You said the other side involves “erasing an entire category of people from society”. This erasure is which viewpoints are acceptable and which are not, and whether you like it or not a significant percentage of the population would support the movie.
This is a propaganda film intended to muddy the conversation. Why are you falling for this gambit?
“Our theatrical dates have been CANCELED ! Pressure from intolerant loudmouths who have obviously not seen the film have pressured AMC to shut us down!”
That is the message posted on the deploarable films site - it does sound pretty Trumpist doesn’t it? (I voted for Trump the first time but don’t care for him now and did not vote the second time)
Exactly what about this film causes it to “muddy the conversation?” Why shouldn’t this viewpoint be heard? Do you think these five stories are complete lies? Maybe it’s not representative, but if quick internet searches are to be believed it could be true for 1% - or 4% - or ???% of the population.
Have you seen it yet? I would be interested in hearing these five stories. I’m certainly not going to be under the delusion that it is representative.
My whole interest in this topic was simply to question if people undergoing transgender operations have a good understanding of the potential upside and downside of the procedures and wondered how many would “jump on the bandwagon” even if it weren’t the best solution.
Of course the moment I suggested this was a possibility you all rushed in and said, “Nope, doesn’t happen, 102% of the people that sign up know that this is exactly what they need” and it’s rubbish. Maybe 82% or 92% or ??. Why do I not try to guess the percentage as an actuary - because it is not my area of expertise.
My concern is for those who think they want to do this and probably shouldn’t and evidently that doesn’t deserve a voice so I guess I’m the one that gets marginalized. I would like the regret rate to be 0%, even if that means discouraging a few operations. Heaven forbid we learn anything from five people that lived that regret in the film.
People tend to think an outcome is more likely when they can more easily imagine or remember it.
My concern is that the purpose of this documentary is to exploit that tendency in people. They show five examples of people who regret their transition, which can easily give the impression that this regret is widespread. Then interviews with people identified as experts could reinforce this view, even if those people have views far outside the mainstream, or aren’t even experts at all.
If this is true, it makes it a work of propaganda rather than a work trying to encourage critical dialogue.
1 Like
I’ve asked you before what your definition of LGBQT agenda is. I gave you a working definition of what I consider it to be but haven’t heard yours yet. Can you elaborate on what you consider the LGBQT to be?
2 Likes
While it isn’t completely clear who made No Way Back, the director and many of the people quoted in the movie are believers in “rapid onset gender dysphoria” (ROGD). ROGD sounds scary, and has people with legitimate academic backgrounds behind it which makes it seem like it must have some factual basis to it.
So far, I am aware of 2 academic papers that touted ROGD, both of which have been retracted by the journals that published them. One of them, written by one of the people interview in No Way Back, used a small survey of 200-ish people as their data set, but they recruited all of their survey respondents from 3 different anti-trans websites / forums. Turns out when you actively solicit crappy data, you get crappy studies. The 2nd was co-authored by someone who is famous for pushing other debunked transphobic theories, and was published in a journal whose chief editor is known to be transphobic.
Assorted links that may be relevant: One about who made No Way Back, and one I haven’t read by a biologist debunking ROGD.
1 Like
I’m not sure, something just came up at work but I’ll mention one of my concerns. First of all, let me say that yes yes this group has been marginalized and they need to speak out until they are treated equally yada yada.
Here’s a recent quote:
Disney Prez of Entertainment Wants 50 Percent of All Characters Gay or ‘Underrepresented’
One of my concerns is the overrepresentation of LGBQT. It’s not enough to allow for it in society, we need to grow it and popularize it. I recall binge-watching the Amazing Race during the pandemic and thinking this - but of course they want every demographic watching their show, I don’t blame them.
And I certainly wouldn’t use my baby as a billboard like this.
1 Like
You shouldn’t watch any “documentary” with a dishonest tagline.
If they lie to you up front, they will lie again and again later on.
Really, just a fact of life. If you find that someone is lying, don’t ever listen to them.
4 Likes
Lol. But it’s pretty strong agenda.
1 Like
That’s a Disney business decision. I don’t think most people would agree with that as a goal.
1 Like
The difficulty is that this is a charged topic. People are trying to push their way into acceptance that theyre valid, and theres a few fringe radicals.as.part of that.
Otoh, theres too many people who pose questions about lgbtq or express reservations when in fact they are doing so with a hateful.agenda. That makes it hard to ask questions or express valid comments because you cant tell sincere people from the disturbed.
An example of this are the pronouns we have here. One choice i entered was ‘prefer not to say’. I figured there might be some folks with that as a legitimate choice, because, wth do i know about most of this stuff. But in practice, iirc, 100 percent of the people who selected that were trolls or ended up betting deleted here. Choosing that as ones pronouns seems innocent but turns out, not.
That 50% is including minorities.
Most recent census had US at 61.6% for white alone. Google thinks 7.1% of US is LGBTQ, so assuming ethnicity is independent, you get 43% for LGBTQ + minority. Having 50% as a target for 1 company is not a gross over representation, especially if they are aiming at younger people who are more likely to be minorities than the general population.
1 Like
Poor you!
Look, I see that you realize you were duped and have fessed up to it.
And, when we say to “do your own research,” that is not a “we are so confident” game we are playing (as others who say this are doing). Simply look it up yourself. You do have a lot of time on your hands, right??
Is that Disney’s agenda or LGBQT agenda. You didn’t link a quote but it says 50 percent gay or underrepresented, the latter of which I’d interpret as other races, disabled, etc, not 50% gay. FWIW, for people who don’t naturally interact with people unlike themselves, TV, movies, and books are how they become exposed to them. I don’t think an entertainment company choosing a goal to limit 50% of characters to white, able-bodied, neurotypical, cisgender, and heterosexual as inherently bad. I’m straight and didn’t know anyone gay (at least no one who was out of the closet then) until I was in college but being exposed to LGBQT characters in books was impactful.
As far as baby billboards, people dress their babies in all sorts of crap that I wouldn’t stick my kid in. It’s fine if you don’t want to dress your kid in that. There’s plenty of available clothing you are free to buy or not. Are you thinking that dressing a baby in that will make them gay? What if that baby has an older sibling who’s gay? Should we not protect queer kids?
I’m not sure what the financial outcome of this is, versus, say, a natural percentage (whatever that/those may be).
And why is that?
You think the result will be people simply changing to an L, G, B, Q, or T?
Or does it simply normalize the lifestyle/choice/WAY WE WERE BORN instead of demonizing it?
1 Like
A 0% regret rate would be nice. Knee replacement surgery doesn’t have that either.
As I haven’t seen the film, I can’t say whether there’s any helpful information in that movie or not. My issue is the gatekeeping of politicians vs the medical (including psychiatric) community whose life work surrounds gender affirming care and gender dysphoria. I’m not sure if you’ve read Mountainhawk’s thread, but that might be enlightening for you to walk through her experience of the process. Sure it’s anecdotal but perhaps more helpful than talking about a film no one here, including yourself, has seen.
2 Likes
Does it normalize it or EXAGGERATE it?