You use one example of a 'lesbian activist' and it somehow proves homosexuality is wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt? Dude, other animals in the animal kingdom engage in homosexual behavior. There's a bird species where 50% of them are basically gay. It is absolutely inborn and just because it's not 'the norm' does not make it abnormal. And there is nothing inherently objectionable to it. It doesn't affect you in any way. And I can guarantee you the vast majority of gay and lesbian people do not view themselves in such a way. This isn't some work of academia but nature itself.
We're humans. Procreation is not the sole purpose of our existence and hasn't been for awhile.
Your 'pity' goes right out the window as soon as you're told it's refused. Because it isn't. We need to be treated like regular human beings, not shock therapy or whatever horrible thing you'd come up with. The fact of the matter is, you cannot force people to live or behave in a way that is counter to their inborn traits. This always seems to fly over your head. Not everyone can be twisted into your version of what's acceptable and what isn't.
There's this nasty habit you have of assuming your opinion speaks for everyone. I assure you, 'most' people do not view trans people the way you do. And the acceptance will continue as it should.
The example of your son is twisting the argument. We aren't physically capable of walking on our hands and feet. Evolution eliminated it as part of our ability. It's uncomfortable, it's impossible. What we're dealing with is not the silliness of children but something concrete, innate. That's not virtue signaling, it's stating the truth about what we are and how this all works. 'Transgender' is not an ism. It's simply a state of existence. Or to quote God in Exodus (ironically) 'I am that which I am.'
I'm really not upset. But I am going to push back any time you spout mistruths, falsehoods, and patronizing opinions when you have absolutely NO idea what you're talking about.
You don't entertain anything outside of that southern, Protestant, Christian bubble you live in. Get back to me when you dare to step out of it.
Your the one with no idea what you are talking about.
Just to add to the last post, your stance and the typical stance of libs is so off the reservation science-wise, you actually laugh at the idea social conditioning can and does play a significant part in sexual attraction, and I can prove that.
Most straight men find just about any hot female as sexually attractive and would absent other things, want to have sex with her.
There are 3 primary reasons men choose not to.
1. They are married or have a partner/girlfriend and choose loyalty over sex.
2. They can't because the female either refuses or would refuse or they are afraid to try.
3. For religious and spiritual reasons, and that can grow into a mindset that just sees the beautiful woman as like a sister. Very rare but it can happen.
However, there is an exception to feeling sexual attraction to a female. If someone was adopted and didn't know he had a sister or didn't know someone was related, and met an attractive female who was a relative but without his knowing, he would likely feel sexual attraction.
However, if he grew up with her, he would most likely not. That's not due to biology. It's due to values and social conditioning, and that shows social conditioning of what is right and acceptable does play a role in how someone feels sexual attraction.
Are there some who just can't help be homosexual? That find it revolting to have sex with the opposite gender just like most straight people do with the same gender? Sure, but they are a minority among homosexuals as evidenced by the stats on out of wedlock pregnancies I mentioned in the prior post.
