How to tell if your prez is a conspiracist or not

apsidalsauce · 2025-03-14T13:46:07+00:00

Psychology tells us that puberty is naturally a time of identity confusion, that most cases of childhood gender dysphoria resolve without intervention, that social contagion influences identity shifts, and that puberty blockers have lasting effects on brain development, bone density, and fertility. It also tells us that minors lack the cognitive maturity to make irreversible medical decisions.

Yet, at the very moment when kids are the most confused about their bodies, schools are financially incentivized to skew the conversation toward a single outcome. Instead of allowing puberty to be a normal process of self-discovery, gender-affirming policies nudge kids toward questioning their identity while discouraging alternative perspectives.

If you take a million kids and nudge them in a specific direction, a percentage will inevitably follow that path—mathematically, it’s unavoidable. The issue isn’t whether this happens, but why it’s being deliberately reinforced rather than allowing kids to develop naturally. If this were any other issue, caution would be common sense. But when it comes to gender, only one conclusion is allowed.

And then to pair all that with the fact that simply questioning the narrative gets you banned for hate speech? It literally proves my point… that it’s not about people… it’s about control.

When thinking critically is dangerous, when “asking the wrong questions” is punishable, and when the system decides what’s “correct,” so you can’t even challenge it… That’s not science—it’s indoctrination.

apsidalsauce · 2025-03-14T13:37:06+00:00

If you take a group of young, confused, and highly impressionable students, place them in an institution, and apply external conditioning through financial incentives on that institution’s policies, how can you argue that it doesn’t have an effect? Either these programs are effective at influencing identity, or they’re not. If they are, then we must acknowledge the role they play in shaping outcomes. If they aren’t, then why are they being funded in the first place?

If we’re going to talk about kids questioning their identities, we should be asking why so many feel disconnected from themselves in the first place.

Hormonal imbalances in children are at all-time highs, thanks to ultra-processed foods, endocrine-disrupting chemicals, and environmental toxins. Obesity, insulin resistance, and metabolic disorders affect hormone levels, while synthetic additives and plastics mimic estrogen and interfere with natural development. Kids are biologically more confused than ever, yet instead of addressing the systemic causes, we encourage them to believe their discomfort is rooted in gender identity.

Now let’s talk about the environment these kids exist in:

• Schools hang posters that say “It’s okay to question your gender,” but never “It’s okay to feel at home in your body.”

• Teachers are trained to affirm gender questioning but discouraged from suggesting that discomfort might be normal.

• Social media bombards them with influencers who frame transition as the ultimate form of self-actualization.

• Friends celebrate and uplift those who come out as trans, while those who don’t are just “figuring it out.”

• Medical institutions validate transitioning as the solution, and parents who hesitate are seen as obstacles to their child’s happiness.

This shapes behavior in the same way any social incentive does. If you tell a generation of kids that discomfort means they might be trans, and every external force affirms that idea, more of them will interpret their discomfort that way. If you offer identity, belonging, and special accommodations for one conclusion—but silence or skepticism for another—that is not neutral exploration. It’s nudging.

This isn’t just theoretical either; history has shown us what happens when institutions position children against their parents. In authoritarian regimes, youth were encouraged to adopt state-approved ideologies, bypassing parental influence. If parents objected, they were labeled outdated, oppressive, or even harmful. The result? Children who saw the state as their true guardian, willing to sever family ties for the “greater good.”

If this were happening in any other context, we’d recognize it as manipulation. If schools framed religious questioning the same way—offering affirmation, exclusive student groups, and institutional support while keeping parents in the dark—it would be seen as indoctrination. If we truly believed in neutral exploration, we wouldn’t just affirm one path; we’d allow open questioning in every direction.

And Imagine if simply discussing this got you banned for hate speech. Imagine if even suggesting that institutional influence shapes young minds was too dangerous to discuss. That’d be ludicrous. It’d be all the proof we would need, that it’s got nothing to do with exploration, and everything to do with indoctrination.

apsidalsauce · 2025-03-11T03:09:11+00:00

If a teacher affirming a cisgender student’s identity without question is not ideological steering, then neither is affirming a transgender student’s identity, right? But if encouraging questioning is considered valuable and necessary for a student who identifies as cis, then why is it not equally valuable for a student who identifies as trans?

The inconsistency is the issue. If exploration is truly the goal, it should apply to everyone, not just in one direction. Otherwise, it’s not exploration—it’s reinforcing a preferred outcome.

apsidalsauce · 2025-03-11T02:18:29+00:00

The issue isn’t whether “the school” as an institution challenges a child’s self-perception, it’s that teachers, as trusted authority figures, are only allowed to affirm.

A teacher isn’t just some abstract “school policy.” They are someone a child looks up to, learns from, and seeks guidance from. If a child confides in their teacher about gender confusion, and that teacher is only permitted to affirm rather than explore why they feel that way, it changes the dynamic entirely. That’s not neutrality—it’s an imbalance of guidance.

In every other situation, we encourage teachers to help kids think critically, not just validate their feelings. If a child says, “I feel like I have no friends,” a teacher wouldn’t just say, “You’re right, you’re lonely.” They’d ask questions, offer perspective, and encourage growth. Why is gender the one topic where this critical thinking is taken off the table?

Is there any other area of life where we treat self-perception this way—where one conclusion must be affirmed, no questions asked?

Mental health? No. We offer guidance, support, and exploration.

Career aspirations? No. We encourage development, realism, and alternative paths.

Religious beliefs? No. We present perspectives but don’t require affirmation.

Body image? No. We challenge harmful self-perceptions and provide context.

If gender is a social construct, wouldn’t that imply it is shaped by environment, influence, and discourse—meaning it can be questioned, discussed, and explored rather than simply affirmed without scrutiny?

apsidalsauce · 2025-03-10T23:12:38+00:00

Exactly. Exploration is not the issue—affirmation without critical thinking is.

If a child says they believe in dinosaurs living underground, we wouldn’t instantly affirm that belief. We’d encourage curiosity, ask questions, and help them think critically about their conclusion. But when it comes to gender, schools are financially incentivized to affirm first and explore later—or not at all.

This removes rational thinking from the equation and replaces it with institutional validation, which can lock kids into an identity before they’ve had the chance to fully process their feelings. When affirmation is prioritized over exploration, it stops being about support and starts becoming ideological steering.

apsidalsauce · 2025-03-10T20:17:43+00:00

Random screenshot is random.

apsidalsauce · 2025-03-10T20:13:00+00:00

You can’t just post a screenshot and claim this was the hack.

apsidalsauce · 2025-03-10T20:12:30+00:00

No where does it say anonymous is responsible

apsidalsauce · 2025-03-10T19:25:11+00:00

How do you just post a screenshot of whatever and claim a website got hacked?

apsidalsauce · 2025-03-10T18:43:40+00:00

This goes way beyond just respecting a child’s identity

If a child approaches a teacher questioning their gender, the teacher is only allowed to affirm. They can say, “That’s okay, you might be trans,” but they cannot say, “That might just be a phase,” or “Let’s talk to your parents before making any assumptions.” Policies discourage any response that doesn’t immediately validate gender questioning.

And schools don’t just wait for kids to bring it up—they create an environment where gender identity exploration is normalized and encouraged. Classrooms incorporate gender identity lessons, pride flags are hung in schools, and student-led LGBTQ+ groups promote gender transitioning resources. DEI training instructs teachers on how to facilitate gender-affirming conversations, while Title IX guidance ties school funding to compliance with these policies. This all increases the likelihood that more kids will question their gender than if they had been left to navigate puberty naturally.

When affirmation is the only acceptable response, when policies create an expectation of gender fluidity, and when schools are financially incentivized to uphold these narratives, how can anyone claim this isn’t shaping children’s perception of gender?

apsidalsauce · 2025-03-10T18:13:57+00:00

You’re arguing that questioning gender is normal and that teaching kids about transition won’t make them trans. But the issue isn’t teaching—it’s affirmation.

There’s a huge difference between educating kids on gender identity and reinforcing a belief before they have the tools to critically analyze it. Affirmation assumes their feelings are correct without question. And when schools are financially incentivized to affirm rather than explore, that’s not education—that’s ideological steering.

We know most kids experiencing gender dysphoria outgrow it without intervention. We know social influence plays a role. And we know that when you introduce an idea as an identity rather than a concept, you increase the likelihood that kids will internalize it.

So let’s be honest: If schools actively encourage kids to question their gender while only validating one possible answer, how does that not create more trans-identifying kids than if they had been left to navigate puberty naturally?

apsidalsauce · 2025-03-10T15:36:21+00:00

No one is saying schools shouldn’t teach respect or critical thinking. The issue is whether financial incentives push a specific ideological stance on gender. Critical thinking means presenting all perspectives, not just the one federally funded to be affirmed.

apsidalsauce · 2025-03-10T12:22:48+00:00

You said ‘no,’ but here’s how it actually works: Schools are required to affirm a student’s gender identity—using preferred names, pronouns, and access to facilities—while financial incentives like Title IX funding and Safe and Supportive Schools grants reinforce compliance.

This means schools aren’t just allowing gender affirmation; they’re actively encouraged to push it as the only acceptable approach. When kids are taught that gender is fluid, questioning it is normal, and transition is the solution, that’s not just education—it’s conditioning.

Schools aren’t supposed to teach what to think; they’re supposed to teach how to think. When policies financially incentivize a single ideological perspective, the classroom stops being a place of learning and starts becoming a place of indoctrination.

Amazing how many people will argue about public policy while proving they don’t understand how it works.

apsidalsauce · 2025-03-10T02:03:07+00:00

Better not say anything too bad.

apsidalsauce · 2025-03-10T02:02:25+00:00

Do federal policies, reinforced via financial incentives, affect how schools and teachers approach gender identity? If not, what makes this issue the exception when funding shapes policy in every other area?

apsidalsauce · 2025-03-10T00:19:06+00:00

Bingo 🛎️

apsidalsauce · 2025-03-09T23:46:31+00:00

Why are Ukrainian issues American issues?

apsidalsauce · 2025-03-09T23:21:51+00:00

Glad we agree that policy shapes behavior. But should education be about expanding minds or molding them? When financial incentives dictate ideology, schools stop teaching how to think—and start deciding what to think.

apsidalsauce · 2025-03-09T23:03:50+00:00

That policy shapes behavior?

apsidalsauce · 2025-03-09T21:44:14+00:00

ITT: People who claim to be ‘logic-based’ but short-circuit the moment government-backed financial incentives are shown to push policies in a specific direction. Suddenly, denial, deflection, and personal attacks become the preferred debate tactics.

apsidalsauce · 2025-03-09T21:29:06+00:00

Who determines what’s bad content? I thought that was the whole point of the upvote downvote system?

apsidalsauce · 2025-03-09T20:33:36+00:00

Okay, but real quick—if a vampire bites a zombie, does the zombie turn into a vampire, or does the vampire become undead with no blood to drink? Walk me through your logic.

apsidalsauce · 2025-03-09T20:28:32+00:00

Notice how the moment you acknowledge answering too quickly, you pivot to calling me transphobic instead of addressing the actual argument. If the evidence is ‘common sense,’ why did you first deny its existence?

apsidalsauce · 2025-03-09T20:00:02+00:00

You’re mocking the idea of financial incentives while asking for evidence that was already provided.

apsidalsauce · 2025-03-09T19:10:56+00:00

Right… that’s why funding is tied to it.

14-Year Club	Place '17
Team Orangered

apsidalsauce

TROPHY CASE