TexasCHLforum.com

I am not a big fan of Larry Correia though I do like Zahn, Weber,Ringo, David Drake and many similar authors. I got hooked on SF in elementary school in the 60's. I remember starting with Lester Del Rey's work, some of Ray Bradbury's work, and then moving on to Asimov and Heinlein. RAH quickly became my favorite of all time (still is) with Starship Troopers and Stranger in a Strange Land being my two favorites.

One thing I noticed, even with RAH, is that many stories included elements of sexual changes/freedoms in daily life. This includes homosexual incidents in the stories. While there were some comments on gender roles in several books, the only RAH book I recall delving into gender identity/transexuality was I Will Fear No Evil. The story, for those who are not familiar, is based on a rich old man who gets a brain transplant when his body was failing. The donor body was a young female. The premise is that the woman's personality was still in the body and the man was able to talk to her.

With most of the authors listed above or by me, sexual content references were almost always incidental to the story and never hit the reader over the head or forced them into it. I also agree with Chemist45 that most of the authors he lists and others published by Baen are not writing to win Hugo awards (or any other), They write to tell good stories that the reader will enjoy as entertainment. Using Baen publishing as a filter when looking at new authors is usually a good bet. I may miss some, but I can't remember being disappointed by one.

anygunanywhere wrote: ↑Sun Mar 20, 2022 8:08 pmIt would be nice if the freaks would let us be. It is their insistence that we normalize their freak show and let them use womens rest rooms and expose them to our daughters that needs to stop. Nothing about the lgbtqueer lifestyle has anything to do with letting them be if they aren’t hurting anyone. It has everything to do with them forcing their pervert actions into our lives yes.

If you ever want to have some fun in a debate about this, ask them to define a birth defect. Suggest that a birth defect is any mutation that does not enhance either the survival odds of the individual or the survival of the species. Most of the time they agree with that definition and wonder what it has to do with this topic. Point out that a mutation can be defined as any deviation from the species norm. If people with gender dysphoria or homosexuality are truly born with it, then it is a mutation (different from the norm) and since it clearly does not help survival or either the individual or the species (actually lowers chances for the species survival), then both are birth defects. Are there any other birth defects that we grant special privileges and do not work to correct?

And if they are not birth defects, then that means they are not born that way and it is a choice. And we don't have to support or grant privileges to people based on choices, right? After all, isn't that why blue lives don't matter, because that was their choice?

The ones I have done this with, never seem to have any answers to my points.