Sign in to follow this  
Shootist Jeff

The serious transgender bathroom issue discussion

Recommended Posts

 

The locker room issue should absolutely be decided at the local level. It has been, but now it won't be. Thank NC for that. because now we will get a one size fits all decision.

You are incorrect. The federal courts ruled on this issue prior to NC.

Cite please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Jesus sol. Nice fucking job of ignoring my question and going full nanny goat yourself.

 

1. Look.... I'm not stomping feet or gritting teeth here. You are totally misunderstanding where I'm coming from on this. I *personally" could care less if I'm peeing or showering next to a "girl" or a "guy" regardless of what plumbing they have. I am in favor of gay marriage too, btw. I am only digging my heels in on this only because I think the other side is missing the fucking point and trying to force their minority will on the rest of people who are not interested in peeing or showering with people of the opposite plumbing. For right or wrong, those people have rights too and it fucking pisses me off that they are getting lost in this.

 

2. You are correct that letting gays get married didn't hurt marriage. Nor did it hurt white folk by letting the negros sit at the lunch counter with them or share a school room or a bus seat. But there is a legitimate concern here where there are competing rights to privacy. Going right to the race card without actually addressing the question before you is..... so...... happy jack-esque. You are better than that.

 

3. I understand that a trans woman with a dick considers herself a "woman". It matters not what I think she is. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with my objections to this. My objection to this is that there are people whose right to privacy will be violated by letting a person with the opposite plumbing shower and change naked next to them. Whether or not you or I think that is rational or right is irrelevant. The earlier SC case you brought up and then promptly ignored when I pointed out that it referred to what society thought "reasonable and legitimate" makes the case I've been attempting to make.....Society for a 1000 years has thought that a separation of the sexes/genders was and is reasonable and legitimate and that some people think that having trannies in the shower is not "reasonable and legitimate". What about their right to privacy? Title IX does not in anyway, shape or form attempt to bring the sexes together into a common shower room.

 

4. And get off of the NC bathroom case. They were douchebags about it on both sides. I'm focusing on the IL school shower room where the 10 straight girls objected to the tranny using the shower/changing room. Where do you come down on that in terms of the law, counselor? What accommodation, if any should be given?

 

5. Look, stop going off on the race thing and just answer my fucking question: Is it OK for a man (not a trans man, but a regular man) to go shower shower and change in the ladies locker room? If not, why not?

 

1. I have provided cites to teach folks what transgendered people think about themselves, what they go through, etc. I cannot force you to read it, but your refusal to educate yourself does not make your opinion about whether someone can just decide that they are a different gender does not render your opinion authoritative. This is not a new phenomenon that people learned about on MTV and thought it would be cute to try. It's been going on for quite some time. What does my opinion of TG people have to do with my #1. I have repeatedly said I have no issue with TG folks and have repeatedly admitted that they are what they are. My #1 was based on the fact that there are other rights involved here as well that are being over-looked or deliberately ignored. And you deliberately ignored addressing it by going off on your rant about what you think I think about TG. My opinion about TGs is irrelevant to the discussion. Could it ever fucking cross your mind that maybe I'm arguing on principle here rather than emotion? I have no emotion about the subject. There is a principle here, yet no one wants to address it.

 

2. I have provided case law, authored by Justice Scalia, which discusses the right to privacy in a locker room setting. That you refuse to acknowledge it does not render your opinion authoritative. And I have responded directly to that case law you provided. That you refuse to acknowledge that Scalia also said there were limits to the expectation to privacy except in cases where its "reasonable and legitimate." That case doesn't perfectly make your argument, I would be a bit careful about relying on it too much here.

 

3. See number 2, above. I didn't bother replying to your thousand year comment because it would involve repeating once again something that I have said many times before, that this has been going on a long time and has not been a problem yet. (See answer to number 1, above.) I shall henceforth respond to future versions of this question by referring to these numbers, in lieu of spending the time to respond yet again. Yes, and I have repeatedly agreed with you that there have been TG's with us for a long time. But for as long or longer, there has been a mutual agreed upon separation of the sexes wrt to bathroom and shower facilities. Will you at least stipulate that this has been and continues to be the case? And you keep saying it has not been a problem yet..... well that is patently now incorrect. It IS a problem now as evadent by the IL school case.brought by both the TG and by the girls who wish not to have a girl with a penis showering and changing next to them. That you refuse to acknowledge that it now a problem, and a growing one does not render your opinion authoritative.

 

4. I've responded to that in this thread. If you don't mind, please summarize it then - because its gotten lost in all the noise

 

5. Why not discuss race? Were black folks not discriminated against, in order to keep the majority feeling more comfortable? As I asked the last time I responded to the male/female locker room question, do we wish to discuss the matter in the context of schools or public locker rooms, because the standards applied may very well be different, given the custodial nature of schools and sometimes compulsory use of locker rooms (P.E. class vs. playing sports). I ask because I don't mind spending time digging stuff up if it is read and acknowledged, but folks like nanny will just ignore it and spout idiocy and hatred, and folks like Dog will just change what I said and argue against that, and I do not care to waste time with that. I will say that my answer will come not just from what I feel it should be, but from case law, and that you can likely figure the answer out from those cases discussing locker room privacy in the sports team context, in which folks choose to be in the locker room vs kids in PE who must use it. Race is a red herring here. There are some similarities, but using race is really a poor and cowardly attempt to stomp the issue out and drown out legitimate discussion by pulling out the race card. As I've said, just because some whites back in Plessy were claiming they were being infringed upon doesn't make it legitimate. It was a different time, it still didn't make it right or a legit argument. However, by using race to frame the discussion - you are essentially saying that the straight girls in the shower room have no standing or no legitimate argument and they should just STFU and get out of the way of progress. Is that what you're saying? I don't want to read minds and imagine - so please correct me here.

 

My entire objection all along to this is that the rights of the rest of us seem not to matter not one fuck-ola here. The one TG kid says they want to shower with the girls and the whole world needs to stop spinning and accommodate him/her. Never mind the 10 or 20 other people in that locker room who might legitimately say "wait a min, WTF?" What about their rights to privacy?

 

And futhermore, you diatribe about race in #5 again completely is a tap dance waltz away from the actual question. What does case law say about a man entering and using a women's shower/locker facility? This has nothing whatsoever to do with whether trans feel they are the gender they ID with or not. This entire question has to be framed around the unintended consequences of allowing trans people to use the facility they feel like. You know as well as I do that case law takes into account what the long term consequences are for not only the plaintiff or defendant but for society as a whole. They will and should be looking at that when/if this case gets to them.

 

And BTW - I did NOT ask you what you thought of men using women's facilities - I asked you what the law is. Again you refused to answer. I will assume then that in most states, the law would not look favorably on a man walking into a women's locker room, getting undressed, taking a shower, toweling his balls off in front of them and then walking out. I never mentioned anything about leering or assault or any of those other imagined things. Just his presence there legally is probably not going to go over well. Assuming that is the case, how would the law differentiate between the guy toweling his balls in front of the ladies and a trans walking in a doing the same thing. Maybe if they were super feminine and overtly trans, with breast implants and long curly hair - maybe. But what about the trans who is still fairly outwardly male appearing? You do know that they exist, right? Especially the teens we are discussing. Who then gets to make that call? The school? Wow, talk about opening a can of worms - "NO, you're not girly enough, get out of the ladies room!"

 

 

 

 

Sorry, I didn't respond to you last night.... was heading to bed and this deserved a more considered response.

 

1. I didn't suggest that you were arguing from emotion. I suggested that you have not bothered to avail yourself of the resources I have cited.

2. The foundation of the "reasonable and legitimate" reasons is rendered shaky by the number of times we've actually had girl wee-wees shaking in the faces of girls in the locker room. Reasons for discriminatory laws to solve problems that we have not had, are neither reasonable nor legitimate. As for reasonable and legitimate expectations of privacy in a communal shower and locker room, Scalia laid that to rest.

3. So if we are to make these changes in response to one case in IL, should white supremacists be prohibited from owning firearms because Dylann Roof shhhhhhot a bunch of black folks in their church?

4. 15, 44, 73, 82, 89, 123, 129 (the Cliff's Notes version), 178, 180, 185, 186, 213, 515, 529, 541, 554, 557, 576, 602, 618, 624, 835. Please feel free to ignore these again, but don't suggest that I have not answered your question(s). You just don't like the answers.

5. Racial discriminaton is perfectly analogous here. Folks were uncomfortable sharing public space with the subhuman mongrels, so they were segregated. Share a locker room with THOSE people? What about the feelings of the poor white boys, like little Donnie Smallhands? Won't anyone consider HIS feelings? He deserves his comfort and privacy from those others. Good Americans will never accept THOSE people in our public places.

 

People of all varieties have been using the bathroom in which they feel the most appropriate for quite some time now. Charlotte added gender to their non discrimination ordinance, as a way to signal to the business community that their people would be treated like people, that they could relocate to Charlotte without fear of the type of idiotic discrimination previously seen in the region. Unfortunately, the legislature chose to signal loud and clear that fear and ignorance is alive and well. This isn't a matter of progress. Charlotte was trying to prevent regression to the dark ages. In so doing, they caused a chorus of "whut, there is people who ain't just a simple him or her? Not in my state!"

 

Man in the women's locker room, or transgender woman? Nobody has suggested that people be allowed to use facilities for a gender that does not match their gender identity.

 

To which fallacy will you return us now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps most if not all of you who are struggling with this topic would be less confused and frightened if you took the time to understand how souls are reincarnated.

Transgenderism, bi-sexuality, homosexuality, and even that which is known today as being straight are normal parts of the soul's development process.

As the soul is repeatedly challenged with existing inside new physical beings it retains all it has learned over its previous incarnations as it has traveled througout the universe.

Those souls existing in one of the few heterosexual creatures in this universe are often incapable of living in such a repressed state. Having experienced lives where intimate sexual encounters are available and expected with all other entities of all descriptions, human Herero existence is a frustrating although very brief, hesitation in their development.

Certainly some of you reading this explanation will suspect it is not serious, you can look back and laugh at your human bound soul in your next few incarnations. Perhaps your next incarnation will be one during which knowledge of past and even future incarnations are available.

 

Regardless

The fact is, most of you do not understand the trans girl ( for example) is generally a soul reincarnated and captivated in a body in which it has not learned and may not be able to learn to exist with comfort.

 

It is all just one stop on the path of that soul.

 

Bon voyage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn, where'd I put my waders. The shits getting deep around here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Man in the women's locker room, or transgender woman? Nobody has suggested that people be allowed to use facilities for a gender that does not match their gender identity.

 

To which fallacy will you return us now?

 

 

 

I understand all of the rest you posted and am not going to get bogged down in the legal shitfight. The courts will settle it one way or 'tother. Makes no difference to me and I'll be happy either way.

 

My question about a man in the ladies locker room is not a fallacy. Everyone keeps saying that a man (not a transgender woman) should not be allowed into a ladies locker room. Ok, but why? Why shouldn't they be allowed? I honestly don't see what gender ID has to do with anything here. If the issue is, as you state above using your race analogy that these girls who are uncomfortable being naked with a trans there and they should get over it just like the whites had to get over having to sit next to a mongrel at a southern lunch counter - then shouldn't they also have to get over having a real man being naked next to them too? How is that any different that what you suggest wrt to the trans girl with a penis next to the girls in the locker room?

 

If there IS a difference, please explain to me why a man in the girl's locker room is a bad thing and why they should be segregated in the first place? That is a serious question Sol, because I'm honestly not seeing the distinction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference is that you are arguing about a social expectation and then using that as an invalid basis against the legal argument of whether one has the right to privacy in a public amenity. A social expectation that one can discriminate based on a protected class (be it race or gender) is not protected by the US Constitution. Perhaps it was meant to, but it is very difficult to argue that SCOTUS has been interpreting it that way in recent decades.

 

Should a man, who identifies as a man, walk into the ladies bathroom and use their showers? Probably not as the social expectation is that it is used by people who identify as women. That doesn't, however, make that expectation a right any more than if the social expectation was that negroes stay out of the ladies room to allow those frail Southerners the comfort of shitting without the presence of a black person in their vicinity.

 

We have a million social expectations which we abide by everyday. The vast majority of these social rules have no legal weight behind them and shouldn't unless you really want than nanny government you keep complaining about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After doing some research, the law appears to be silent in most states on the question of whether its illegal for a man to use a woman's bathroom - with the exception of NC and a few other states that have recently enacted statutes to prohibit that practice. I would assume that also applies to locker rooms and shower/changing rooms.

 

As a result - Expect to see many more cases like this: http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/23/man-allowed-to-use-womens-locker-room-at-swimming-pool-without-citing-gender-identity/

 

According to Seattle Parks and Recreation, women alerted staff at Evans Pool staff when a man wearing swim trunks entered the women’s locker room and took off his shirt.

 

When staff told him to leave, the man reportedly said “the law has changed and I have a right to be here.”

 

Employees told Seattle’s King 5 News the man didn’t attempt to identify as female but cited a new Washington state rule allowing individuals to choose their bathroom based on their gender identity.

 

Police were not called to respond to the Feb. 8 incident, although the man returned to the locker room while young girls were changing for swimming practice, King 5 reported.

 

 

 

You can thank the LGBT community for making it perfectly fine for a man to shower and change with your little girls at the public swimming pool. Thank Obama too.....

 

Cool, I'm glad this is finally settled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After doing some research, the law appears to be silent in most states on the question of whether its illegal for a man to use a woman's bathroom - with the exception of NC and a few other states that have recently enacted statutes to prohibit that practice. I would assume that also applies to locker rooms and shower/changing rooms.

 

As a result - Expect to see many more cases like this: http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/23/man-allowed-to-use-womens-locker-room-at-swimming-pool-without-citing-gender-identity/

 

According to Seattle Parks and Recreation, women alerted staff at Evans Pool staff when a man wearing swim trunks entered the women’s locker room and took off his shirt.

 

When staff told him to leave, the man reportedly said “the law has changed and I have a right to be here.”

 

Employees told Seattle’s King 5 News the man didn’t attempt to identify as female but cited a new Washington state rule allowing individuals to choose their bathroom based on their gender identity.

 

Police were not called to respond to the Feb. 8 incident, although the man returned to the locker room while young girls were changing for swimming practice, King 5 reported.

 

 

 

You can thank the LGBT community for making it perfectly fine for a man to shower and change with your little girls at the public swimming pool. Thank Obama too.....

 

Cool, I'm glad this is finally settled.

How fucking stupid are we?.....Thanks Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on the above successful example of a guy using the girls facilities, I used the ladies restroom at a Resturant today. I felt I needed to get in touch with my inner feminine side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on the above successful example of a guy using the girls facilities, I used the ladies restroom at a Resturant today. I felt I needed to get in touch with my inner feminine side.

Did you dangle your dick in anyone's face?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After doing some research, the law appears to be silent in most states on the question of whether its illegal for a man to use a woman's bathroom - with the exception of NC and a few other states that have recently enacted statutes to prohibit that practice. I would assume that also applies to locker rooms and shower/changing rooms.

 

As a result - Expect to see many more cases like this: http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/23/man-allowed-to-use-womens-locker-room-at-swimming-pool-without-citing-gender-identity/

 

According to Seattle Parks and Recreation, women alerted staff at Evans Pool staff when a man wearing swim trunks entered the women’s locker room and took off his shirt.

 

When staff told him to leave, the man reportedly said “the law has changed and I have a right to be here.”

 

Employees told Seattle’s King 5 News the man didn’t attempt to identify as female but cited a new Washington state rule allowing individuals to choose their bathroom based on their gender identity.

 

Police were not called to respond to the Feb. 8 incident, although the man returned to the locker room while young girls were changing for swimming practice, King 5 reported.

 

 

 

You can thank the LGBT community for making it perfectly fine for a man to shower and change with your little girls at the public swimming pool. Thank Obama too.....

 

Cool, I'm glad this is finally settled.

You absolutely can expect to see more of this, now. Was the man a member of the LGBT community?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

After doing some research, the law appears to be silent in most states on the question of whether its illegal for a man to use a woman's bathroom - with the exception of NC and a few other states that have recently enacted statutes to prohibit that practice. I would assume that also applies to locker rooms and shower/changing rooms.

 

As a result - Expect to see many more cases like this: http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/23/man-allowed-to-use-womens-locker-room-at-swimming-pool-without-citing-gender-identity/

 

According to Seattle Parks and Recreation, women alerted staff at Evans Pool staff when a man wearing swim trunks entered the women’s locker room and took off his shirt.

 

When staff told him to leave, the man reportedly said “the law has changed and I have a right to be here.”

 

Employees told Seattle’s King 5 News the man didn’t attempt to identify as female but cited a new Washington state rule allowing individuals to choose their bathroom based on their gender identity.

 

Police were not called to respond to the Feb. 8 incident, although the man returned to the locker room while young girls were changing for swimming practice, King 5 reported.

 

 

 

You can thank the LGBT community for making it perfectly fine for a man to shower and change with your little girls at the public swimming pool. Thank Obama too.....

 

Cool, I'm glad this is finally settled.

You absolutely can expect to see more of this, now. Was the man a member of the LGBT community?

 

Why, does the LGBT community enjoy special rights?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

After doing some research, the law appears to be silent in most states on the question of whether its illegal for a man to use a woman's bathroom - with the exception of NC and a few other states that have recently enacted statutes to prohibit that practice. I would assume that also applies to locker rooms and shower/changing rooms.

 

As a result - Expect to see many more cases like this: http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/23/man-allowed-to-use-womens-locker-room-at-swimming-pool-without-citing-gender-identity/

 

According to Seattle Parks and Recreation, women alerted staff at Evans Pool staff when a man wearing swim trunks entered the women’s locker room and took off his shirt.

 

When staff told him to leave, the man reportedly said “the law has changed and I have a right to be here.”

 

Employees told Seattle’s King 5 News the man didn’t attempt to identify as female but cited a new Washington state rule allowing individuals to choose their bathroom based on their gender identity.

 

Police were not called to respond to the Feb. 8 incident, although the man returned to the locker room while young girls were changing for swimming practice, King 5 reported.

 

 

 

You can thank the LGBT community for making it perfectly fine for a man to shower and change with your little girls at the public swimming pool. Thank Obama too.....

 

Cool, I'm glad this is finally settled.

You absolutely can expect to see more of this, now. Was the man a member of the LGBT community?

 

Why, does the LGBT community enjoy special rights?

 

Why won't the nigras just sit in the back of the bus and shut up, Senator Thurmond, why must they demand special rights?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

States don't have laws about who can go into which bathroom - blame the LGBT.

 

States have a law that allows people who identify as female to use the female changeroom and man breaks that law - blame the LGBT.

 

States make a law about who can go into which changeroom that states the LGBT must stick to biological plumbing, causing the issue to become international news instead of a local ordinance no one has heard of - blame the LGBT.

 

Some people here must be real insecure about something to be so irrational about them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why, does the LGBT community enjoy special rights?

They don't. As JBSF pointed out, everyone has the same rights to use the bathroom they see fit to. Wasn't an issue until the Republicans saw fit to deny it to the LGBT.

 

Unintended consequences suck. Might have been better all round for the Republicans to stop being the party of nanny government for that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why, does the LGBT community enjoy special rights?

They don't. As JBSF pointed out, everyone has the same rights to use the bathroom they see fit to. Wasn't an issue until the Republicans saw fit to deny it to the LGBT.

 

Unintended consequences suck. Might have been better all round for the Republicans to stop being the party of nanny government for that one.

 

Dude...This incident followed a change in the law in Seattle allowing individuals to use bathrooms based on gender identity. You can hardly pin it on Republicans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Why, does the LGBT community enjoy special rights?

 

They don't. As JBSF pointed out, everyone has the same rights to use the bathroom they see fit to. Wasn't an issue until the Republicans saw fit to deny it to the LGBT.

Unintended consequences suck. Might have been better all round for the Republicans to stop being the party of nanny government for that one.

Dude...This incident followed a change in the law in Seattle allowing individuals to use bathrooms based on gender identity. You can hardly pin it on Republicans.
So the LGBT turned the GOP into nanny goverment suckers. Was that their agenda all along?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Why, does the LGBT community enjoy special rights?

They don't. As JBSF pointed out, everyone has the same rights to use the bathroom they see fit to. Wasn't an issue until the Republicans saw fit to deny it to the LGBT.

Unintended consequences suck. Might have been better all round for the Republicans to stop being the party of nanny government for that one.

Dude...This incident followed a change in the law in Seattle allowing individuals to use bathrooms based on gender identity. You can hardly pin it on Republicans.
So the LGBT turned the GOP into nanny goverment suckers. Was that their agenda all along?

 

I'm feel more qualified to comment on stupid than the LGBT agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew they had an agenda, been told that over and over. Never thought it was to make conservatives look stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew they had an agenda, been told that over and over. Never thought it was to make conservatives look stupid.

Keep it up...You haven't figured out who is looking stupid yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The agenda IMHO, is to force social acceptance of what I think is considered by many to be deviant behavior, and to force that acceptance thru legislation. (ie. expansion of protected classes to include behaviors, hate speech laws, etc).

 

Do what you want - that doesn't mean that anyone else should have to pretend to like or abide by that behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yep, I agree with that. I've never heard of a lawsuit against a school district or other government agency requiring minor children to undress in the company of same sex schoolmates.

And your point is what exactly? Either being forced to get naked in front of someone is a violation of one's right to privacy or it isn't. Once again, like it or not, rights are not gender specific - if doing something as a male is a violation, it's a violation as a female too. See the recent same sex marriage decision that some are still smarting over if you think that's somehow in question.

The government requiring minor children to undress in the company of opposite sex classmates will bring the end of PE altogether.

 

If transgenders don't FEEL normal in a locker room we'll just have eliminate locker rooms. Thanks Transgenders - hope you FEEL better!

Or, you know, you can do what we've been doing for decades - provide stalls for those that don't want to get changed in the open space where everyone can see them. Are you really so stuck on seeing other men naked in the change rooms you didn't think of that solution?

Truth is unless there is someone saying the government cannot require people to do something they've done for decades (meaning people agree with it) the Gov can REQUIRE it.

 

I agree the only way around it will be either the government can't require minor to undress in the company of a member of the opposite sex or the government can't require a minor child to undress in front of anyone at all. Due to obvious financial, facility, and time constraints the 'provide private' changing areas for all' won't work for a lot of schools and will result in an end of girls PE.

 

The 'provide private changing facilities' solution is a great 'on paper' solution but is not reasonable in a lot of situations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The locker room issue should absolutely be decided at the local level. It has been, but now it won't be. Thank NC for that. because now we will get a one size fits all decision.

You are incorrect. The federal courts ruled on this issue prior to NC.
Cite please.

Seriously? Where you been the past couple years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The locker room issue should absolutely be decided at the local level. It has been, but now it won't be. Thank NC for that. because now we will get a one size fits all decision.

You are incorrect. The federal courts ruled on this issue prior to NC.
Cite please.
Seriously? Where you been the past couple years?

Nice answer!!

So you made it up!!

Just admit it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The agenda IMHO, is to force social acceptance of what I think is considered by many to be deviant behavior, and to force that acceptance thru legislation. (ie. expansion of protected classes to include behaviors, hate speech laws, etc).

 

Do what you want - that doesn't mean that anyone else should have to pretend to like or abide by that behavior.

Only fools consider the problem to be mental.

The soul is the soul. The problem happens when the wrong body grows around that soul.

Any Trans girl or trans boy will tell you they are in therefore body.

It is no different than having birth marks, curly hair when you want straight hair, brunette when you want blonde, or being a dwarf when you want to play football.

The physiology is screwed up.

 

Nobody is suggesting sending boys into girls' showers. the Trans girls are girls, they just happen to have the wrong bodies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The agenda IMHO, is to force social acceptance of what I think is considered by many to be deviant behavior, and to force that acceptance thru legislation. (ie. expansion of protected classes to include behaviors, hate speech laws, etc).

 

Do what you want - that doesn't mean that anyone else should have to pretend to like or abide by that behavior.

Only fools consider the problem to be mental.

The soul is the soul. The problem happens when the wrong body grows around that soul.

Any Trans girl or trans boy will tell you they are in therefore body.

It is no different than having birth marks, curly hair when you want straight hair, brunette when you want blonde, or being a dwarf when you want to play football.

The physiology is screwed up.

 

Nobody is suggesting sending boys into girls' showers. the Trans girls are girls, they just happen to have the wrong bodies.

 

Fools like this?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/johns-hopkins-psychiatrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change

You have it all wrong, a boy with gender dysphoria is a boy and will never be a girl. A girl with gender dysphoria is a girl and always will be. It's stupid to rearrange established social norms to cater to a disorder afflicting .3% of the population. We need an accommodation but this is not it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The agenda IMHO, is to force social acceptance of what I think is considered by many to be deviant behavior, and to force that acceptance thru legislation. (ie. expansion of protected classes to include behaviors, hate speech laws, etc).

 

Do what you want - that doesn't mean that anyone else should have to pretend to like or abide by that behavior.

Only fools consider the problem to be mental.

The soul is the soul. The problem happens when the wrong body grows around that soul.

Any Trans girl or trans boy will tell you they are in therefore body.

It is no different than having birth marks, curly hair when you want straight hair, brunette when you want blonde, or being a dwarf when you want to play football.

The physiology is screwed up.

 

Nobody is suggesting sending boys into girls' showers. the Trans girls are girls, they just happen to have the wrong bodies.

 

Fools like this?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/johns-hopkins-psychiatrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change

You have it all wrong, a boy with gender dysphoria is a boy and will never be a girl. A girl with gender dysphoria is a girl and always will be. It's stupid to rearrange established social norms to cater to a disorder afflicting .3% of the population. We need an accommodation but this is not it.

 

 

fuck I hate the CNS news website. How can you take so much spam?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The agenda IMHO, is to force social acceptance of what I think is considered by many to be deviant behavior, and to force that acceptance thru legislation. (ie. expansion of protected classes to include behaviors, hate speech laws, etc).

 

Do what you want - that doesn't mean that anyone else should have to pretend to like or abide by that behavior.

Only fools consider the problem to be mental.

The soul is the soul. The problem happens when the wrong body grows around that soul.

Any Trans girl or trans boy will tell you they are in therefore body.

It is no different than having birth marks, curly hair when you want straight hair, brunette when you want blonde, or being a dwarf when you want to play football.

The physiology is screwed up.

 

Nobody is suggesting sending boys into girls' showers. the Trans girls are girls, they just happen to have the wrong bodies.

Fools like this?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/johns-hopkins-psychiatrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change

You have it all wrong, a boy with gender dysphoria is a boy and will never be a girl. A girl with gender dysphoria is a girl and always will be. It's stupid to rearrange established social norms to cater to a disorder afflicting .3% of the population. We need an accommodation but this is not it.

There you go again.

You are looking at it backasswards

The minds are the healthy correct part.

The body is the part which is growing improperly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There you go again.

You are looking at it backasswards

The minds are the healthy correct part.

The body is the part which is growing improperly

 

 

The body is just a vessel for the soul. A life support container to maintain the soul until the afterlife. Too many are focusing on the container and not the contents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this thread is dead ended.

 

You either believe that a transgender person is really what they say they are - or you dont

 

canards about straight pervs taking advantage of a situation are just that, pervs, and should be treated accordingly.

 

Like the gays, if you know a transgender, or have met one or many, you'll be more compassionate.

 

If you think it's deviant or a sickness, you won't.

 

The US got along fine for a couple hundred years before TRANNY! became the latest outrage du jour. Like BENGHAZI and EBOLA! before it.

 

Hell - in some cultures, transgenders are celebrated - and the world doesn't end.

 

Teach your kids to be tolerant of diversity and go on with life. Or don't, and be bitter and outraged. Your choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this thread is dead ended.

 

You either believe that a transgender person is really what they say they are - or you dont

 

canards about straight pervs taking advantage of a situation are just that, pervs, and should be treated accordingly.

 

Like the gays, if you know a transgender, or have met one or many, you'll be more compassionate.

 

If you think it's deviant or a sickness, you won't.

 

The US got along fine for a couple hundred years before TRANNY! became the latest outrage du jour. Like BENGHAZI and EBOLA! before it.

 

Hell - in some cultures, transgenders are celebrated - and the world doesn't end.

 

Teach your kids to be tolerant of diversity and go on with life. Or don't, and be bitter and outraged. Your choice.

Party pooper. Before you know it, the only group we'll be able to discriminate against will be apes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

The agenda IMHO, is to force social acceptance of what I think is considered by many to be deviant behavior, and to force that acceptance thru legislation. (ie. expansion of protected classes to include behaviors, hate speech laws, etc).

 

Do what you want - that doesn't mean that anyone else should have to pretend to like or abide by that behavior.

Only fools consider the problem to be mental.

The soul is the soul. The problem happens when the wrong body grows around that soul.

Any Trans girl or trans boy will tell you they are in therefore body.

It is no different than having birth marks, curly hair when you want straight hair, brunette when you want blonde, or being a dwarf when you want to play football.

The physiology is screwed up.

 

Nobody is suggesting sending boys into girls' showers. the Trans girls are girls, they just happen to have the wrong bodies.

Fools like this?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/johns-hopkins-psychiatrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change

You have it all wrong, a boy with gender dysphoria is a boy and will never be a girl. A girl with gender dysphoria is a girl and always will be. It's stupid to rearrange established social norms to cater to a disorder afflicting .3% of the population. We need an accommodation but this is not it.

There you go again.

You are looking at it backasswards

The minds are the healthy correct part.

The body is the part which is growing improperly

 

Yeah sure..... The former head of psychiatry at the nation's top hospital has it wrong but you, a guy who repairs boats for a living, has it right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

this thread is dead ended.

 

You either believe that a transgender person is really what they say they are - or you dont

 

canards about straight pervs taking advantage of a situation are just that, pervs, and should be treated accordingly.

 

Like the gays, if you know a transgender, or have met one or many, you'll be more compassionate.

 

If you think it's deviant or a sickness, you won't.

 

The US got along fine for a couple hundred years before TRANNY! became the latest outrage du jour. Like BENGHAZI and EBOLA! before it.

 

Hell - in some cultures, transgenders are celebrated - and the world doesn't end.

 

Teach your kids to be tolerant of diversity and go on with life. Or don't, and be bitter and outraged. Your choice.

Party pooper. Before you know it, the only group we'll be able to discriminate against will be apes.

 

 

With extreme prejudice.

 

 

There you go again.

You are looking at it backasswards

The minds are the healthy correct part.

The body is the part which is growing improperly

 

Yeah sure..... The former head of psychiatry at the nation's top hospital has it wrong but you, guy who repairs boats for a living, has it right.

 

 

Dog, is the person the soul or the body?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sol like many, is attempting to conflate not requiring the 97.3% to provide dispensation for the .3%'s disorder with discrimination.

 

He's free to do so, just like I'm free to point out that physiology matters.

 

That the kid in the wheelchair might have a hard time keeping up with the other kids on the track field doesn't mean he shouldn't be allowed on the field, nor does it mean that the other student athletes should be required to compete in wheelchairs to assuage the wheelchair bound kid's feelings. Special, appropriate accommodations to ensure that the wheelchair bound kid has access are accepted - ramps, elevators, wide/auto doors, etc.

 

If the kid feels odd using those special accommodations - are we to eliminate them in deference to that kids feelings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this thread is dead ended.

 

You either believe that a transgender person is really what they say they are - or you dont

 

canards about straight pervs taking advantage of a situation are just that, pervs, and should be treated accordingly.

 

Like the gays, if you know a transgender, or have met one or many, you'll be more compassionate.

 

If you think it's deviant or a sickness, you won't.

 

The US got along fine for a couple hundred years before TRANNY! became the latest outrage du jour. Like BENGHAZI and EBOLA! before it.

 

Hell - in some cultures, transgenders are celebrated - and the world doesn't end.

 

Teach your kids to be tolerant of diversity and go on with life. Or don't, and be bitter and outraged. Your choice.

I reject the notion that recognizing the disorder for what it is and treating it as a disorder is not compassionate.

 

“policy makers and the media are doing no favors either to the public or the transgendered by treating their confusions as a right in need of defending rather than as a mental disorder that deserves understanding, treatment and prevention.” Dr. Paul R. McHugh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

this thread is dead ended.

 

You either believe that a transgender person is really what they say they are - or you dont

 

canards about straight pervs taking advantage of a situation are just that, pervs, and should be treated accordingly.

 

Like the gays, if you know a transgender, or have met one or many, you'll be more compassionate.

 

If you think it's deviant or a sickness, you won't.

 

The US got along fine for a couple hundred years before TRANNY! became the latest outrage du jour. Like BENGHAZI and EBOLA! before it.

 

Hell - in some cultures, transgenders are celebrated - and the world doesn't end.

 

Teach your kids to be tolerant of diversity and go on with life. Or don't, and be bitter and outraged. Your choice.

Party pooper. Before you know it, the only group we'll be able to discriminate against will be apes.

 

 

With extreme prejudice.

 

 

There you go again.

You are looking at it backasswards

The minds are the healthy correct part.

The body is the part which is growing improperly

 

Yeah sure..... The former head of psychiatry at the nation's top hospital has it wrong but you, guy who repairs boats for a living, has it right.

 

 

Dog, is the person the soul or the body?

 

Both

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Dog, is the person the soul or the body?

 

Both

 

 

Is one more important than the other? If there is a conflict, what would Jesus say wins?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this thread is dead ended.

 

You either believe that a transgender person is really what they say they are - or you dont

 

canards about straight pervs taking advantage of a situation are just that, pervs, and should be treated accordingly.

 

Like the gays, if you know a transgender, or have met one or many, you'll be more compassionate.

 

If you think it's deviant or a sickness, you won't.

 

The US got along fine for a couple hundred years before TRANNY! became the latest outrage du jour. Like BENGHAZI and EBOLA! before it.

 

Hell - in some cultures, transgenders are celebrated - and the world doesn't end.

 

Teach your kids to be tolerant of diversity and go on with life. Or don't, and be bitter and outraged. Your choice.

 

How do you determine who is a perv and who is a genuine transgendered person? There is no test, there is no way to identify outside of the word of the person in question. It would certainly make the issue simpler if there were a simple and conclusive way to identify which is which, but there is not. Wishing there was, or pretending there is, is not going to change that.

 

Separately, I don't think telling the Hassidic woman she needs to be tolerant of diversity and accept the transgendered woman with a penis naked next to her while she is changing is going to fly. Of course we could just take all the religious people, round them up, and burn them at the stake. That will help diversity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YCMTSU

 

 

ACLU LEADER QUITS AFTER DAUGHTERS ENCOUNTER MEN IN THE WOMEN’S RESTROOM

 

private-a-minute-with-maya-dilla_810_500

 

Maya Dillard Smith, interim director of the Georgia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, has resigned over the ACLU’s position on who can use which public restrooms. The resignation occurred after her two daughters were traumatized by encountering men in the women’s restroom. Dillard Smith explained:

I have shared my personal experience of having taken my elementary school age daughters into a women’s restroom when shortly after three transgender young adults, over six feet [tall] with deep voices, entered. My children were visibly frightened, concerned about their safety and left asking lots of questions for which I, like many parents, was ill-prepared to answer.

Dillard Smith complained that the ACLU has become “a special interest organization that promotes not all, but certain progressive rights” and that the “hierarchy of rights” the ACLU chooses to defend or ignore is “based on who is funding the organization’s lobbying activities.” Further expressing her disillusionment, Dillard Smith stated:

I understood it to be the ACLU’s goal to delicately balance competing rights to ensure that any infringements are narrowly tailored, that they do not create a hierarchy of rights, and that we are mindful of unintended consequences. I believe there are solutions that can provide accommodations for transgender people and balance the need to ensure women and girls are safe from those who might have malicious intent.

 

 

Unfortunately, as she has learned, Dillard Smith’s view of the ACLU bears little relation to reality. The ACLU’s goal — like that of the LGBT movement — is to shove a radical agenda down the throats of the American people, not to balance rights and find reasonable accommodations.

A transgender activist — a biological male who goes by the name Cheryl Courtney-Evans — responded to Dillard Smith’s resignation by calling her “lazy,” “ill-educated,” and a “b–ch” who needs to sit down and “STFU.” No one who has seen LGBT activists in action will be surprised by this charming response.

Actually, Dillard Smith is well educated. She earned a degree in economics from Berkeley and a master’s degree at Harvard.

She’s also a liberal Democrat. And until she resigned, she was one of the youngest ACLU directors in the nation and one of only three African-Americans employed by the ACLU in that role.

These days, one hears intelligent people assert that the “culture war” is over. It isn’t, and won’t be soon, because the left will keep looking for new cultural battlegrounds. Today, public restrooms; tomorrow, the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Dog, is the person the soul or the body?

 

Both

 

 

Is one more important than the other? If there is a conflict, what would Jesus say wins?

 

If an anorexic person who is just skin and bones and close to death thinks they are fat is it compassionate to accept their perception as reality?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sol like many, is attempting to conflate not requiring the 97.3% to provide dispensation for the .3%'s disorder with discrimination.

 

He's free to do so, just like I'm free to point out that physiology matters.

 

That the kid in the wheelchair might have a hard time keeping up with the other kids on the track field doesn't mean he shouldn't be allowed on the field, nor does it mean that the other student athletes should be required to compete in wheelchairs to assuage the wheelchair bound kid's feelings. Special, appropriate accommodations to ensure that the wheelchair bound kid has access are accepted - ramps, elevators, wide/auto doors, etc.

 

If the kid feels odd using those special accommodations - are we to eliminate them in deference to that kids feelings?

Imagine if there was something like an ADA. IMAGINE!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

this thread is dead ended.

 

You either believe that a transgender person is really what they say they are - or you dont

 

canards about straight pervs taking advantage of a situation are just that, pervs, and should be treated accordingly.

 

Like the gays, if you know a transgender, or have met one or many, you'll be more compassionate.

 

If you think it's deviant or a sickness, you won't.

 

The US got along fine for a couple hundred years before TRANNY! became the latest outrage du jour. Like BENGHAZI and EBOLA! before it.

 

Hell - in some cultures, transgenders are celebrated - and the world doesn't end.

 

Teach your kids to be tolerant of diversity and go on with life. Or don't, and be bitter and outraged. Your choice.

How do you determine who is a perv and who is a genuine transgendered person? There is no test, there is no way to identify outside of the word of the person in question. It would certainly make the issue simpler if there were a simple and conclusive way to identify which is which, but there is not. Wishing there was, or pretending there is, is not going to change that.

 

Separately, I don't think telling the Hassidic woman she needs to be tolerant of diversity and accept the transgendered woman with a penis naked next to her while she is changing is going to fly. Of course we could just take all the religious people, round them up, and burn them at the stake. That will help diversity.

Why doesn't the mechanism that worked for millennia, work today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flash - imagine if someone said that the ADA was a problem! Kids in a wheelchair have different needs, and those needs are accommodated.

 

Now - try responding to the delta between how the provisions of the ADA have been implemented, and what the parents of the Trans kids are asking for. I know ya can, and most likely without even having to think too hard about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

this thread is dead ended.

 

You either believe that a transgender person is really what they say they are - or you dont

 

canards about straight pervs taking advantage of a situation are just that, pervs, and should be treated accordingly.

 

Like the gays, if you know a transgender, or have met one or many, you'll be more compassionate.

 

If you think it's deviant or a sickness, you won't.

 

The US got along fine for a couple hundred years before TRANNY! became the latest outrage du jour. Like BENGHAZI and EBOLA! before it.

 

Hell - in some cultures, transgenders are celebrated - and the world doesn't end.

 

Teach your kids to be tolerant of diversity and go on with life. Or don't, and be bitter and outraged. Your choice.

How do you determine who is a perv and who is a genuine transgendered person? There is no test, there is no way to identify outside of the word of the person in question. It would certainly make the issue simpler if there were a simple and conclusive way to identify which is which, but there is not. Wishing there was, or pretending there is, is not going to change that.

 

Separately, I don't think telling the Hassidic woman she needs to be tolerant of diversity and accept the transgendered woman with a penis naked next to her while she is changing is going to fly. Of course we could just take all the religious people, round them up, and burn them at the stake. That will help diversity.

Why doesn't the mechanism that worked for millennia, work today?

 

 

We have covered this a thousand times already. It doesn't work, because now there are laws. Once there are laws, they need to be uniformly applied. It doesn't matter whether we blame the state of NC or the LGBT community for it, there were laws coming from both sides, and those laws are what eliminated the ability for us a a society to simply let people who look like women use facilities that are for women, and to throw out the ones that don't. Those days are gone now, and it really does not matter who started it or who you want to blame. We now have a situation where there are laws and regulations that state it is discriminatory to do anything but accept a person's statement that they identify as one gender or the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flash - imagine if someone said that the ADA was a problem! Kids in a wheelchair have different needs, and those needs are accommodated.

 

Now - try responding to the delta between how the provisions of the ADA have been implemented, and what the parents of the Trans kids are asking for. I know ya can, and most likely without even having to think too hard about it.

I think those parents asked for too much.that said, I don't think it needed to be dealt with nationally. I'm not a big fan of intrusive cultural govt edicts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

this thread is dead ended.

 

You either believe that a transgender person is really what they say they are - or you dont

 

canards about straight pervs taking advantage of a situation are just that, pervs, and should be treated accordingly.

 

Like the gays, if you know a transgender, or have met one or many, you'll be more compassionate.

 

If you think it's deviant or a sickness, you won't.

 

The US got along fine for a couple hundred years before TRANNY! became the latest outrage du jour. Like BENGHAZI and EBOLA! before it.

 

Hell - in some cultures, transgenders are celebrated - and the world doesn't end.

 

Teach your kids to be tolerant of diversity and go on with life. Or don't, and be bitter and outraged. Your choice.

How do you determine who is a perv and who is a genuine transgendered person? There is no test, there is no way to identify outside of the word of the person in question. It would certainly make the issue simpler if there were a simple and conclusive way to identify which is which, but there is not. Wishing there was, or pretending there is, is not going to change that.

 

Separately, I don't think telling the Hassidic woman she needs to be tolerant of diversity and accept the transgendered woman with a penis naked next to her while she is changing is going to fly. Of course we could just take all the religious people, round them up, and burn them at the stake. That will help diversity.

Why doesn't the mechanism that worked for millennia, work today?

We have covered this a thousand times already. It doesn't work, because now there are laws. Once there are laws, they need to be uniformly applied. It doesn't matter whether we blame the state of NC or the LGBT community for it, there were laws coming from both sides, and those laws are what eliminated the ability for us a a society to simply let people who look like women use facilities that are for women, and to throw out the ones that don't. Those days are gone now, and it really does not matter who started it or who you want to blame. We now have a situation where there are laws and regulations that state it is discriminatory to do anything but accept a person's statement that they identify as one gender or the other.

Well, yeah, now that we're forced into laws, it's gonna be messy because local control was yanked away. Of course, schools could decide not to take Fed dollars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

this thread is dead ended.

 

You either believe that a transgender person is really what they say they are - or you dont

 

canards about straight pervs taking advantage of a situation are just that, pervs, and should be treated accordingly.

 

Like the gays, if you know a transgender, or have met one or many, you'll be more compassionate.

 

If you think it's deviant or a sickness, you won't.

 

The US got along fine for a couple hundred years before TRANNY! became the latest outrage du jour. Like BENGHAZI and EBOLA! before it.

 

Hell - in some cultures, transgenders are celebrated - and the world doesn't end.

 

Teach your kids to be tolerant of diversity and go on with life. Or don't, and be bitter and outraged. Your choice.

How do you determine who is a perv and who is a genuine transgendered person? There is no test, there is no way to identify outside of the word of the person in question. It would certainly make the issue simpler if there were a simple and conclusive way to identify which is which, but there is not. Wishing there was, or pretending there is, is not going to change that.

 

Separately, I don't think telling the Hassidic woman she needs to be tolerant of diversity and accept the transgendered woman with a penis naked next to her while she is changing is going to fly. Of course we could just take all the religious people, round them up, and burn them at the stake. That will help diversity.

Why doesn't the mechanism that worked for millennia, work today?

We have covered this a thousand times already. It doesn't work, because now there are laws. Once there are laws, they need to be uniformly applied. It doesn't matter whether we blame the state of NC or the LGBT community for it, there were laws coming from both sides, and those laws are what eliminated the ability for us a a society to simply let people who look like women use facilities that are for women, and to throw out the ones that don't. Those days are gone now, and it really does not matter who started it or who you want to blame. We now have a situation where there are laws and regulations that state it is discriminatory to do anything but accept a person's statement that they identify as one gender or the other.

Well, yeah, now that we're forced into laws, it's gonna be messy because local control was yanked away. Of course, schools could decide not to take Fed dollars.

 

 

That has been my point from the beginning. It is too late now to go back to the past. The only path forward I see is one where eventually common showering and changing facilities are eliminated in favor of private ones, everything is gender neutral. The laws are here and will be expanded, that is assured. If the laws protecting transgendered people are rolled back, we will get news reports of someone, who has every appearance of being a woman, being attacked in a men's room, and we will continue to see reports of people who appear outwardly male who cause panic in women's rooms as the laws are expanded. The only path forward is gender neutral facilities with individual privacy while unclothed. As I said before, shovel ready project. Gonna be costly, but will keep the construction biz in work for a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

this thread is dead ended.

 

You either believe that a transgender person is really what they say they are - or you dont

 

canards about straight pervs taking advantage of a situation are just that, pervs, and should be treated accordingly.

 

Like the gays, if you know a transgender, or have met one or many, you'll be more compassionate.

 

If you think it's deviant or a sickness, you won't.

 

The US got along fine for a couple hundred years before TRANNY! became the latest outrage du jour. Like BENGHAZI and EBOLA! before it.

 

Hell - in some cultures, transgenders are celebrated - and the world doesn't end.

 

Teach your kids to be tolerant of diversity and go on with life. Or don't, and be bitter and outraged. Your choice.

How do you determine who is a perv and who is a genuine transgendered person? There is no test, there is no way to identify outside of the word of the person in question. It would certainly make the issue simpler if there were a simple and conclusive way to identify which is which, but there is not. Wishing there was, or pretending there is, is not going to change that.

 

Separately, I don't think telling the Hassidic woman she needs to be tolerant of diversity and accept the transgendered woman with a penis naked next to her while she is changing is going to fly. Of course we could just take all the religious people, round them up, and burn them at the stake. That will help diversity.

Why doesn't the mechanism that worked for millennia, work today?

We have covered this a thousand times already. It doesn't work, because now there are laws. Once there are laws, they need to be uniformly applied. It doesn't matter whether we blame the state of NC or the LGBT community for it, there were laws coming from both sides, and those laws are what eliminated the ability for us a a society to simply let people who look like women use facilities that are for women, and to throw out the ones that don't. Those days are gone now, and it really does not matter who started it or who you want to blame. We now have a situation where there are laws and regulations that state it is discriminatory to do anything but accept a person's statement that they identify as one gender or the other.

Well, yeah, now that we're forced into laws, it's gonna be messy because local control was yanked away. Of course, schools could decide not to take Fed dollars.

 

That has been my point from the beginning. It is too late now to go back to the past. The only path forward I see is one where eventually common showering and changing facilities are eliminated in favor of private ones, everything is gender neutral. The laws are here and will be expanded, that is assured. If the laws protecting transgendered people are rolled back, we will get news reports of someone, who has every appearance of being a woman, being attacked in a men's room, and we will continue to see reports of people who appear outwardly male who cause panic in women's rooms as the laws are expanded. The only path forward is gender neutral facilities with individual privacy while unclothed. As I said before, shovel ready project. Gonna be costly, but will keep the construction biz in work for a while.

 

The ADA approach. You might be right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

W/R/T "the parents asked for too much" & "it should be handled locally" - I completely agree. I don't think that there's any benefit in ostracizing any segment of society. I also think that pretending that the differences that define those segments don't exist is harmful.

 

My constant, personal struggle is to accept and understand differences, and to distinguish between those differences/behaviors that are harmful, and those that would be simply "different", with the goal being to realize that "different=OK" "harmful != OK"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

After doing some research, the law appears to be silent in most states on the question of whether its illegal for a man to use a woman's bathroom - with the exception of NC and a few other states that have recently enacted statutes to prohibit that practice. I would assume that also applies to locker rooms and shower/changing rooms.

 

As a result - Expect to see many more cases like this: http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/23/man-allowed-to-use-womens-locker-room-at-swimming-pool-without-citing-gender-identity/

 

According to Seattle Parks and Recreation, women alerted staff at Evans Pool staff when a man wearing swim trunks entered the womens locker room and took off his shirt.

 

When staff told him to leave, the man reportedly said the law has changed and I have a right to be here.

 

Employees told Seattles King 5 News the man didnt attempt to identify as female but cited a new Washington state rule allowing individuals to choose their bathroom based on their gender identity.

 

Police were not called to respond to the Feb. 8 incident, although the man returned to the locker room while young girls were changing for swimming practice, King 5 reported.

 

 

You can thank the LGBT community for making it perfectly fine for a man to shower and change with your little girls at the public swimming pool. Thank Obama too.....

 

Cool, I'm glad this is finally settled.

You absolutely can expect to see more of this, now. Was the man a member of the LGBT community?

Why, does the LGBT community enjoy special rights?

Why won't the nigras just sit in the back of the bus and shut up, Senator Thurmond, why must they demand special rights?

But see, that's where you fail. They weren't demanding "special"rights. They were demanding "equal"rights. Why doesn't a man have "equal" rights to shower with the wimin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

The locker room issue should absolutely be decided at the local level. It has been, but now it won't be. Thank NC for that. because now we will get a one size fits all decision.

You are incorrect. The federal courts ruled on this issue prior to NC.
Cite please.
Seriously? Where you been the past couple years?
Nice answer!!

So you made it up!!

Just admit it.

No, dumbshit, I didn't make it up. If you don't know a federal court on this at a school level before NC you are ignorant regarding this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The agenda IMHO, is to force social acceptance of what I think is considered by many to be deviant behavior, and to force that acceptance thru legislation. (ie. expansion of protected classes to include behaviors, hate speech laws, etc).

 

Do what you want - that doesn't mean that anyone else should have to pretend to like or abide by that behavior.

Only fools consider the problem to be mental.

The soul is the soul. The problem happens when the wrong body grows around that soul.

Any Trans girl or trans boy will tell you they are in therefore body.

It is no different than having birth marks, curly hair when you want straight hair, brunette when you want blonde, or being a dwarf when you want to play football.

The physiology is screwed up.

 

Nobody is suggesting sending boys into girls' showers. the Trans girls are girls, they just happen to have the wrong bodies.

The entire concept of gender evolves around the body. It's called TRANSgender because the body is in a state of forced change.

 

The agenda IMHO, is to force social acceptance of what I think is considered by many to be deviant behavior, and to force that acceptance thru legislation. (ie. expansion of protected classes to include behaviors, hate speech laws, etc).

 

Do what you want - that doesn't mean that anyone else should have to pretend to like or abide by that behavior.

Only fools consider the problem to be mental.

The soul is the soul. The problem happens when the wrong body grows around that soul.

Any Trans girl or trans boy will tell you they are in therefore body.

It is no different than having birth marks, curly hair when you want straight hair, brunette when you want blonde, or being a dwarf when you want to play football.

The physiology is screwed up.

 

Nobody is suggesting sending boys into girls' showers. the Trans girls are girls, they just happen to have the wrong bodies.

The entire concept of gender evolves around the body. It's called TRANSgender because the body is in a state of forced change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

YCMTSU

 

 

ACLU LEADER QUITS AFTER DAUGHTERS ENCOUNTER MEN IN THE WOMENS RESTROOM

 

private-a-minute-with-maya-dilla_810_500

Maya Dillard Smith, interim director of the Georgia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, has resigned over the ACLUs position on who can use which public restrooms. The resignation occurred after her two daughters were traumatized by encountering men in the womens restroom. Dillard Smith explained:

I have shared my personal experience of having taken my elementary school age daughters into a womens restroom when shortly after three transgender young adults, over six feet [tall] with deep voices, entered. My children were visibly frightened, concerned about their safety and left asking lots of questions for which I, like many parents, was ill-prepared to answer.

Dillard Smith complained that the ACLU has become a special interest organization that promotes not all, but certain progressive rights and that the hierarchy of rights the ACLU chooses to defend or ignore is based on who is funding the organizations lobbying activities. Further expressing her disillusionment, Dillard Smith stated:

I understood it to be the ACLUs goal to delicately balance competing rights to ensure that any infringements are narrowly tailored, that they do not create a hierarchy of rights, and that we are mindful of unintended consequences. I believe there are solutions that can provide accommodations for transgender people and balance the need to ensure women and girls are safe from those who might have malicious intent.

 

 

Unfortunately, as she has learned, Dillard Smiths view of the ACLU bears little relation to reality. The ACLUs goal like that of the LGBT movement is to shove a radical agenda down the throats of the American people, not to balance rights and find reasonable accommodations.

A transgender activist a biological male who goes by the name Cheryl Courtney-Evans responded to Dillard Smiths resignation by calling her lazy, ill-educated, and a bch who needs to sit down and STFU. No one who has seen LGBT activists in action will be surprised by this charming response.

Actually, Dillard Smith is well educated. She earned a degree in economics from Berkeley and a masters degree at Harvard.

Shes also a liberal Democrat. And until she resigned, she was one of the youngest ACLU directors in the nation and one of only three African-Americans employed by the ACLU in that role.

These days, one hears intelligent people assert that the culture war is over. It isnt, and wont be soon, because the left will keep looking for new cultural battlegrounds. Today, public restrooms; tomorrow, the world.

Good thing she resigned. Can't have someone who teaches their children to be bigoted racist haters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Why, does the LGBT community enjoy special rights?

Why won't the nigras just sit in the back of the bus and shut up, Senator Thurmond, why must they demand special rights?

But see, that's where you fail. They weren't demanding "special"rights. They were demanding "equal"rights. Why doesn't a man have "equal" rights to shower with the wimin?

 

I think you quoted me by mistake. Dog was the one that suggested that they were enjoying special rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

this thread is dead ended.

 

You either believe that a transgender person is really what they say they are - or you dont

 

canards about straight pervs taking advantage of a situation are just that, pervs, and should be treated accordingly.

 

Like the gays, if you know a transgender, or have met one or many, you'll be more compassionate.

 

If you think it's deviant or a sickness, you won't.

 

The US got along fine for a couple hundred years before TRANNY! became the latest outrage du jour. Like BENGHAZI and EBOLA! before it.

 

Hell - in some cultures, transgenders are celebrated - and the world doesn't end.

 

Teach your kids to be tolerant of diversity and go on with life. Or don't, and be bitter and outraged. Your choice.

How do you determine who is a perv and who is a genuine transgendered person? There is no test, there is no way to identify outside of the word of the person in question. It would certainly make the issue simpler if there were a simple and conclusive way to identify which is which, but there is not. Wishing there was, or pretending there is, is not going to change that.

 

Separately, I don't think telling the Hassidic woman she needs to be tolerant of diversity and accept the transgendered woman with a penis naked next to her while she is changing is going to fly. Of course we could just take all the religious people, round them up, and burn them at the stake. That will help diversity.

Why doesn't the mechanism that worked for millennia, work today?

We have covered this a thousand times already. It doesn't work, because now there are laws. Once there are laws, they need to be uniformly applied. It doesn't matter whether we blame the state of NC or the LGBT community for it, there were laws coming from both sides, and those laws are what eliminated the ability for us a a society to simply let people who look like women use facilities that are for women, and to throw out the ones that don't. Those days are gone now, and it really does not matter who started it or who you want to blame. We now have a situation where there are laws and regulations that state it is discriminatory to do anything but accept a person's statement that they identify as one gender or the other.

Well, yeah, now that we're forced into laws, it's gonna be messy because local control was yanked away. Of course, schools could decide not to take Fed dollars.

If it were truly legal to do what the fed is saying thered be no threat of withholding funds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Is one more important than the other? If there is a conflict, what would Jesus say wins?

 

If an anorexic person who is just skin and bones and close to death thinks they are fat is it compassionate to accept their perception as reality?

 

 

Yes it is. Then offer them a sandwich. Its what Jesus would do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Romans 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Is one more important than the other? If there is a conflict, what would Jesus say wins?

 

If an anorexic person who is just skin and bones and close to death thinks they are fat is it compassionate to accept their perception as reality?

 

 

Yes it is. Then offer them a sandwich. Its what Jesus would do.

 

Sounds like you don't believe the anorexic person is fat. Offering them food is so insensitive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Is one more important than the other? If there is a conflict, what would Jesus say wins?

 

If an anorexic person who is just skin and bones and close to death thinks they are fat is it compassionate to accept their perception as reality?

 

 

Yes it is. Then offer them a sandwich. Its what Jesus would do.

 

Sounds like you don't believe the anorexic person is fat.

 

 

I accept the right of the soul to believe what they wish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is one more important than the other? If there is a conflict, what would Jesus say wins?

 

If an anorexic person who is just skin and bones and close to death thinks they are fat is it compassionate to accept their perception as reality?

 

 

Yes it is. Then offer them a sandwich. Its what Jesus would do.

 

Sounds like you don't believe the anorexic person is fat.

 

 

I accept the right of the soul to believe what they wish.

 

But you don't believe their perception is their reality. The trans person is not what they perceive themselves to be either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Romans 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

 

 

And swinging johnson's in the little girls room. Let's not forget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Romans 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

 

And swinging johnson's in the little girls room. Let's not forget.

Should the be "swinging johnsons" in the little boys room?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I accept the right of the soul to believe what they wish.

 

But you don't believe their perception is their reality. The trans person is not what they perceive themselves to be either.

 

 

Their perception is their reality. The fact is you don't agree with them, so they must be discriminated against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I accept the right of the soul to believe what they wish.

 

But you don't believe their perception is their reality. The trans person is not what they perceive themselves to be either.

 

 

Their perception is their reality. The fact is you don't agree with them, so they must be discriminated against.

 

No, it's not. They have gender dysphoria, they are not what they perceive themselves to be. Just like the anorexic is not fat. They deserve to be treated with compassion but pretending their perception is reality and requiring everyone to play along is stupid and benefits no one.. Sorry to play the reality card on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I accept the right of the soul to believe what they wish.

 

But you don't believe their perception is their reality. The trans person is not what they perceive themselves to be either.

Their perception is their reality. The fact is you don't agree with them, so they must be discriminated against.

No, it's not. They have gender dysphoria, they are not what they perceive themselves to be. Just like the anorexic is not fat. They deserve to be treated with compassion but pretending their perception is reality and requiring everyone to play along is stupid and benefits no one.. Sorry to play the reality card on you.

Living in your reality must be hard. Straight edges, pointy corners, no shades of grey. I feel compassion for you and your elk. Sad really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I accept the right of the soul to believe what they wish.

 

But you don't believe their perception is their reality. The trans person is not what they perceive themselves to be either.

Their perception is their reality. The fact is you don't agree with them, so they must be discriminated against.

No, it's not. They have gender dysphoria, they are not what they perceive themselves to be. Just like the anorexic is not fat. They deserve to be treated with compassion but pretending their perception is reality and requiring everyone to play along is stupid and benefits no one.. Sorry to play the reality card on you.

Living in your reality must be hard. Straight edges, pointy corners, no shades of grey. I feel compassion for you and your elk. Sad really.

 

It can be hard but I prefer it to fantasy, someone has to defend reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

I accept the right of the soul to believe what they wish.

 

But you don't believe their perception is their reality. The trans person is not what they perceive themselves to be either.

 

 

Their perception is their reality. The fact is you don't agree with them, so they must be discriminated against.

 

No, it's not. They have gender dysphoria, they are not what they perceive themselves to be. Just like the anorexic is not fat. They deserve to be treated with compassion but pretending their perception is reality and requiring everyone to play along is stupid and benefits no one.. Sorry to play the reality card on you.

 

 

We all live in our own perception of reality. Because someone doesn't align with your reality, doesn't make them lesser. The compassionate thing would be to allow them to maintain their own reality. That means going to the bathroom that they are comfortable in. That's compassionate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

I accept the right of the soul to believe what they wish.

 

But you don't believe their perception is their reality. The trans person is not what they perceive themselves to be either.

 

 

Their perception is their reality. The fact is you don't agree with them, so they must be discriminated against.

 

No, it's not. They have gender dysphoria, they are not what they perceive themselves to be. Just like the anorexic is not fat. They deserve to be treated with compassion but pretending their perception is reality and requiring everyone to play along is stupid and benefits no one.. Sorry to play the reality card on you.

 

 

We all live in our own perception of reality. Because someone doesn't align with your reality, doesn't make them lesser. The compassionate thing would be to allow them to maintain their own reality. That means going to the bathroom that they are comfortable in. That's compassionate.

 

Don't put words in my mouth bigot, I did not say they were lesser. Their perception of themselves does not agree with their reality. You can go ahead and pretend it does, I'm not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Why, does the LGBT community enjoy special rights?

They don't. As JBSF pointed out, everyone has the same rights to use the bathroom they see fit to. Wasn't an issue until the Republicans saw fit to deny it to the LGBT.

 

Unintended consequences suck. Might have been better all round for the Republicans to stop being the party of nanny government for that one.

 

Dude...This incident followed a change in the law in Seattle allowing individuals to use bathrooms based on gender identity. You can hardly pin it on Republicans.

 

As JBSF pointed out, the ability to wander on into any bathroom existed before the law that specifically said people could based on gender identity. The man didn't identify as female, he either broke the law (not the LGBT's fault) or there was no prohibition stopping him from entering in the first place (not the LGBT's fault). I never blamed the Republicans for that man's actions, but it isn't the fault of the LGBT.

 

I can blame the Republicans for making bathroom use international news. They turned a local city ordinance into a political rallying cry across your country. No amount of finger-pointing at "the queers" is going to change that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

We all live in our own perception of reality. Because someone doesn't align with your reality, doesn't make them lesser. The compassionate thing would be to allow them to maintain their own reality. That means going to the bathroom that they are comfortable in. That's compassionate.

 

Don't put words in my mouth bigot, I did not say they were lesser. Their perception of themselves does not agree with their reality. You can go ahead and pretend it does, I'm not.

 

 

Their perception of themselves DEFINES their reality. Why can't you understand that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The agenda IMHO, is to force social acceptance of what I think is considered by many to be deviant behavior, and to force that acceptance thru legislation. (ie. expansion of protected classes to include behaviors, hate speech laws, etc).

 

Do what you want - that doesn't mean that anyone else should have to pretend to like or abide by that behavior.

 

No-one is saying you have to like or abide by social expectations you disagree with. Same applies to the transgender folks. The argument was, before some people did their research, whether or not LGBT people should be able to get "special rights" over & above the rest of the straight folk. Thing is, they didn't get special rights - despite building codes requiring separate bathrooms for the two genders since 1887 - there was no laws requiring someone of a given chromosomal makeup to use one or the other.

 

That's the thing that's screwing up the "leave my rights alone" argument people have been trying to wedge onto this. Prior to the Republicans legislating against the LGBT, everyone was allowed to use whichever public bathrooms & change rooms they liked. Everyone had the same rights. Now they don't because the nanny government Christian morality police decided to make a big issue of this and legislate against an action that wasn't a big deal... until they needed it to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites