The Instigator
Flametiger200
Pro (for)
Winning
2 Points
The Contender
Hillary4Prez
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Transgenders should use the restrooms according to their gender

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Flametiger200
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/23/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 446 times Debate No: 91681
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

Flametiger200

Pro

Transgenders should use the restrooms according to their chromosome levels and what's inbetween their legs.
Hillary4Prez

Con

This is a bad idea for several reasons.

First of all, when a person who is transgender is forced to use the bathroom corresponding to the gender that they don't identify with, they are subjected to verbal, physical, and sexual abuse. Because you say that they can't use the bathroom they identify with, and because many transgender people feel that they may be in danger if they use the bathroom of their physical gender, many transgender people simply don't use the bathroom when they're in the workplace or school. This can lead to serious health risks. When normal people are put in danger of serious harm just because of hateful, transphobic people, you know you have a problem.

Secondly, this proposed policy simply does more to separate people into groups, where they can then be demonized and insulted. They're just normal people. Discrimination is something that has plagued society for centuries. In a civilized nation, discrimination has no place.

Finally, this is just plain unconstitutional. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees us all equal protection under the law. By causing discriminatory policies to be put in place and by causing people to possibly be subjected to severe mental and physical bullying and harassment as a direct result of said policies, you are directly violating the aforementioned amendment.

For these reasons, and many more, I respectfully request that voters cast their opinions against these proposed policies.
Debate Round No. 1
Flametiger200

Pro

Thanks for accepting. This is my 1st debate. Alright time to begin.

"First of all, when a person who is transgender is forced to use the bathroom corresponding to the gender that they don't identify with, they are subjected to verbal, physical, and sexual abuse."

I don't know of any Transgenders their own restrooms and get abused. Especially sexually. No offense but don't you think that it's a little odd for someone to sexually abuse a transgender?

Most people tend to stay away from them.

Anyways. Even if they do get abused that's not a valid reason for them to use the women's restrooms.

You see, allowing men to go into the women's restroom will allow access to predators. This will put PLENTY of women and children in REAL danger. PLENTY.

you see when I was a younger....about 3 or 4 my mother would always take me to the women's restroom because of how much safer it was tHan the men's restroom.

But because of this law. No one is safe is either restroom.

A regular looking guy with the deepest voice can come in the women's restroom and claim he's a transgender and pull out his penis with in front of a bunch of women and children. Or could even spy on them and record them.

You talk about how transgenders are in danger or whatever for not using the women's restroom, but what about THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN....you know.....THE MAJORITY. How do you think they feel??? You guys will make just as uncomfortable as you were...if not even worse than you were. Most women aren't on board with this transgender bathroom thing.

Don't you realize that you're taking away the rights of even more people??

"Secondly, this proposed policy simply does more to separate people into groups, where they can then be demonized and insulted. They're just normal people. Discrimination is something that has plagued society for centuries. In a civilized nation, discrimination has no place."

I don't understand. How does making men use the men's restroom and women use the women's restroom discrimination??? That doesn't make any sense.

And how will letting men use the women's restroom end the supposed "discrimination" against transgenders.

People will still demonize and insult them. This bathroom issue won't change anything. It'll make things worse for everyone, in fact people now despise transgenders even more than before thanks to this issue if you haven't noticed.

"Finally, this is just plain unconstitutional. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees us all equal protection under the law. By causing discriminatory policies to be put in place and by causing people to possibly be subjected to severe mental and physical bullying and harassment as a direct result of said policies, you are directly violating the aforementioned amendment."

Lol. Don't start with that equal rights crap. Transgenders have ALWAYS had equal rights. They could use the bathroom corresponding to their gender. LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. THAT'S EQUALITY. They're the ones not being equal and causing harm and harassment for the rest of the majority.

They're the ones not being equal.

Again. How is allowing men to use the men's restroom and vice versa discrimination?

Here are some sources to prove my argument true.

http://www.dailywire.com...

http://www.breitbart.com...

Be sure to give them a good read.
Hillary4Prez

Con

I read both of your articles and found them very interesting.

The Daily Wire one seemed to have no real problems with it. However, one could point out that if this were a commonly occurring problem (creeps claiming that they were transgender to get into women's restrooms), they would give a statistic instead of telling lots of details about isolated incidents. If it were a commonly occurring problem, they would actually say how many people in total had tried or succeeded in doing this. So essentially, all that I got from that article was, "Over the course of several years, in places all over the United States, a country that has 318,900,000 people, there have been five incidences of sexual harassment or voyeurism by people who claimed to be transgender."

Now onto the Breitbart article. Ah, Breitbart. I can't say that I'm particularly fond of it.

"On its corporate website, for instance, there are many posts and announcements celebrating the LGBT lifestyle.

Furthermore, last year, Target was a corporate sponsor of the 'Out & Equal' conference, a summit aimed at forcing corporations into adopting gay-friendly workplace policies.

The company was also praised by gay groups for its 'It Gets Better' campaign meant to boost the status of homosexuality in the U.S."

The article refers to these programs as a "radical homosexual agenda." So in the first seven paragraphs, this article has already struck me as an exceedingly biased, sensationalistic article that is prone to misinterpreting and exaggerating even the simplest of information.

Next, I look at the title. It says, "Top Twenty-Five Stories Proving Target"s Pro-Transgender Bathroom Policy Is Dangerous to Women and Children." The funny thing is that, first of all, none of these twenty-five stories actually have anything to do with Target. The even funnier thing is that only five of these twenty-five stories involve people taking advantage of transgender bathroom laws to carry out malicious activities. The other twenty are just stories of people sneaking into women's bathrooms. So only 20% of the stories they list actually have anything to do with gender-neutral bathrooms, yet in the title they claim that all of their stories are to prove that gender-neutral bathrooms are bad. This article is therefore misleading at best.

So, because of these five stories that they list, they say that we should ban gender-neutral bathrooms, right? But, even though 80% of their stories are incidents involving gender-specific bathrooms, I don't see them suggesting that we ban gender-specific bathrooms. The irony of this article is killing me.

Now onto your arguments. You said, "I don't know of any Transgenders their own restrooms and get abused. Especially sexually. No offense but don't you think that it's a little odd for someone to sexually abuse a transgender? Most people tend to stay away from them." This is objectively not true. According to a government site, " One in two transgender individuals are sexually abused or assaulted at some point in their lives. Some reports estimate that transgender survivors may experience rates of sexual assault up to 66 percent, often coupled with physical assaults or abuse." Since there are about 700,000 transgender people, this means that 350,000 to 455,000 transgender people have been sexually assaulted or abused. And yet you claim that this never happens.

Next, you claim that policies such as North Carolina's recently passed law are perfectly constitutional and do not violate the Equal Protection clause in the Fourteenth Amendment. I would like to point out that the current situation involves men and women using the bathroom of the gender they identify with. Under policies such as these, this privilege would not be granted to transgenders, hence violating the aforementioned amendment. Secondly, if it were perfectly constitutional, why would the federal government be suing the state of North Carolina? The country's top legal experts and constitutional scholars--people who know the Constitution better than you, better than me, and better than most of the rest of us--are saying that this law is unconstitutional. Why should you know better than them?

Thank you. Here's the source for the data I cited earlier:

http://www.ovc.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
Flametiger200

Pro

"The Daily Wire one seemed to have no real problems with it. However, one could point out that if this were a commonly occurring problem (creeps claiming that they were transgender to get into women's restrooms), they would give a statistic instead of telling lots of details about isolated incidents. If it were a commonly occurring problem, they would actually say how many people in total had tried or succeeded in doing this. So essentially, all that I got from that article was, "Over the course of several years, in places all over the United States, a country that has 318,900,000 people, there have been five incidences of sexual harassment or voyeurism by people who claimed to be transgender."

So you obviously didn't know what you even read.
If "Over the course of several years, in places all over the United States, a country that has 318,900,000 people, there have been five incidences of sexual harassment or voyeurism by people who claimed to be transgender." Is what you got out of the article then you obviously have low critical thinking skills.

Those 5 incidences are some of MANY incidences that have been happening for a VERY long time. The article was basically saying that if it's this bad now imagine how bad it'll be if this bathroom law is bad. Sexual harassments in women's restrooms would DRASTICALLY increase. That's not a good thing.

"Next, I look at the title. It says, "Top Twenty-Five Stories Proving Target"s Pro-Transgender Bathroom Policy Is Dangerous to Women and Children." The funny thing is that, first of all, none of these twenty-five stories actually have anything to do with Target."

It's not supposed to be about target. The title says Top Twenty-Five Stories Proving Target"s PRO TRANSGENDER BATHROOM POLICY Is Dangerous to Women and Children.

They were talking why the pro transgender bathroom policy is wrong that's why they brought out those sexual assult stories to prove how dangerous target's bathroom policy was. So the article is about the bathroom policies in general....not target. So this kind of proves that you have bad reading comprehension skills too.

"The even funnier thing is that only five of these twenty-five stories involve people taking advantage of transgender bathroom laws to carry out malicious activities. The other twenty are just stories of people sneaking into women's bathrooms. So only 20% of the stories they list actually have anything to do with gender-neutral bathrooms, yet in the title they claim that all of their stories are to prove that gender-neutral bathrooms are bad. This article is therefore misleading at best."

No. The article proves that there are PLENTY of predators waiting to prey on the women and children in the restrooms. This law will allow the 80% of the people in that article (people like them) to freely enter the women's restroom and prey upon them. This bathroom law is like a golden ticket for bathroom predators. The article still remains valid. They won't have to sneak in the restroom anymore if the law is passed.

So the article is still valid.

"So, because of these five stories that they list, they say that we should ban gender-neutral bathrooms, right? But, even though 80% of their stories are incidents involving gender-specific bathrooms, I don't see them suggesting that we ban gender-specific bathrooms. The irony of this article is killing me."

Ummm.....we're not discussing about gender neutral bathrooms, nor was the article about gender neutral bathrooms. What are you even talking about? Am I missing something?

"I would like to point out that the current situation involves men and women using the bathroom of the gender they identify with."

See that's the problem. You can identify as anything you want, but that doesn't make so. I can identify to be a kangaroo, but that doesn't make me a kangaroo.

Your logic goes like this. Right now I'm identifying to be a panda bear and I want to go to the zoo and live with my panda brother's and sisters, but there's one problem....the zoo keepers won't allow to live in the zoo with my panda siblings, so therefore they're breaking my 14th amendment rights and are being totally unequal to me.
This is basically the logic you're using. No one's rights is being broken because we don't let them use the restrooms that they aren't supposed to use.

Transgenders have ALWAYS had rights...they've had the right to use the restrooms according to their biological gender....LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. What they want now are EXTRA rights. What about the women and the children who aren't comfortable with seeing men in women's restrooms? What about their rights huh?

Why does the 99% have suffer and have their rights violated for the .3%? This doesn't make much sense.

" Secondly, if it were perfectly constitutional, why would the federal government be suing the state of North Carolina? The country's top legal experts and constitutional scholars--people who know the Constitution better than you, better than me, and better than most of the rest of us--are saying that this law is unconstitutional. Why should you know better than them?"

Are you talking about the same government that's been trying to "Change" our Constitution? Just 8 months ago (before the transgender hooplah) you libs where complaining that the Constitution is old and doesn't apply to today's issues.. Now, you are trying to use it to further your narratives. Take a side already, you guys flip flop like.. like a flip flop!
Also, the Countries top legal experts are from the private sector. I personally know people that have memorized the Constitution & it's entirety.

given that those same idiots are changing the constitution itself, I have to disagree with you. Honestly, it's their life and yeah, I think they should live how they want, no matter how screwed up I find it to be (I am well aware that their choices shouldn't and don't affect me). However, I find it ridiculous to change the constitution to fit 0.3% of the population. Not to mention that due to the 14th ammendment, IT WAS NEVER ILLEGAL
Hillary4Prez

Con

Okay. I'm just going to sift through your last response bit by bit and tell you what I notice.

"Those 5 incidences are some of MANY incidences that have been happening for a VERY long time. The article was basically saying that if it's this bad now imagine how bad it'll be if this bathroom law is bad. Sexual harassments in women's restrooms would DRASTICALLY increase. That's not a good thing." Fair enough. Your logic makes some sense, but you have to look deeper into why this author wrote this article the way they did. I understand perfectly well that there are several more incidences about sexual harassment in women's restrooms. What I'm saying is that if there were so many, they would give a startling statistic such as, "Over the course of the past ten years, there have been 50,000 incidences of people abusing transgender bathroom laws to sexually abuse or harass women and children." (This is a completely made up statistic; I was only using it as an example.) The reason they put so much time into describing every disturbing detail of each of these anecdotes is because they have no such statistic. There simply aren't that many incidences; they have no information that would shock the public if it were expressed just as a number. Thus, they use this misleading style of relating in depth these isolated incidents. So my challenge to you is to find an actual statistic such as the one mentioned above. Find something that could shock me using the numbers, not the stories. Your argument will be much stronger for it.

Next you go on to talk about my reactions to the Breitbart article. You make the same argument as before. You say, "This law will allow the 80% of the people in that article (people like them) to freely enter the women's restroom and prey upon them." Again, that's twenty people. Not very many. I completely and totally understand that there are more than twenty people like this. But there aren't very much more. Because again, if there were too many more, they would give a statistic.

Next, about the constitutional issue. "See that's the problem. You can identify as anything you want, but that doesn't make so. I can identify to be a kangaroo, but that doesn't make me a kangaroo." No, I really can't say it does. It doesn't matter that they can't identify as a kangaroo. Because that's not what being transgender means. It's not just making some random willy-nilly decision about wanting to be a different gender simply because you were feeling whimsical that day. I'd advise you to do a bit of research and learn a bit more about the topic before you make blanket statements like that. (In addition, this whole analogy is irrelevant anyway, because the Constitution only grants these rights to United States citizens. Not kangaroos. Or pandas.)

Later, you said, "Are you talking about the same government that's been trying to "Change" our Constitution? Just 8 months ago (before the transgender hooplah) you libs where complaining that the Constitution is old and doesn't apply to today's issues.. Now, you are trying to use it to further your narratives. Take a side already, you guys flip flop like.. like a flip flop! Also, the Countries top legal experts are from the private sector. I personally know people that have memorized the Constitution & it's entirety." First of all, the government only tries to change our Constitution if it can make it better. Take the Thirteenth Amendment that abolished slavery. And the Fourteenth, which guaranteed equal protection under the law and birthright citizenship. And the Fifteenth, which gave slaves and African-Americans the right to vote. And the Nineteenth, which gave women the right to vote. And the Twenty-Sixth, which lowered the voting age to 18. I believe that we can both agree that all of these changes have been good. So I wasn't aware of some huge hidden government conspiracy that is trying to "change" our Constitution for the worse. My next problem with this passage is where you say that every single liberal has been complaining that the Constitution is irrelevant. I don't know about other people, but I love the Constitution. I have never said or thought anything like this about the Constitution. Next you say, "Also, the Countries top legal experts are from the private sector." I don't even know why you mentioned this. It doesn't matter where they come from. Them being from the private sector doesn't make them any better or any worse than those that would come from other places. The fact of the matter is, they still know the Constitution better than you or me, so maybe we should listen to what they're saying.

The last paragraph is so offensive and inflammatory that I'm not even going to bother responding to it. I'd probably end up going on a huge tirade and hit the character limit.

So finally, a last note on civility. You say things like, "So you obviously didn't know what you even read." And, "Is what you got out of the article then you obviously have low critical thinking skills." And, "So this kind of proves that you have bad reading comprehension skills too." And, "Take a side already, you guys flip flop like.. like a flip flop!" This last one is particularly annoying because I've never flip-flopped on this topic. Perhaps my party has, but I certainly haven't. But the message that you and many other people must take to heart is that civility should be at the heart of all public discourse. Our country is rapidly polarizing and people are getting angrier and angrier and often resort to ad hominem personal insults. This is just wrong and distracts from debate. It divides people. You can still be extremely opinionated without using insults such as these. That's what you and I (and the whole society) need to strive to achieve. So I respectfully request you not dish out these irrelevant personal insults. You, me, and the whole society will be so much better for it.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
Flametiger200

Pro

"What I'm saying is that if there were so many, they would give a startling statistic such as, "Over the course of the past ten years, there have been 50,000 incidences of people abusing transgender bathroom laws to sexually abuse or harass women and children." (This is a completely made up statistic; I was only using it as an example.) The reason they put so much time into describing every disturbing detail of each of these anecdotes is because they have no such statistic."

Why do you assume so much?
You assume that just because there currently aren't any statistics about women being abused in restrooms then that must mean it doesn't happen much. That's false. How did you come to the conclusion of it not occurring much because there are no statistics??? Lol.

There are countless upon countless of stories of women being abused in restrooms. I've witnessed around 3 during my life already. Statistics or no statistics. The point is that women and children are being abused in restrooms as we speak. There are already reports of women being sexually assaulted by men in target restrooms already. It's crazy!

https://gendertrender.wordpress.com...

^^^^^^^^and to think that their are a countless amount of incidents like these.....the scary part is that it'll get MUCH worse.

Again it is a fact that there are countless upon countless of sexual assault reports in women's restrooms, and it'll DEFINITELY get worse this restroom law is passed all states.

"Again, that's twenty people. Not very many. I completely and totally understand that there are more than twenty people like this. But there aren't very much more. Because again, if there were too many more, they would give a statistic."

Again you're assuming. Just because there aren't statistics doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

There are no statistics on how many times boys check out girls on an average basis but does that mean boys don't commonly check out girls? There are no statistics on how many old people fix cars, but that doesn't mean it's uncommon or that it never happens. I don't know where you got the idea that just because there are no statistics it doesn't happen.

Women and children get assaulted in bathrooms by men, and making it legal for men to enter women's restrooms is WAY TOO RISKY. This law may be beneficial for the .3% but what about the other 99%? Is the .3% more important?

"It doesn't matter that they can't identify as a kangaroo. Because that's not what being transgender means. It's not just making some random willy-nilly decision about wanting to be a different gender simply because you were feeling whimsical that day. "

What makes you think that people are making some willy-nilly or a whimsical?
If transgenders can be so sincere about being the gender their not....then why can't others do the same? What's the difference?

Why can't someone be just as sincere about being a kangaroo?

If you agree that saying that I'm a kangaroo doesn't make you a kangaroo then why can't you also agree that a man saying that he's a woman doesn't make him a woman?

"I'd advise you to do a bit of research and learn a bit more about the topic before you make blanket statements like that."

Lol. Trust me. I've done PLENTY of research on transgenderism.

If you can get pass the liberal nonsense and dig a little further you'd find out that transgenderism is actually a really bad mental illness that we shouldn't be supporting, but I won't talk about this because it'll lead us to a completely different argument.

"the Constitution only grants these rights to United States citizens. Not kangaroos. Or pandas."

Well wouldn't actual people who sincerely think their rhinos technically be united states citizens? Also what about grown men who think that they're little girls? Shouldn't the constitution give them "equality" also?

"Later, you said, "Are you talking about the same government that's been trying to "Change" our Constitution? Just 8 months ago (before the transgender hooplah) you libs where complaining that the Constitution is old and doesn't apply to today's issues.. Now, you are trying to use it to further your narratives. Take a side already, you guys flip flop like.. like a flip flop! Also, the Countries top legal experts are from the private sector. I personally know people that have memorized the Constitution & it's entirety." First of all, the government only tries to change our Constitution if it can make it better. Take the Thirteenth Amendment that abolished slavery. And the Fourteenth, which guaranteed equal protection under the law and birthright citizenship. And the Fifteenth, which gave slaves and African-Americans the right to vote. And the Nineteenth, which gave women the right to vote. And the Twenty-Sixth, which lowered the voting age to 18. I believe that we can both agree that all of these changes have been good. So I wasn't aware of some huge hidden government conspiracy that is trying to "change" our Constitution for the worse. My next problem with this passage is where you say that every single liberal has been complaining that the Constitution is irrelevant. I don't know about other people, but I love the Constitution. I have never said or thought anything like this about the Constitution. Next you say, "Also, the Countries top legal experts are from the private sector." I don't even know why you mentioned this. It doesn't matter where they come from. Them being from the private sector doesn't make them any better or any worse than those that would come from other places. The fact of the matter is, they still know the Constitution better than you or me, so maybe we should listen to what they're saying."

The 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments where changed for ALL person's to have equal rights. Which they do.
Wait, are you trying to compare African Americans & Women to the Transgendered? That's incongruous! That insults my intelligence.

Let's poke at the 1st Amendment. Why are the liberals pushing so hard to expand Transgendered rights & trying to abolish Christian American rights? Liberals denigrate people for there Christian beliefs everyday-

Both Theologically & Scientifically a man can NOT become a women...

I do not care what someone may self identify with. A rock if you so choose. But, we cannot go changing the Constitution around every time someone self identifies with something new. Eventually we'll end up in a anarchy state. There's TRUTH & not truth and the two should not be combined.

"The last paragraph is so offensive and inflammatory that I'm not even going to bother responding to it. I'd probably end up going on a huge tirade and hit the character limit."

Geez...you liberals find everything so offensive these days....smh.

How was I being offensive again?
Is it because I don't think transgenderism is the best thing in the world?

For your last paragraph I didn't really mean to offend anyone.

"Take a side already, you guys flip flop like.. like a flip flop!" This last one is particularly annoying because I've never flip-flopped on this topic. Perhaps my party has, but I certainly haven't."

Don't really know why that's offensive, but I was talking about the libtarted democratic party. Not you.

Anyways thanks for giving me an interesting 1st debate. I appreciate it.
Hillary4Prez

Con

Hillary4Prez forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Hillary4Prez 9 months ago
Hillary4Prez
I apologize for forfeiting the last round. I was on a trip and didn't have time to post an argument.
Posted by Hillary4Prez 9 months ago
Hillary4Prez
You spelled 'grammar' wrong. And it shouldn't be capitalized. Truly genius.
Posted by Flametiger200 9 months ago
Flametiger200
Sorry about the Grammer. I was in a hurry.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ivan2002 9 months ago
ivan2002
Flametiger200Hillary4PrezTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: both sides provide compelling arguments