Total Posts:240|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Stupid LGBT Bathroom Law Argument

zoinks
Posts: 1,988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 5:04:20 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
It's not so bad that a state makes a law. That happens all the time and is how things work.

The problem is what people do about it.

If you don't like a law, you vote for different elected officials who will change things. Better yet, you run for office yourself and if you get in, YOU change things.

Instead, there are a whole bunch of people deciding to whine and moan about a law and trying to blackmail officials into changing it by cancelling or threatening to cancel events or business opportunities or whatever.

Then on top of that is the censorship of public figures which is going on.

It was bad enough a couple of years ago when Phil Robertson's personal views didn't line up with what others thought, so they tried to punish him for daring to have his own opinion.

Now baseball analyst Curt Schilling has reportedly been fired by ESPN, who is attempting to censor him after he dared to express his opinion on the controversy surrounding this law.

People have the right to their opinion. If you disagree, fine, but you don't harm them or threaten them with harm because of it.

The whole thing is backward. People should be protesting when the free speech of others - like Robertson and Schilling - is being stomped upon. Yet instead they try to blackmail elected officials.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 5:28:00 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 5:04:20 PM, zoinks wrote:
It's not so bad that a state makes a law. That happens all the time and is how things work.

The problem is what people do about it.

If you don't like a law, you vote for different elected officials who will change things. Better yet, you run for office yourself and if you get in, YOU change things.

Instead, there are a whole bunch of people deciding to whine and moan about a law and trying to blackmail officials into changing it by cancelling or threatening to cancel events or business opportunities or whatever.

Then on top of that is the censorship of public figures which is going on.

It was bad enough a couple of years ago when Phil Robertson's personal views didn't line up with what others thought, so they tried to punish him for daring to have his own opinion.

Now baseball analyst Curt Schilling has reportedly been fired by ESPN, who is attempting to censor him after he dared to express his opinion on the controversy surrounding this law.

People have the right to their opinion. If you disagree, fine, but you don't harm them or threaten them with harm because of it.

The whole thing is backward. People should be protesting when the free speech of others - like Robertson and Schilling - is being stomped upon. Yet instead they try to blackmail elected officials.

I know this is how you see it, and there is a grain of truth to your objections. However, it should be noted that the cultural norms of any time have suppressed the minority view. So, in times past, LGBT voices were silenced by anti-LGBT. The shoe is on the other foot, and it is uncomfortable for some - get comfortable with it.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 6:13:01 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
If an LGBT person is dressed and acts according to gender marked on the door, it's a non-issue. No one knows of any problem and so no one complains. That's true no matter what the law is. The problem comes when a high school boy decides he wants to shower with the girls, so he joins the girls basketball team. In a PC-enforced state, all he has to say is that he is self-identifying as female, and then the law says nothing can be done. I think the correct resolution is to let whomever runs the bathrooms or sports teams or locker rooms or whatever figure out what they want to do on a case-by-case basis. It's not a perfect solution, but it's better than giving perverts an excuse enforced by law.
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 12:13:42 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 6:13:01 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
If an LGBT person is dressed and acts according to gender marked on the door, it's a non-issue. No one knows of any problem and so no one complains. That's true no matter what the law is. The problem comes when a high school boy decides he wants to shower with the girls, so he joins the girls basketball team. In a PC-enforced state, all he has to say is that he is self-identifying as female, and then the law says nothing can be done. I think the correct resolution is to let whomever runs the bathrooms or sports teams or locker rooms or whatever figure out what they want to do on a case-by-case basis. It's not a perfect solution, but it's better than giving perverts an excuse enforced by law.

What kind of nonsense is this? Do you have any evidence a boy who identifies as a boy dressed up as a girl and acted like a girl 24 x 7 to get into the lockerroom?
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 4:21:44 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 12:13:42 AM, slo1 wrote:

What kind of nonsense is this? Do you have any evidence a boy who identifies as a boy dressed up as a girl and acted like a girl 24 x 7 to get into the lockerroom?

I think the few problems that arise ought to be solved by whomever owns or operates the bathrooms and locker rooms of a facility. Transgendered people must be accommodated, but the problem is a PC law requiring they use the facilities for their gender of choice, based solely upon self-identification. There is no requirement that a transsexual dress like the alternate gender. The only requirement is that the person self-identify.

"A biological man claiming to be "transgender" so as to gain access to and prey on women at two Toronto shelters was jailed "indefinitely" last week after being declared by a judge a "dangerous offender." https://www.lifesitenews.com...

More common is the genuinely trangendered refusing to use unisex facilites:

"When school began on Aug. 13, Perry told school administrators that she wanted to use the girls" bathroom and locker room, instead of the unisex bathroom she had used as a junior.

The school consented, in accordance with guidelines from the U.S. Department of Education"s Office of Civil Rights that say students should be allowed to use facilities in accordance with their gender identification.

.... For two hours, approximately 150 students stood in front of Hillsboro High School to protest a transgender teen"s use of the girls" facilities."
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Passing a state or Federal law turns a non-problem into a problem.
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 1:23:47 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 4:21:44 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 4/22/2016 12:13:42 AM, slo1 wrote:

What kind of nonsense is this? Do you have any evidence a boy who identifies as a boy dressed up as a girl and acted like a girl 24 x 7 to get into the lockerroom?

I think the few problems that arise ought to be solved by whomever owns or operates the bathrooms and locker rooms of a facility. Transgendered people must be accommodated, but the problem is a PC law requiring they use the facilities for their gender of choice, based solely upon self-identification. There is no requirement that a transsexual dress like the alternate gender. The only requirement is that the person self-identify.

"A biological man claiming to be "transgender" so as to gain access to and prey on women at two Toronto shelters was jailed "indefinitely" last week after being declared by a judge a "dangerous offender." https://www.lifesitenews.com...

More common is the genuinely trangendered refusing to use unisex facilites:

"When school began on Aug. 13, Perry told school administrators that she wanted to use the girls" bathroom and locker room, instead of the unisex bathroom she had used as a junior.

The school consented, in accordance with guidelines from the U.S. Department of Education"s Office of Civil Rights that say students should be allowed to use facilities in accordance with their gender identification.

.... For two hours, approximately 150 students stood in front of Hillsboro High School to protest a transgender teen"s use of the girls" facilities."
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Passing a state or Federal law turns a non-problem into a problem.

So the answer to my question is a resounding "NO". Your little fantasy world that a high schooler boy who identifies as a boy is going to pretend to be a girl in a and out of school so he can get access to the girls locker room has been proven to be fantasy.

Secondly I don't want your or Ted Cruz, grown men, to be alone in the men's bathroom with my boys. What are you going to do to stop male predators of boys?

Simple fact of the matter is Thai I can provide 1000 to 1 examples of men raping girls, boys, and women in bathrooms, homes, jails, schools than you can of trans or people impersonating a transgender.

Lastly what is stopping a man, one who already is willing to break the law by raping someone from carrying a fake birth certificate walking in the woman's rest saying they were born as a woman?

You and Ted cruz are not making the world safer, you are creating an issue where one does not exist, which is your safety arguement.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 2:05:55 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 1:23:47 PM, slo1 wrote:

So the answer to my question is a resounding "NO". Your little fantasy world that a high schooler boy who identifies as a boy is going to pretend to be a girl in a and out of school so he can get access to the girls locker room has been proven to be fantasy.

You must argue that once empowered by law so that a young man given the absolute unchallengable right to go anywhere he pleases and not be stopped, that none will exercise that right. So begin by asserting that as a fact.

Secondly I don't want your or Ted Cruz, grown men, to be alone in the men's bathroom with my boys. What are you going to do to stop male predators of boys?

Society should make the most reasonable laws it can. You are saying that the world will be a better place if males can go any place they choose by doing no more than uttering the magic words of a transgender declaration. Moreover they can do and undo the declaration as they please without limits. My argument is solely that if there is no reasonable check upon it, that abuse is too tempting. You are saying that the pervert who posed as transgendered was no problem whatsoever because he wasn't a high school boy, and that keeping him powered with an absolute right is the most reasonable thng society can do.

Simple fact of the matter is Thai I can provide 1000 to 1 examples of men raping girls, boys, and women in bathrooms, homes, jails, schools than you can of trans or people impersonating a transgender.

the argument is that that if there are 1000 people who don;t litter the highways for every person caught littering, then that proves there is no need for a law against littering. Moreover, you are saying that it is reasonable for society to pass a law that empowers littering by making it an unquestionable right. I'm saying that an empowering law encourages bad behavior, because it removes the possibiolity of punishment.

Lastly what is stopping a man, one who already is willing to break the law by raping someone from carrying a fake birth certificate walking in the woman's rest saying they were born as a woman?

Having a law does not prevent people from breaking it. If that were the criterion, then all laws should be abolished. The purpose is to discourage the behavior by providing punishment if it happens. Laws are probably most effective against serious crimes that carry harsh punishments, but some people still break them. What's at issue is whether giving a law that empowers males to annoy females will encourage that bad behavior. I say it would. I think the best alternative is for the locals to resolve each case. Trangendered people ought to be acommodated, but for starter there ought to be some agreement the person is really transgendered.

You and Ted cruz are not making the world safer, you are creating an issue where one does not exist, which is your safety arguement.

I did not rely on a safety argument. I made the argument that if empowered by law, boys would annoy girls by invading their space, and that such annoyance is a legitimate concern. You claim it will never happen, because boys are always so inherently polite, I guess, that if empowered by law to do so none will use the girls facilities. The is some safety aspect, as with the case of a pervert as cited, but that's not the main issue.

I agree that right now, minus new laws giving rights to transgendered people based solely upon self-identification, there is not a problem. It isn't perfect, but problems are resolved. What's happened is a new mandate that gives transgendered status and a rights to anyone who self-declares. I'd get rid of the North Carolina law, get rid of new PC laws and rules, and let whomever runs the facilities make the rules.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 2:11:28 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
If you are arguing for state sanctioned indiscriminate use of bathroom facilities, then there really is no logical point in having sex-segregated facilities anymore; which I guarantee, if you ask most women, is a very, very bad idea.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 2:22:33 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
This is a pretty good article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

It explains why we have segregated bathrooms in the first place. It's not for security or safety reasons. It maintains a social order so that people can relieve themselves with less stress. This is a major change that would take time getting used to, not mandated by law. Women need to have time to feel comfortable with males taking over their safe space. It's the place they go even when they don't have to go to collect their wits. Women don't use the bathroom socially like men do.
zoinks
Posts: 1,988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 4:23:55 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
I know this is how you see it, and there is a grain of truth to your objections. However, it should be noted that the cultural norms of any time have suppressed the minority view.

This is exactly what we should be striving to get beyond - suppressing other people, including their views.

We can no more justify suppressing people for their views because it was done in the past than we can justify slavery or deny women the right to vote because it was done in the past.

So, in times past, LGBT voices were silenced by anti-LGBT. The shoe is on the other foot, and it is uncomfortable for some - get comfortable with it.

I'll always speak out against injustice, and that's what is happening anytime people are threatened for daring to express a viewpoint that is different than someone else or different than what is popular.

I will never "get comfortable" with that. When we stop discriminating against people for daring to think differently, THEN maybe we can talk about tolerance and justice.
zoinks
Posts: 1,988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 4:28:10 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 6:13:01 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
If an LGBT person is dressed and acts according to gender marked on the door, it's a non-issue.

If we did away with the antiquated concept of having separate restrooms for separate genders, it would be a non-issue. Right now it's clearly an issue.

No one knows of any problem and so no one complains. That's true no matter what the law is.

Ignorance doesn't justify anything.

The problem comes when a high school boy decides he wants to shower with the girls, so he joins the girls basketball team.

And what is to stop him, for that matter? Or the perverted old man who wants to dress like a woman so he can stand in the women's restroom and peek at them through the stalls?

There is ZERO recourse against this if those who dress like a particular gender have the right to use that gender's restroom.

Personally I have no problem with all use the same restroom, because in most cases these things won't happen because of the presence of others (or certainly the potential).

In a PC-enforced state, all he has to say is that he is self-identifying as female, and then the law says nothing can be done.

EXACTLY.

I think the correct resolution is to let whomever runs the bathrooms or sports teams or locker rooms or whatever figure out what they want to do on a case-by-case basis.

Nope. That's how you get into trouble with discrimination and lawsuits and the like.
zoinks
Posts: 1,988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 4:29:03 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 12:13:42 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/21/2016 6:13:01 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
If an LGBT person is dressed and acts according to gender marked on the door, it's a non-issue. No one knows of any problem and so no one complains. That's true no matter what the law is. The problem comes when a high school boy decides he wants to shower with the girls, so he joins the girls basketball team. In a PC-enforced state, all he has to say is that he is self-identifying as female, and then the law says nothing can be done. I think the correct resolution is to let whomever runs the bathrooms or sports teams or locker rooms or whatever figure out what they want to do on a case-by-case basis. It's not a perfect solution, but it's better than giving perverts an excuse enforced by law.

What kind of nonsense is this? Do you have any evidence a boy who identifies as a boy dressed up as a girl and acted like a girl 24 x 7 to get into the lockerroom?

I know of many who would have done it when I was in school if that would have worked. I'm sure someone will do it. Just a matter of time.
zoinks
Posts: 1,988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 4:30:56 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 4:21:44 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 4/22/2016 12:13:42 AM, slo1 wrote:

What kind of nonsense is this? Do you have any evidence a boy who identifies as a boy dressed up as a girl and acted like a girl 24 x 7 to get into the lockerroom?

I think the few problems that arise ought to be solved by whomever owns or operates the bathrooms and locker rooms of a facility. Transgendered people must be accommodated, but the problem is a PC law requiring they use the facilities for their gender of choice, based solely upon self-identification.

That means you can pick any restroom you want.

There is no requirement that a transsexual dress like the alternate gender. The only requirement is that the person self-identify.

Exactly. So anyone who wants to use the other restroom can do so, and if anyone complains, they can simply say they self-identify (and even if it's a lie, prove it without discriminating against someone who is legit).
zoinks
Posts: 1,988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 4:34:47 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 2:11:28 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
If you are arguing for state sanctioned indiscriminate use of bathroom facilities, then there really is no logical point in having sex-segregated facilities anymore; which I guarantee, if you ask most women, is a very, very bad idea.

Many women think this way because society has conditioned them to believe they "need" separate public restrooms, when in reality this is an antiquated idea long past its time.

They somehow believe this odd idea that if everyone used the same facility, women everywhere would be attacked or raped or whatever other idea they can imagine within the confines of public restrooms.

Yet on college campuses, in some bars and clubs, and in other areas, there is regular use of opposite gender facilities for various reasons and while it is possible and may happen, it certainly isn't the constant threat some would make it out to be.

If anything, the idea that anyone - man, woman or otherwise - could potentially enter a restroom at any time keeps people from doing things they might consider otherwise. Only in places where it is already dangerous outside of a restroom would a unisex restroom present any real danger.
zoinks
Posts: 1,988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 4:37:28 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 2:22:33 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
This is a pretty good article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

It explains why we have segregated bathrooms in the first place. It's not for security or safety reasons. It maintains a social order so that people can relieve themselves with less stress. This is a major change that would take time getting used to, not mandated by law.

Only because people have been told for years this is the way it's done, no matter how foolish it happens to be.

Women need to have time to feel comfortable with males taking over their safe space.

It's no less safe with men in it - your article even says so.

It's the place they go even when they don't have to go to collect their wits. Women don't use the bathroom socially like men do.

People need to get over this antiquated idea and start thinking logically instead of like a sheep.
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 4:57:32 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 2:05:55 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 4/22/2016 1:23:47 PM, slo1 wrote:

So the answer to my question is a resounding "NO". Your little fantasy world that a high schooler boy who identifies as a boy is going to pretend to be a girl in a and out of school so he can get access to the girls locker room has been proven to be fantasy.

You must argue that once empowered by law so that a young man given the absolute unchallengable right to go anywhere he pleases and not be stopped, that none will exercise that right. So begin by asserting that as a fact.

Who said it is unchallenable in a high school locker room? Don't you think someone would have to identify full time as a certain gender before privelage for that gender are received. Nobody is asking for boys to be a girl for a half hour each day to sneak peeks. Irrational people are acting like that is the threat.

Secondly I don't want your or Ted Cruz, grown men, to be alone in the men's bathroom with my boys. What are you going to do to stop male predators of boys?

Society should make the most reasonable laws it can. You are saying that the world will be a better place if males can go any place they choose by doing no more than uttering the magic words of a transgender declaration.

Again if you really cared about protecting society you would outlaw men being in the bathroom with boys instead of making up contrived honor stories. There are about a million and one ways to protect girls and boys from rapists and molesters that would be thousands of percent more effective than requiring people to use the bathroom of gender on birth certificate.

Moreover they can do and undo the declaration as they please without limits. My argument is solely that if there is no reasonable check upon it, that abuse is too tempting. You are saying that the pervert who posed as transgendered was no problem whatsoever because he wasn't a high school boy, and that keeping him powered with an absolute right is the most reasonable thng society can do.

Simple fact of the matter is Thai I can provide 1000 to 1 examples of men raping girls, boys, and women in bathrooms, homes, jails, schools than you can of trans or people impersonating a transgender.

the argument is that that if there are 1000 people who don;t litter the highways for every person caught littering, then that proves there is no need for a law against littering. Moreover, you are saying that it is reasonable for society to pass a law that empowers littering by making it an unquestionable right. I'm saying that an empowering law encourages bad behavior, because it removes the possibiolity of punishment.

No what I am saying is that you are ignoring the elephant in the room to chase a bug. There is no reasonable explanation other than you are bias against transgendered people because the proposed law is worthless because it is built on an imaginary threat.

Lastly what is stopping a man, one who already is willing to break the law by raping someone from carrying a fake birth certificate walking in the woman's rest saying they were born as a woman?

Having a law does not prevent people from breaking it. If that were the criterion, then all laws should be abolished. The purpose is to discourage the behavior by providing punishment if it happens. Laws are probably most effective against serious crimes that carry harsh punishments, but some people still break them. What's at issue is whether giving a law that empowers males to annoy females will encourage that bad behavior. I say it would. I think the best alternative is for the locals to resolve each case. Trangendered people ought to be acommodated, but for starter there ought to be some agreement the person is really transgendered.

You and Ted cruz are not making the world safer, you are creating an issue where one does not exist, which is your safety arguement.

I did not rely on a safety argument. I made the argument that if empowered by law, boys would annoy girls by invading their space, and that such annoyance is a legitimate concern. You claim it will never happen, because boys are always so inherently polite, I guess, that if empowered by law to do so none will use the girls facilities. The is some safety aspect, as with the case of a pervert as cited, but that's not the main issue.

I agree that right now, minus new laws giving rights to transgendered people based solely upon self-identification, there is not a problem. It isn't perfect, but problems are resolved. What's happened is a new mandate that gives transgendered status and a rights to anyone who self-declares. I'd get rid of the North Carolina law, get rid of new PC laws and rules, and let whomever runs the facilities make the rules.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 4:57:59 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 4:23:55 PM, zoinks wrote:
I know this is how you see it, and there is a grain of truth to your objections. However, it should be noted that the cultural norms of any time have suppressed the minority view.

This is exactly what we should be striving to get beyond - suppressing other people, including their views.

We can no more justify suppressing people for their views because it was done in the past than we can justify slavery or deny women the right to vote because it was done in the past.

So, in times past, LGBT voices were silenced by anti-LGBT. The shoe is on the other foot, and it is uncomfortable for some - get comfortable with it.

I'll always speak out against injustice, and that's what is happening anytime people are threatened for daring to express a viewpoint that is different than someone else or different than what is popular.

I will never "get comfortable" with that. When we stop discriminating against people for daring to think differently, THEN maybe we can talk about tolerance and justice.

Playing the persecuted is a bridge too far. You have plenty of room to discuss anything you like, that there is any amount of resistance bothers you. It is now the case that your opinion is in the minority, that's all. When you say some anti-LGBT thing, you will find more resistance than acceptance. Yea, I stick with what I said, learn to live with it, its not going the other way.
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 5:03:46 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 4:29:03 PM, zoinks wrote:
At 4/22/2016 12:13:42 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/21/2016 6:13:01 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
If an LGBT person is dressed and acts according to gender marked on the door, it's a non-issue. No one knows of any problem and so no one complains. That's true no matter what the law is. The problem comes when a high school boy decides he wants to shower with the girls, so he joins the girls basketball team. In a PC-enforced state, all he has to say is that he is self-identifying as female, and then the law says nothing can be done. I think the correct resolution is to let whomever runs the bathrooms or sports teams or locker rooms or whatever figure out what they want to do on a case-by-case basis. It's not a perfect solution, but it's better than giving perverts an excuse enforced by law.

What kind of nonsense is this? Do you have any evidence a boy who identifies as a boy dressed up as a girl and acted like a girl 24 x 7 to get into the lockerroom?

I know of many who would have done it when I was in school if that would have worked. I'm sure someone will do it. Just a matter of time.

Whatever. Talk is cheap. Prove a teenage boy is going to assume an identity of a girl including with his parents for months and probably have to go through therapy and all types of stuff to get in the girls locker room. It is time to come back to reality.
zoinks
Posts: 1,988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 6:05:31 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
You must argue that once empowered by law so that a young man given the absolute unchallengable right to go anywhere he pleases and not be stopped, that none will exercise that right. So begin by asserting that as a fact.

Who said it is unchallenable in a high school locker room?

It would be if those who self identify as a woman can go into a women's locker room. A man could simply say he self identifies as a woman and there is NOTHING anyone can do to stop it.

Don't you think someone would have to identify full time as a certain gender before privelage for that gender are received.

No. Perhaps they don't want to always identify as a single gender. They should have that right. It's up to each person how they self identify.

Nobody is asking for boys to be a girl for a half hour each day to sneak peeks.

But there is nothing you can do to stop them from doing just that.

Irrational people are acting like that is the threat.

It is a very real possible threat.
zoinks
Posts: 1,988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 6:11:48 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 4:57:59 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/22/2016 4:23:55 PM, zoinks wrote:
I know this is how you see it, and there is a grain of truth to your objections. However, it should be noted that the cultural norms of any time have suppressed the minority view.

This is exactly what we should be striving to get beyond - suppressing other people, including their views.

We can no more justify suppressing people for their views because it was done in the past than we can justify slavery or deny women the right to vote because it was done in the past.

So, in times past, LGBT voices were silenced by anti-LGBT. The shoe is on the other foot, and it is uncomfortable for some - get comfortable with it.

I'll always speak out against injustice, and that's what is happening anytime people are threatened for daring to express a viewpoint that is different than someone else or different than what is popular.

I will never "get comfortable" with that. When we stop discriminating against people for daring to think differently, THEN maybe we can talk about tolerance and justice.

Playing the persecuted is a bridge too far.

I'm not even sure what you mean here, but no one is "playing" persecuted.

Persecution is persecution, no matter the reason. Whether done for ethnicity, skin color, gender, religion, opinion, or ANY reason, it is WRONG.

You have plenty of room to discuss anything you like, that there is any amount of resistance bothers you.

Disagreement is fine. People are free to agree or disagree with whatever they want.

Telling others they're not allowed to voice a specific opinion or set of opinions - or worse yet, threatening them if they do - is wrong. It is that kind of "resistance" as you call it that is the opposite of the tolerance so many people claim they want.

It is now the case that your opinion is in the minority, that's all.

My opinion is irrelevant. No one should be telling anyone of ANY opinion they can't speak it freely, or threatening them if they do. That should NEVER happen.

It should be against the law for companies to fire someone for speaking their mind on something that has nothing to do with their job, the way ESPN fired Curt Schilling. If there were any justice in the world, Schilling should be able to sue ESPN for infringing upon his free speech and he'd win millions, because it's ridiculous.

When you say some anti-LGBT thing, you will find more resistance than acceptance.

Disagreement is different that trying to censor someone's right to free speech.

Yea, I stick with what I said, learn to live with it, its not going the other way.

Again, no one should be harmed or threatened with harm for daring to speak their mind. If you disagree with that, fine - I'm all for your ability to disagree peacefully - but you are speaking out in favor of discrimination while doing so.
zoinks
Posts: 1,988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 6:14:03 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 5:03:46 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/22/2016 4:29:03 PM, zoinks wrote:
At 4/22/2016 12:13:42 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/21/2016 6:13:01 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
If an LGBT person is dressed and acts according to gender marked on the door, it's a non-issue. No one knows of any problem and so no one complains. That's true no matter what the law is. The problem comes when a high school boy decides he wants to shower with the girls, so he joins the girls basketball team. In a PC-enforced state, all he has to say is that he is self-identifying as female, and then the law says nothing can be done. I think the correct resolution is to let whomever runs the bathrooms or sports teams or locker rooms or whatever figure out what they want to do on a case-by-case basis. It's not a perfect solution, but it's better than giving perverts an excuse enforced by law.

What kind of nonsense is this? Do you have any evidence a boy who identifies as a boy dressed up as a girl and acted like a girl 24 x 7 to get into the lockerroom?

I know of many who would have done it when I was in school if that would have worked. I'm sure someone will do it. Just a matter of time.

Whatever. Talk is cheap.

It's the simple truth. If you honestly don't believe some horny young boy itching to see the hot girl's body wouldn't dress up as a girl and claim to identify as one to get the job done, you're only fooling yourself.

Prove a teenage boy is going to assume an identity of a girl including with his parents for months and probably have to go through therapy and all types of stuff to get in the girls locker room.

No - that's not what I said.

All I'm saying is a teenage boy just tells the school he identifies as a girl to go in the locker room. No parents nonsense, no "months" of time necessary. No therapy.

Just "I self identify as a girl" and if the laws say that's all it takes, there is no defense and they have to let him do it.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 6:45:07 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 4:34:47 PM, zoinks wrote:
At 4/22/2016 2:11:28 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
If you are arguing for state sanctioned indiscriminate use of bathroom facilities, then there really is no logical point in having sex-segregated facilities anymore; which I guarantee, if you ask most women, is a very, very bad idea.

Many women think this way because society has conditioned them to believe they "need" separate public restrooms, when in reality this is an antiquated idea long past its time.

They somehow believe this odd idea that if everyone used the same facility, women everywhere would be attacked or raped or whatever other idea they can imagine within the confines of public restrooms.

Yet on college campuses, in some bars and clubs, and in other areas, there is regular use of opposite gender facilities for various reasons and while it is possible and may happen, it certainly isn't the constant threat some would make it out to be.

If anything, the idea that anyone - man, woman or otherwise - could potentially enter a restroom at any time keeps people from doing things they might consider otherwise. Only in places where it is already dangerous outside of a restroom would a unisex restroom present any real danger.

It's not even about danger. This is a social issue. It's about having a relaxed, chatty place in some venues. Or a place just to get away from men at times. You're not a woman, so I don't expect you to understand. This would be a huge social change that is largely detrimental to women. Having men speak out about this issue is akin to being a strong advocate for abortion bans as a man....
zoinks
Posts: 1,988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 7:43:38 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 6:45:07 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/22/2016 4:34:47 PM, zoinks wrote:
At 4/22/2016 2:11:28 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
If you are arguing for state sanctioned indiscriminate use of bathroom facilities, then there really is no logical point in having sex-segregated facilities anymore; which I guarantee, if you ask most women, is a very, very bad idea.

Many women think this way because society has conditioned them to believe they "need" separate public restrooms, when in reality this is an antiquated idea long past its time.

They somehow believe this odd idea that if everyone used the same facility, women everywhere would be attacked or raped or whatever other idea they can imagine within the confines of public restrooms.

Yet on college campuses, in some bars and clubs, and in other areas, there is regular use of opposite gender facilities for various reasons and while it is possible and may happen, it certainly isn't the constant threat some would make it out to be.

If anything, the idea that anyone - man, woman or otherwise - could potentially enter a restroom at any time keeps people from doing things they might consider otherwise. Only in places where it is already dangerous outside of a restroom would a unisex restroom present any real danger.

It's not even about danger. This is a social issue.

Absolutely but not everyone sees it that way.

It's about having a relaxed, chatty place in some venues.

Restrooms aren't for relaxing and chatting. They're for urinating and defecating.

Or a place just to get away from men at times.

Just walk away from men. It's not difficult. It's simply irresponsible to demand a separate restroom to "get away from men".

You're not a woman, so I don't expect you to understand.

I'm logical, which is why what you say makes no sense. My gender is irrelevant to the matter.

This would be a huge social change that is largely detrimental to women.

It's not detrimental to anyone. It's actually liberating to women and speaks to seeing them as equal to men.

It's really odd how many women complain about wanting equal treatment, equal pay, etc. but they sure don't want to be equal when it comes to responsibilities and restrooms and other things.

Having men speak out about this issue is akin to being a strong advocate for abortion bans as a man....

Anyone can speak out on any issue which affects them, regardless of gender - and these issues can affect all people.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 7:45:45 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 7:43:38 PM, zoinks wrote:

Having men speak out about this issue is akin to being a strong advocate for abortion bans as a man....

Anyone can speak out on any issue which affects them, regardless of gender - and these issues can affect all people.

Sure, but women are affected far more than men on this issue, so your opinion should have far less weight. Deal with it.
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 8:11:08 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 6:14:03 PM, zoinks wrote:
At 4/22/2016 5:03:46 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/22/2016 4:29:03 PM, zoinks wrote:
At 4/22/2016 12:13:42 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/21/2016 6:13:01 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
If an LGBT person is dressed and acts according to gender marked on the door, it's a non-issue. No one knows of any problem and so no one complains. That's true no matter what the law is. The problem comes when a high school boy decides he wants to shower with the girls, so he joins the girls basketball team. In a PC-enforced state, all he has to say is that he is self-identifying as female, and then the law says nothing can be done. I think the correct resolution is to let whomever runs the bathrooms or sports teams or locker rooms or whatever figure out what they want to do on a case-by-case basis. It's not a perfect solution, but it's better than giving perverts an excuse enforced by law.

What kind of nonsense is this? Do you have any evidence a boy who identifies as a boy dressed up as a girl and acted like a girl 24 x 7 to get into the lockerroom?

I know of many who would have done it when I was in school if that would have worked. I'm sure someone will do it. Just a matter of time.

Whatever. Talk is cheap.

It's the simple truth. If you honestly don't believe some horny young boy itching to see the hot girl's body wouldn't dress up as a girl and claim to identify as one to get the job done, you're only fooling yourself.

Prove a teenage boy is going to assume an identity of a girl including with his parents for months and probably have to go through therapy and all types of stuff to get in the girls locker room.

No - that's not what I said.

All I'm saying is a teenage boy just tells the school he identifies as a girl to go in the locker room. No parents nonsense, no "months" of time necessary. No therapy.

Just "I self identify as a girl" and if the laws say that's all it takes, there is no defense and they have to let him do it.

yep, that's what the law says. what-eves
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 8:14:33 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 12:13:42 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/21/2016 6:13:01 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
If an LGBT person is dressed and acts according to gender marked on the door, it's a non-issue. No one knows of any problem and so no one complains. That's true no matter what the law is. The problem comes when a high school boy decides he wants to shower with the girls, so he joins the girls basketball team. In a PC-enforced state, all he has to say is that he is self-identifying as female, and then the law says nothing can be done. I think the correct resolution is to let whomever runs the bathrooms or sports teams or locker rooms or whatever figure out what they want to do on a case-by-case basis. It's not a perfect solution, but it's better than giving perverts an excuse enforced by law.

What kind of nonsense is this? Do you have any evidence a boy who identifies as a boy dressed up as a girl and acted like a girl 24 x 7 to get into the lockerroom?

https://www.lifesitenews.com...
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 9:53:21 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 8:14:33 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/22/2016 12:13:42 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/21/2016 6:13:01 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
If an LGBT person is dressed and acts according to gender marked on the door, it's a non-issue. No one knows of any problem and so no one complains. That's true no matter what the law is. The problem comes when a high school boy decides he wants to shower with the girls, so he joins the girls basketball team. In a PC-enforced state, all he has to say is that he is self-identifying as female, and then the law says nothing can be done. I think the correct resolution is to let whomever runs the bathrooms or sports teams or locker rooms or whatever figure out what they want to do on a case-by-case basis. It's not a perfect solution, but it's better than giving perverts an excuse enforced by law.

What kind of nonsense is this? Do you have any evidence a boy who identifies as a boy dressed up as a girl and acted like a girl 24 x 7 to get into the lockerroom?

https://www.lifesitenews.com...

Sigh. For every one you get I can get two and probably many more of a man assaulting a woman in the woman's bathroom who is not posing as a transgender.

http://www.cityoftaylor.com...

http://www.fox13news.com...
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 9:55:31 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
A coalition of 250 organizations working with sexual assault and domestic violence survivors are calling on conservative politicians to stop using rape as a scare tactic to discriminate against transgender people.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 9:57:48 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 9:53:21 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/22/2016 8:14:33 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/22/2016 12:13:42 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/21/2016 6:13:01 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
If an LGBT person is dressed and acts according to gender marked on the door, it's a non-issue. No one knows of any problem and so no one complains. That's true no matter what the law is. The problem comes when a high school boy decides he wants to shower with the girls, so he joins the girls basketball team. In a PC-enforced state, all he has to say is that he is self-identifying as female, and then the law says nothing can be done. I think the correct resolution is to let whomever runs the bathrooms or sports teams or locker rooms or whatever figure out what they want to do on a case-by-case basis. It's not a perfect solution, but it's better than giving perverts an excuse enforced by law.

What kind of nonsense is this? Do you have any evidence a boy who identifies as a boy dressed up as a girl and acted like a girl 24 x 7 to get into the lockerroom?

https://www.lifesitenews.com...

Sigh. For every one you get I can get two and probably many more of a man assaulting a woman in the woman's bathroom who is not posing as a transgender.

http://www.cityoftaylor.com...

http://www.fox13news.com...

I never said otherwise. I was just providing some evidence to match your criteria.