# Liberal ideas hurt when they affect you personally



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

The black female who headed the Georgia chapter of the ACLU has resigned after her experience of having 3 transgenders walk into a restroom terrified her daughters. Karma at its best.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/s...children-were-visibly-frightened-by-transgend


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

poppy said:


> The black female who headed the Georgia chapter of the ACLU has resigned after her experience of having 3 transgenders walk into a restroom terrified her daughters. Karma at its best.
> 
> https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/s...children-were-visibly-frightened-by-transgend


What a bigot, having her daughters in the ladies room scaring grown men that think they are women. Shame on her.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

elevenpoint said:


> What a bigot, having her daughters in the ladies room scaring grown men that think they are women. Shame on her.


She probably should be sent to a reeducation camp. Just more proof that liberal ideals and reality don't mix.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

poppy said:


> She probably should be sent to a reeducation camp. Just more proof that liberal ideals and reality don't mix.


At the very least, some kind of sensitivity training so she does not offend men in the ladies room? Some kind of parenting classes too, subjecting her daughters to this. What was she thinking?


----------



## D-BOONE (Feb 9, 2016)

Liberals dont think thus the dumb ideas.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

D-BOONE said:


> Liberals dont think thus the dumb ideas.



Correct, they don't think. They operate solely on feelings of fairness and sensitivity. But, when their ideas affect them personally, they generally react just as this woman did.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

A proper demonstration of the overall hypocrisy...


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Liberal ideas are SUPPOSED to hurt people, just not them......Joe


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

joebill said:


> Liberal ideas are SUPPOSED to hurt people, just not them......Joe


You may well be right but I think a lot of it is lack of respect or compassion for anyone but themselves. They seem incapable of foreseeing the destructive results of their policies. Most people raising their kids warn them at an early age about talking to strangers, not letting strangers touch them, etc. That's a good thing. That teaching instills into kids that there are dangerous weirdos out there and to be careful. Kids are very good at spotting things out of the norm. Now, suddenly, men in women's clothes can go into the women's bathroom. Kids, like the woman's daughters, recognize that as not normal and see them as the weirdos their parents warned them about. Why shouldn't they? I guess parents now are supposed to warn their kids about weirdos but not certain weirdos.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> What a bigot, having her daughters in the ladies room scaring grown men that think they are women. Shame on her.


Post of the day award.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

poppy said:


> The black female who headed the Georgia chapter of the ACLU has resigned after her experience of having 3 transgenders walk into a restroom terrified her daughters. Karma at its best.
> 
> https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/s...children-were-visibly-frightened-by-transgend


I was pleased to hear about her website and she also has a Facebook presence as well. There needs to be a place of rational discussion where people can question things like what's going on with transgender rights, etc without being accused of bigotry or hate speech and without bringing partisan interests into it.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

basketti said:


> I was pleased to hear about her website and she also has a Facebook presence as well. There needs to be a place of rational discussion where people can question things like what's going on with transgender rights, etc without being accused of bigotry or hate speech and without bringing partisan interests into it.


Can you post her website or pm it to me. I think she has some valid points.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

no really said:


> Can you post her website or pm it to me. I think she has some valid points.


Findingmiddleground.org or just "finding Middle Ground" on Facebook.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

basketti said:


> Findingmiddleground.org or just "finding Middle Ground" on Facebook.


Thanks much!


----------



## Steve_S (Feb 25, 2015)

Why does the old saying *Be careful what you ask for, you may just get it"* pop to mind while reading this. It's interesting how the effects of change and the consequences, always "surprise" the people who demanded the changes... 

The world is filled with nut-bars with criminal intent as we see on the news daily, why would it surprise anyone that at some point, the whacko's will use the 'new available means' to perpetrate criminal activities on the people, sadly, it's only a matter of time, if it hasn't happened already. 

I'm old fashioned and suppose set in my ways but I hold doors open for ladies, even open the car door for my Mrs and hold the chair etc... the social graces which have left "society" for the most part...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Steve_S said:


> Why does the old saying *Be careful what you ask for, you may just get it"* pop to mind while reading this. It's interesting how the effects of change and the consequences, always "surprise" the people who demanded the changes...
> 
> The world is filled with nut-bars with criminal intent as we see on the news daily, why would it surprise anyone that at some point, the whacko's will use *the 'new available means' *to perpetrate criminal activities on the people, sadly, it's only a matter of time, if it hasn't happened already.
> 
> I'm old fashioned and suppose set in my ways but I hold doors open for ladies, even open the car door for my Mrs and hold the chair etc... the social graces which have left "society" for the most part...


There's no "new available means"

Anything harmful is already illegal and will remain so, and laws don't block the doors.

In the case cited in the OP, the transgenders didn't *do* anything harmful at all


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's no "new available means"
> 
> Anything harmful is already illegal and will remain so, and laws don't block the doors.
> 
> In the case cited in the OP, the transgenders didn't *do* anything harmful at all


They may have meant no harm but you can't say 100% those girls didn't get harmed mentally. Some things, even things others think are small that happen to kids stay with them the rest of their lives. People have developed phobias for less.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

dixiegal62 said:


> They may have meant no harm but *you can't say 100% those girls didn't get harmed mentally*. Some things, even things others think are small that happen to kids stay with them the rest of their lives. People have developed phobias for less.


You can't say they were harmed either, so once again it's all just hype and speculation.

I suspect there was a lot of exaggeration about how "scared" they were, and that the woman was just looking for an excuse to quit her job.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

basketti said:


> I was pleased to hear about her website and she also has a Facebook presence as well. There needs to be a place of rational discussion where people can question things like what's going on with transgender rights, etc without being accused of bigotry or hate speech and without bringing partisan interests into it.


We've already had discussions on here and it has been all over the news. Really, what's left to discuss? One either thinks letting them into the other sex's bathroom is either good or bad. Apparently they have been using some bathroom all along because I haven'y heard of a single case of a bladder busting. Some of them could no doubt pass for the opposite sex and no one would even know. Others are just obvious to the point of looking like freaks and would gross anyone out. Back to the matter of discussing it. To the fringe left, anything related to sex is good and healthy and should not be questioned. Period. If you question it, it is you who should be enlightened. How do you discuss anything with people like that.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

basketti said:


> I was pleased to hear about her website and she also has a Facebook presence as well. There needs to be a place of rational discussion where people can question things like what's going on with transgender rights, etc without being accused of bigotry or hate speech and without bringing partisan interests into it.


There is no bigotry, hate speech, partisan, etc, etc, etc. If you have a penis, go to the men's room. Even if your brain tells you you're a woman.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

poppy said:


> We've already had discussions on here and it has been all over the news. Really, what's left to discuss? One either thinks letting them into the other sex's bathroom is either good or bad. Apparently they have been using some bathroom all along because I haven'y heard of a single case of a bladder busting. Some of them could no doubt pass for the opposite sex and no one would even know. Others are just obvious to the point of looking like freaks and would gross anyone out. Back to the matter of discussing it. To the fringe left, anything related to sex is good and healthy and should not be questioned. Period. If you question it, it is you who should be enlightened. How do you discuss anything with people like that.


That's because the left doesn't care who you have sex with as long as it's a consenting adult. The right thinks they have the right to control sex of any type and a woman's reproductive system. It's absolutely none of your (collective right) business what consenting adults do. Period. Pretty simple. 

And sex _is_ good and healthy, and not to be questioned by anyone but the consenting adults involved.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> That's because the left doesn't care who you have sex with as long as it's a consenting adult. The right thinks they have the right to control sex of any type, and a woman's reproductive system. It's absolutely none of your (collective right) business what consenting adults do. Period. Pretty simple.
> 
> And sex _is_ good and healthy, and not to be questioned by anyone but the consenting adults involved. :happy2:


Sexual diseases and abusive relationships are part of the LGBT community.
81% of bisexual women have been abused. Depends on you're version of healthy.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

elevenpoint said:


> Sexual diseases and abusive relationships are part of the LGBT community.
> 81% of bisexual women have been abused. Depends on you're version of healthy.


Link?


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You can't say they were harmed either, so once again it's all just hype and speculation.
> .


On both sides of the issue, but why wouldn't it be. Nobody can say for sure what harm will or won't come from all of this.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> Link?


No links, plenty of info to read out there on the world wide web.
And we both know the real problem is straight, Christian, family's, etc., are the reason for those problems.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

dixiegal62 said:


> On both sides of the issue, but why wouldn't it be. Nobody can say for sure what harm will or won't come from all of this.


Odds are there will be no noticeable changes at all.

It's not going to increase the percentages of transgenders or "perverts", and it won't make any illegal acts legal

These laws have been in effect for a long time in many places, and no one can seem to point to any statistics which indicate it caused problems.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You can't say they were harmed either, so once again it's all just hype and speculation.
> 
> I suspect there was a lot of exaggeration about how "scared" they were, and that the woman was just looking for an excuse to quit her job.


That's your speculation, hype, and exaggeration because you were not there. Think about women and children in that situation. Don't think about your agenda, it's not about you.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

elevenpoint said:


> No links, plenty of info to read out there on the world wide web.
> And we both know the real problem is straight, Christian, family's, etc., are the reason for those problems.


I've known a few really orthodox Christian families with super-well-behaved children. It usually comes out later that they're using corporal punishment frequently. Hell hath no fury like, well, God.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Heritagefarm said:


> I've known a few really orthodox Christian families with super-well-behaved children. It usually comes out later that they're using corporal punishment frequently. Hell hath no fury like, well, God.


Right, whip for the horse, bridle for a donkey, and a rod for the back of fools.


----------



## mustangglp (Jul 7, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> That's because the left doesn't care who you have sex with as long as it's a consenting adult. The right thinks they have the right to control sex of any type and a woman's reproductive system. It's absolutely none of your (collective right) business what consenting adults do. Period. Pretty simple.
> 
> And sex _is_ good and healthy, and not to be questioned by anyone but the consenting adults involved.


So why is it all over my TV screen?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mustangglp said:


> So why is it all over my TV screen?


I don't understand what you are trying to say.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

irish wrote;

"It's absolutely none of your (collective right) business what consenting adults do. Period. Pretty simple"

I agree wholeheartedly. Let them keep it to themselves. Stop shoving it in my face. Stop teaching it to kids in school. Stop demanding that I accept it and treat it as normal. They certainly have no duty to accept a heterosexual relationship, and are welcome to refuse service to man/woman wedddings, refuse to condone or accept my lifestyle, and other than the fact that we have 5 kids, they would have no way of knowing my preferences anyway.

I don't make out with my wife on park benches or demand my own parades or my own "special day" at disneyland. What "hertro pride" day celebration have you ever been invited to?

AND, moreover, if by chance they happen to guess my and my wife's lifestyle, they are perfectly free to gaze upon us holding hands as we walk and laugh and say "oh yuck!" I won't mind a bit.

I just want equal rights.............  .........Joe


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

joebill said:


> irish wrote;
> 
> "It's absolutely none of your (collective right) business what consenting adults do. Period. Pretty simple"
> 
> ...


It's still none of your business what type of sex consenting adults have. And you may have missed this, but gay marriage is legal in all 50 states as of almost a year ago. 

The special day at Disney is because the LGBT groups have paid for it, you can do it to. Just gather a bunch of your ilk and go to the park. You can get matching shirts.  The Irish have a parade, Vets have a parade, lots of people have parades, if it doesn't interest you I suggest you not go and watch. Easy peasy.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> It's still none of your business what type of sex consenting adults have. And, you may have missed this, but gay marriage is legal in all 50 states as of almost a year ago.
> 
> The special day at Disney is because the LGBT groups have paid for it, you can do it to. Just gather a bunch of your ilk and go to the park. You can get matching shirts.  The Irish have a parade, Vets have a parade, lots of people have parades, if it doesn't interest you I suggest you not go and watch. Easy peasy.


I'd like a parade for goldfish with PTSD awareness.


----------



## Seth (Dec 3, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> It's still none of your business what type of sex consenting adults have. And you may have missed this, but gay marriage is legal in all 50 states as of almost a year ago.
> 
> The special day at Disney is because the LGBT groups have paid for it, you can do it to. Just gather a bunch of your ilk and go to the park. You can get matching shirts.  The Irish have a parade, Vets have a parade, lots of people have parades, if it doesn't interest you I suggest you not go and watch. Easy peasy.





IP, I sure hope that you get to where you are going soon. Seth


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Seth said:


> IP, I sure hope that you get to where you are going soon. Seth


I don't understand what you are trying to say.

After reading your post #35 don't bother responding.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Fortunately, we don't believe in that place to begin with. Bah bah multi-colored purple-hued sheep!


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Homosexual marriage might be legal in all fifty states. Consummating their vows is still against the law in some.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

barnbilder said:


> Homosexual marriage might be legal in all fifty states. Consummating their vows is still against the law in some.


Wow. Where have you been? The sodomy laws were struck down 13 years ago. 

"Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court. The Court struck down the sodomy law in Texas and, by extension, invalidated sodomy laws in 13 other states, *making same-sex sexual activity legal in every U.S. state and territory*. The Court, with a five-justice majority, overturned its previous ruling on the same issue in the 1986 case Bowers v. Hardwick, where it upheld a challenged Georgia statute and did not find a constitutional protection of sexual privacy."

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

I checked this story on Snopes they conclude that the story is true, but that there is a question as to whether she was ever on board with the ACLU's position on transgenders and question the validity of the bathroom story. She started a web site at the same time she resigned. While not anti trans it seems to agree with me. We are rushing into this way too fast and there are a lot of questions that need to be discussed before we move to unisex bathrooms and showers. 

http://www.findingmiddleground.org/


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I find it interesting that so many here are showing their liberal side. 
Many of the posters in support of this woman's actions are apparently coming out of the closet as liberals. 

You see this woman is taking action based on feelings not actions of facts. Many of those coming out of the closet on this thread have told us many times that defines a liberal.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> That's your speculation, hype, and exaggeration because you were not there. Think about women and children *in that situation*. Don't think about your agenda, it's not about you.


What "situation"?
Someone came in room and *did nothing* to them at all


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> I'd like a parade for goldfish with PTSD awareness.


Nothing is stopping you from having one, but don't expect the Goldfish to walk either far or fast.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Jim Bunton said:


> I checked this story on Snopes they conclude that the story is true, but that there is a question as to whether she was ever on board with the ACLU's position on transgenders and question the validity of the bathroom story. She started a web site at the same time she resigned. While not anti trans it seems to agree with me. *We are rushing into this way too fast* and there are a lot of questions that need to be discussed before we move to unisex bathrooms and showers.
> 
> http://www.findingmiddleground.org/


There are about 16 states which have had similar laws for up to a decade, but there has been no rash of problems caused that anyone can document.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There are about 16 states which have had similar laws for up to a decade, but there has been no rash of problems caused that anyone can document.


You keep saying that but zero links supporting it.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> I find it interesting that so many here are showing their liberal side.
> Many of the posters in support of this woman's actions are apparently coming out of the closet as liberals.
> 
> You see this woman is taking action based on feelings not actions of facts. Many of those coming out of the closet on this thread have told us many times that defines a liberal.


Incorrect. One of my LGBT friends is a libertarian.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

coolrunnin said:


> You keep saying that but zero links supporting it.


Here's a link to a map of the 16 states with anti discrimination laws. I don't know how long they've been in effect and I'm not looking. I'm sick of Googling today. 

http://www.hrc.org/state_maps

Dangnabit. You have to click on select an issue and then statewide public accommodation law. It's worth the two extra clicks.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Here's a link to a map of the 16 states with anti discrimination laws. I don't know how long they've been in effect and I'm not looking. I'm sick of Googling today.
> 
> http://www.hrc.org/state_maps
> 
> Dangnabit. You have to click on select an issue and then statewide public accommodation law. It's worth the two extra clicks.


According to your link they cover you if you have gender marker change on drivers license, birth certificate or both, I can get behind something li,e this...

The rest of the stuff is to vague and slanted to take serious.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

coolrunnin said:


> You keep saying that but zero links supporting it.


I've posted the links in other threads.
It's easy to find them by simply searching the phrase "16 states transgender laws"

https://www.bing.com/search?q=16+st...ttps=1&redig=099D481B522941F58A84B89B2B0B8EE8

http://www.transgenderlaw.org/ndlaws/index.htm



> Page Menu:
> 
> Maps and Charts
> 
> ...


Some date back to the 70's


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Thanks.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Heritagefarm said:


> Incorrect. One of my LGBT friends is a libertarian.



Could you elaborate on the connection ?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> Could you elaborate on the connection ?


You implied all LGBT were liberals. This isn't the case.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

They even have log cabin republicans.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

joebill said:


> irish wrote;
> 
> "It's absolutely none of your (collective right) business what consenting adults do. Period. Pretty simple"
> 
> ...


Post of the year award.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

I really don't have a problem w/trans using the restroom after they've made the trans. What I fear is the # of perverts who'll put a bow on their head & say they belong in the 'little girls room' & go there just to abuse...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> I really don't have a problem w/trans using the restroom after they've made the trans. What I fear is the # of perverts who'll put a bow on their head & say they belong in the 'little girls room' & go there just to abuse...


You mean just like "perverts" have *always* done
Nothing ever stopped them, and nothing ever will if that's what they want to do


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

I looked at a couple of the laws that have been on the book for years. I mostly looked at my state IL.

this is the primary section of the law that seems to apply.

(A) Freedom from Unlawful Discrimination. To secure for all individuals within Illinois the freedom from discrimination against any individual because of his or her race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, physical or mental handicap, military status, sexual orientation, or unfavorable discharge from military service in connection with employment, real estate transactions, access to financial credit, and the availability of public accommodations. 
The above is a cut and paste. I did not add the underlining. It is pretty vague as to what is meant by discrimination. It does not specify that people should be treated as the gender that they identify with. That is what is changing. It has become discrimination to no let a student born with male parts shower in the females shower if they so identify.

Just to be clear I do not see terrible things happening because of this I just see a lot more stress for those students that are not comfortable with this situation at a time in life when many are already dealing with a lot. There need to be a middle ground. To be honest my children are past school age so I do not know if children still take community showers 

Jim


----------



## Ozarka (Apr 15, 2007)

There are places in the world where they have bathrooms for people only and exclusively people only. No gender signs, we all have a reason and a right to go into a stall and do our bidness. One of those places is called Japan. It works quite well for them. Some of you would freak out if you checked into a bathroom stall and were presented with a squat plate instead of Mr. Crapper's appliance.

The entire transgenders in the bathroom scaring the little girls is pure fear tactics that the homophobic cults have absolutely worn into the ground. They have zero facts, incidents, links to support their fragile, imaginary position. You sheeple who are so caught up in this nonsense cannot see that it is all propaganda and smoke screens to divert the public's attention from the real news. Didja know that Shell Oil has had two huge oil spills in the past few weeks that are dumping gajillions of barrels of oil into our fragile oceans? Did you know that we continue to send drones into the middle east to bomb women and children in the hopes of finding a Talibaner or an Isiser or some other brown skinned person in a turban that inconveniently lives on a sand dune above some of our oil? How come there is no massive outcry over the senseless wars we are in or the continued destruction of the Sea? War is so profitable for the ruling class and those who own stocks in the War Machine. How come the US has the highest rate of incarceration in the world? Ya gotta sort out the hate and poison and smoke screens out of the news, cause there are real problems not being addressed at all. 

There are critical problems facing the world and a transsexual in the stall next to me urinating because their bladder is full is not even the least of our problems, it is not a problem at all. Get over it.

"They" conducted a survey which asked a bunch of people if they discovered that one or two of their children were **** sapiens also, what would they do and about 70 % said they would kick them out onto the streets or disown them.

"Blow up your TV/ throw away your papers/ move to the country/ build you a home/ eat a lot of peaches/ try and find Jesus on your Own..." Spanish Lullaby John Prine


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Ozarka said:


> "They" conducted a survey which asked a bunch of people if they discovered that one or two of their children were **** sapiens also, what would they do and about 70 % said they would kick them out onto the streets or disown them.


That's because most people are ding bats.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You mean just like "perverts" have *always* done
> Nothing ever stopped them, and nothing ever will if that's what they want to do


Really? It won't be easier now? How can you not see that?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Heritagefarm said:


> You implied all LGBT were liberals. This isn't the case.



Lol no no no !
I ment that many here who say they are conservative are letting their true nature as liberals be outed by their kind of support of this woman.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Tricky Grama said:


> Really? It won't be easier now? How can you not see that?


I really don't understand how that point cannot be seen. Now, if a man follows my daughter into the women's RR, I will, rightfully and lawfully be able to do something about it. If these laws are passed, they will turn me into a criminal.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

I think it's interesting that feminists are butting heads with the transgender lobby over this. I saw this this morning on Facebook. (Edited for HT)

"Okay so. My newsfeed for the past few weeks has been a nonstop parade of rude n' crude memes about the "trans bathroom debate," if you will. Usually, the memes are in support of transwomen (males). Usually, the memes are targeted at females who are afraid of being raped. And usually, the tone of these memes is very condescending. Calling us pu***es and perverts and all sorts of mean-spirited things. Telling us to get over it, we're going to get raped anyway. And calling us bigots and Nazis for even *suggesting* that any transwoman is capable of rape. Misandry! Transphobia! (*cough* THIS IS WHAT RAPE CULTURE LOOKS LIKE *cough* *ahem*)

And you know me. I just have to say something about it.

Let us consider public restrooms:

Public restrooms are inaccessible to many people with both visible and invisible disabilities. Even when there's a "wheelchair" stall, some people are easily overwhelmed by florescent lights, motion-sensor faucets and certain kinds of door locks.
Public restrooms often fail to provide changing tables for parents with kids. 
Public restrooms often lack the space and accommodations for people who need aides or service animals present in the stall to assist them during restroom use.
Public restrooms rarely have tampons or pads, and when they do, we have to pay for them.
Public restrooms are often unavailable to homeless people, and some restrooms are even pay-per-use, further compounding the humiliation of being stuck on the streets with little or no money.

In short: public restrooms, being at the intersection of all our social relationships, have always been stark indicators of our collective sexism, ageism, classism and ableism. In other words: the bathroom accessibility issue is nothing new.

So! Where the ---- was all this RAGE AND FURY about UNSAFE AND INACCESSIBLE BATHROOMS before HB2? Really, where the f****** **** was it? Caretakers, menstruating females, the elderly, people with disabilities, homeless people and plenty of others are all waiting to hear your answer. 
But you don't have one. Because you got caught up in the hype and noise of this aggressive propaganda campaign. Which is way, wayyyy out of proportion to the size of the transgender population, by the way.

It's almost like the trans lobby exploits society's collective ignorance and silence around other 'bathroom issues' to spotlight its own cause, and completely neglects to show any solidarity at all with other causes.
It's almost like transwomen are acting exactly how they were male-socialized to act: entitled, aggressive and determined to get what they want, before everyone else gets what we need.
It's almost like this entire issue gets disproportionate support because we always prioritize people with penises. When have we ever not prioritized what males want?
It's almost like you're furious over /this/ bathroom issue because the trans lobby has effectively implemented propaganda tactics that you always fancied yourself too smart and self-aware to fall for.

And it's almost like you're falling for it.

No, actually -- it's EXACTLY like that."

~~Alicen Grey


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Don't worry, the argument falls apart since trans women aren't men. Even if they have a penis. They're not a guy, nor have the ever been. Most of it is in your head.


----------



## hoddedloki (Nov 14, 2014)

I find the feminist support of LGBT rights hysterical, as their support is damaging western culture and society. The reason I find it funny is that without the western society, feminism will disappear faster than a twinkie at a weight watchers convention.

Cognitive dissonance is so fun to watch. 

Loki


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> I really don't understand how that point cannot be seen. Now, if a man follows my daughter into the women's RR, I will, rightfully and lawfully be able to do something about it. If these laws are passed, they will turn me into a criminal.


Many keep repeating that fantasy.
It won't make any illegal acts legal


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> Don't worry, the argument falls apart since trans women aren't men. Even if they have a penis. They're not a guy, nor have the ever been. Most of it is in your head.


So if I have a cow with a penis and it acts like a cow, and a bull breeds it, I should get a calf, right?


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

dixiegal62 said:


> They may have meant no harm but you can't say 100% those girls didn't get harmed mentally.


Really? Conservatives love to bash the new generation and mock how they need "safe places" and say kids should just "get over it." But when it's a "liberal" idea that "harms" them, then it's traumatic and can have lifelong affects?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Many keep repeating that fantasy.
> 
> It won't make any illegal acts legal



Yes it will that's the whole point right ?
To open the vagina toilet room to penises right ?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Many keep repeating that fantasy.
> It won't make any illegal acts legal


Laws change all the time, from generation to generation. Legality has absolutely nothing to do with whether something is right or wrong, regardless of what we're talking about.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Farmerga said:


> I really don't understand how that point cannot be seen. Now, if a man follows my daughter into the women's RR, I will, rightfully and lawfully be able to do something about it. If these laws are passed, they will turn me into a criminal.


I actually do understand your concerns but would wonder how you would know for sure that the person following your daughter into a washroom is male. 

I have a dear friend who's just over 6', wears her hair cropped quite short and even her walk is quite masculine but she's definitely female and if she's been working cattle, she leaves her pearl earrings at home. I have another friend who's a very slight built construction worker who is often mistaken for a woman on job sites because of his small stature and soft voice, yet he is definitely male. 

It seems to me that people like this will also get caught in the crossfire. Should my friend be asked to lift her shirt or drop her jeans to prove that she's a woman or should the owner of a successful construction company be required to produce proof before he uses the men's room?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Yes it will that's the whole point right ?
> To open the vagina toilet room to penises right ?


Repeating the claim won't change what I said


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> I really don't understand how that point cannot be seen. Now, if a man follows my daughter into the women's RR, I will, rightfully and lawfully be able to do something about it. If these laws are passed, they will turn me into a criminal.


Well...you could claim you're temporarily a woman too, and accompany your daughter in.  

I know a couple of people who are very androgynous, like Wr does and I can't see forcing people to show their genitals to access restrooms. I dont really know what the answer is here, as far as predators other than make all bathrooms unisex and either parent can accompany children into restrooms. 

As far as locker rooms, showers, etc...I am curious how we can say to girls, "It's just a penis, stop having a hissy fit" and still arrest a guy who urinates in his yard and happens to be seen by someone as a sex offender. 

If it's just a penis... isn't it just a penis? In either situation?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

basketti said:


> Well...you could claim you're temporarily a woman too, and accompany your daughter in.
> 
> I know a couple of people who are very androgynous, like Wr does and I can't see forcing people to show their genitals to access restrooms. I dont really know what the answer is here, as far as predators other than make all bathrooms unisex and either parent can accompany children into restrooms.
> 
> ...


I don't agree with labeling a guy as a sex offender for peeing in his own yard, and I never have. If he whips it out in a park or a playground, well that's another matter. 

I would suggest someone should start a movement to repeal that particular sex offense. It's a state by state issue with at least 13 having it as a law.

"3) Peeing in public. At least 13 states require sex offender registration for public urination, according to Human Rights Watch's comprehensive review of sex offender laws in 2007. Two of those states specify that the urination must happen in front of a minor."

http://www.businessinsider.com/surprising-things-that-could-make-you-a-sex-offender-2013-10


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't agree with labeling a guy as a sex offender for peeing in his own yard, and I never have. If he whips it out in a park or a playground, well that's another matter.
> 
> I would suggest someone should start a movement to repeal that particular sex offense. It's a state by state issue with at least 13 having it as a law.
> 
> ...


What's the difference though if it's in front of a minor in a locker room or in a park? Say the guy pees behind a tree in a park and a kid sees him? Or like what happened in Washington, a transwoman was naked in the women's locker room when a high school girls swim team was there. 
Neither case has ill intent, but how is seeing one penis okay for minors and not the other?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

basketti said:


> What's the difference though if it's in front of a minor in a locker room or in a park? Say the guy pees behind a tree in a park and a kid sees him? Or like what happened in Washington, a transwoman was naked in the women's locker room when a high school girls swim team was there.
> Neither case has ill intent, but how is seeing one penis okay for minors and not the other?


The difference _is_ ill intent. Public urination unless it's your own property is disgusting, unhygienic, and can be used as an excuse for a man to expose himself for sexual gratification. As it stands right now, no one can be forced to shower or change in front of the same sex, never less the opposite sex. 

The man in Washington wasn't transgender. IIRC, he was a creeper, or he was just "testing" the new law, which isn't a law. And he was never naked. 

"As far as policy to protect everyone, Seattle Parks spokesman David Takami says they're still working on the issue. Right now, there's no specific protocol for how someone should demonstrate their gender in order to access a bathroom. Employees just rely on verbal identification or physical appearance, and this man offered neither."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ton-state-man-undresses-locker-room/80501904/


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

My eyes have no way of knowing what someone's intent was when they see something. 
How can one be a crime and one not ?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> My eyes have no way of knowing what someone's intent was when they see something.
> How can one be a crime and one not ?


âMr. Justice, you will know it when you see it.â Alan Novak via Justice Potter Stewart


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Seemed silly then still seems silly now.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> The difference _is_ ill intent. Public urination unless it's your own property is disgusting, unhygienic, and can be used as an excuse for a man to expose himself for sexual gratification.


But they would NEVER use the wrong bathroom for sexual gratification, of course.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> The difference _is_ ill intent. Public urination unless it's your own property is disgusting, unhygienic, and can be used as an excuse for a man to expose himself for sexual gratification. As it stands right now, no one can be forced to shower or change in front of the same sex, never less the opposite sex.
> 
> The man in Washington wasn't transgender. IIRC, he was a creeper, or he was just "testing" the new law, which isn't a law. And he was never naked.
> 
> ...


Say it's a homeless man and there are no public restrooms. Or a man urinating on his own tree in his own yard next to a park. No ill intent, other than perhaps he couldn't hold it or he just has poor hygiene and zero common sense. 
Neither of which are the ill intent of a flasher. I don't see why it's okay for one penis to be exposed to minors and not another. not saying you do...just wondering at the inconsistency of it. If one group of people can be told to just not look, why can't the other people.

The case I was speaking of in WA was at Evergreen College three years ago and it was a transgender person in the woman's locker room while high school swim teams were practicing and using the same locker room. 
As far as no one being forced to shower or change in front of another person regardless of sex, is there some law saying this? Do we know for a fact that no schools still require students to use group showers in locker rooms as I was forced to as a teen?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

basketti said:


> Say it's a homeless man and there are no public restrooms. Or a man urinating on his own tree in his own yard next to a park. No ill intent, other than perhaps he couldn't hold it or he just has poor hygiene and zero common sense.
> Neither of which are the ill intent of a flasher. I don't see why it's okay for one penis to be exposed to minors and not another. not saying you do...just wondering at the inconsistency of it. If one group of people can be told to just not look, why can't the other people.
> 
> The case I was speaking of in WA was at Evergreen College three years ago and it was a transgender person in the woman's locker room while high school swim teams were practicing and using the same locker room.
> As far as no one being forced to shower or change in front of another person regardless of sex, is there some law saying this? Do we know for a fact that no schools still require students to use group showers in locker rooms as I was forced to as a teen?


Adult male (transgender or not) deliberately exposing themselves to minors should be a crime. Public urination is illegal in every state so not urinating in public would solve the problem. Easy peasy. 

The Evergreen College incident was a transgender woman and had lived as a woman since 2009. According to this website, and I can't verify the story as a 100% accurate but I can't find anything that contradicts it either. http://www.transadvocate.com/collee...-evergreen-state-college-incident_n_10765.htm

"Here&#8217;s the nugget of truth to the story: two teens did claim to see Colleen Francis nude while in the Evergreen College sauna.

Here&#8217;s what may not have not heard:

The sauna area was off limits to the two teens.
Unless one specifically tries to see inside the sauna, you can&#8217;t view the people inside the sauna.
Colleen Francis AND her cisgender female friend were using the sauna together. They were sitting there talking.
At no point did Francis act to expose herself to children.
At no point was Francis walking around nude in the area where children were.
So, the actual story is that two 17 year olds went into an area they weren&#8217;t allowed, attempted to view the people in the sauna and saw Francis. The rest of what you&#8217;ve probably heard about this incident is, at this point, an urban myth." 

Do you have a link that details this incident?

I can't find on any state or federal BOE site (and I looked extensively) that states showering is mandatory. There are web hits of individual schools that say it's mandatory but a simple lawsuit would take care of that pretty easily.

ETA: I did find this: "But according to parents, the fact that the student has exposed her male genitalia, in one instance in the sauna, is cause for concern.

"[A mother] reported her daughter was upset because she observed a person at the women's locker room naked and displaying male genitalia," said a police report filed in September by a mother on behalf of her 17-year-old daughter."

"The college has installed privacy curtains, and said it would not change its policy for now."

"The college has to follow state law," Evergreen spokesman Jason Wettstein told ABC News affiliate KOMO. "The college cannot discriminate based on the basis of gender identity. Gender identity is one of the protected things in discrimination law in this state."

From: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlin...-student-in-womens-locker-room-raises-uproar/


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

basketti said:


> Say it's a homeless man and there are no public restrooms. Or a man urinating on his own tree in his own yard next to a park. No ill intent, other than perhaps he couldn't hold it or he just has poor hygiene and zero common sense.
> Neither of which are the ill intent of a flasher. I don't see why it's okay for one penis to be exposed to minors and not another. not saying you do...just wondering at the inconsistency of it. If one group of people can be told to just not look, why can't the other people.
> 
> The case I was speaking of in WA was at Evergreen College three years ago and it was a transgender person in the woman's locker room while high school swim teams were practicing and using the same locker room.
> As far as no one being forced to shower or change in front of another person regardless of sex, is there some law saying this? Do we know for a fact that no schools still require students to use group showers in locker rooms as I was forced to as a teen?


Pre-zactly. This was my concern when the case of the Illinois transgender boy-to-girl and the feds throwing out the school's use of privacy curtains. Most school buildings stay in service for many many years and as late as the 70s I know they were still built using the prison model for shower facilities. One room with a dozen shower heads.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

MO_cows said:


> Pre-zactly. This was my concern when the case of the Illinois transgender boy-to-girl and the feds throwing out the school's use of privacy curtains. Most school buildings stay in service for many many years and as late as the 70s I know they were still built using the prison model for shower facilities. One room with a dozen shower heads.


What about her rights? Doesn't she have the same rights as every other American? 

Can you point out a state or federal BOE site (I've looked and can't find it anywhere) that showering is mandatory? Thanks.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> Adult male (transgender or not) deliberately exposing themselves to minors should be a crime. Public urination is illegal in every state, so not urinating in public would solve the problem. Easy peasy.
> 
> The Evergreen College incident was a transgender woman and had lived as a woman since 2009. According to this website, and I can't verify the story as a 100% accurate but I can't find anything that contradicts it either. http://www.transadvocate.com/collee...-evergreen-state-college-incident_n_10765.htm
> 
> ...


Did you see somewhere in your reading that Colleen Francis was NOT allowed to walk naked through the locker room where the swim team was changing? The reports I have read say that she had equal access to it regardless of whether she happened to be in the sauna or not. 

I'm not trying to vilify Colleen Francis or say she had intent to expose her penis to teens. I'm saying that she or another transwoman COULD legally walk through the that locker room nude. 

And if she did, she would be exposing minor girls to her penis. 

And how is seeing that penis any more or less harmful than seeing a penis outside of that locker room? 

Why should it be illegal in one place and not in another?

As far as showering being mandatory nationally, I would tend to doubt the DOE would mandate something like that. It would be up to the individual school district. I would think it would be difficult for a minor student to file a lawsuit abolishing group showers in their school district.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

basketti said:


> Did you see somewhere in your reading that Colleen Francis was NOT allowed to walk naked through the locker room where the swim team was changing? The reports I have read say that she had equal access to it regardless of whether she happened to be in the sauna or not.
> 
> I'm not trying to vilify Colleen Francis or say she had intent to expose her penis to teens. I'm saying that she or another transwoman COULD legally walk through the that locker room nude.
> 
> ...


OK. A transgender person _could_ walk naked through a locker room. If, could, maybe, perhaps. I haven't heard of a single incident where a transgender person has walked through a any room naked, have you? It would be breaking news on Fox. In my opinion, transgenders don't want the negative attention.

I did read where she was covered with a towel except while in the sauna. I also read this: ""The college has to follow state law," Evergreen spokesman Jason Wettstein told ABC News affiliate KOMO. "The college cannot discriminate based on the basis of gender identity. *Gender identity is one of the protected things in discrimination law in this state*." This incident was in 2012, and I can't find any further information. Can you?

The bottom line is this: do you think that all Americans have rights? Or just some Americans, and some rights? Which right are you willing to lose because something could happen or because it makes people uncomfortable? Birth control? Abortion? Guns? Free speech? All of these make some people uncomfortable.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> OK. A transgender person _could_ walk naked through a locker room. If, could, maybe, perhaps. I haven't heard of a single incident where a transgender person has walked through a any room naked, have you? It would be breaking news on Fox. In my opinion, transgenders don't want the negative attention.
> 
> I did read where she was covered with a towel except while in the sauna. I also read this: ""The college has to follow state law," Evergreen spokesman Jason Wettstein told ABC News affiliate KOMO. "The college cannot discriminate based on the basis of gender identity. *Gender identity is one of the protected things in discrimination law in this state*." This incident was in 2012, and I can't find any further information. Can you?
> 
> The bottom line is this: do you think that all Americans have rights? Or just some Americans, and some rights? Which right are you willing to lose because something could happen or because it makes people uncomfortable? Birth control? Abortion? Guns? Free speech? All of these make some people uncomfortable.


No, I wasn't questioning transgenders rights. I'm questioning why some people think transgenders should have more rights than other people.

What I'm questioning is the consistency of laws and people's attitudes. Why is it okay for girls to see the dreaded penis in a locker room but not anywhere else in public. And how do we continue to prosecute men as sexual offenders when they simply expose the same part in public that an transwoman legally can in a locker room? Why is it still unlawful for a woman to pull her breast out to feed a baby in many places, or just for a woman to go topless like a man does because it's hot outside?
What About nudists, or the many people who have a sensory disorder that makes them uncomfortable with wearing clothes? Don't they have rights too? Why do we force anyone to wear clothing? Isn't it because it makes others uncomfortable if people run around nekkid? 

Why not just make it legal for everyone to show their genitalia in public places to people who have opposite genitalia?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

basketti said:


> No, I wasn't questioning transgenders rights. I'm questioning why some people think transgenders should have more rights than other groups.
> 
> What I'm questioning is the consistency of laws and people's attitudes. Why is it okay for girls to see the dreaded penis in a locker room but not anywhere else in public. And how do we continue to prosecute men as sexual offenders when they simply expose the same part in public that an transwoman legally can in a school locker room?
> What if they are nudists, or have a sensory disorder that makes them uncomfortable with wearing clothes? Don't they have rights too? Why do we force anyone to wear clothing? Isn't it because it makes others uncomfortable if people run around nekkid?


What special rights are transgenders getting?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

painterswife said:


> What special rights are transgenders getting?


Where did I say they were getting special rights?

I said more rights. 

More rights in that a person who is transgender can walk through a place that has traditionally always been for people of one kind of genitalia and the people who are of that particular genitalia are told to suck it up.

Why can't all people expose their genitalia to those people with opposite genitalia and avoid legal prosecution? Why should only one group be afforded that freedom?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

basketti said:


> No, I wasn't questioning transgenders rights. I'm questioning why some people think transgenders should have more rights than other people.
> 
> What I'm questioning is the consistency of laws and people's attitudes. Why is it okay for girls to see the dreaded penis in a locker room but not anywhere else in public. And how do we continue to prosecute men as sexual offenders when they simply expose the same part in public that an transwoman legally can in a locker room? Why is it still unlawful for a woman to pull her breast out to feed a baby in many places, or just for a woman to go topless like a man does because it's hot outside?
> What About nudists, or the many people who have a sensory disorder that makes them uncomfortable with wearing clothes? Don't they have rights too? Why do we force anyone to wear clothing? Isn't it because it makes others uncomfortable if people run around nekkid?
> ...


 Just another way to say they are special and put them on a pedestal of highness of special rights. And for those few and far between to "enjoy" a broad spectrum of "privileges and immunities". Thats all.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

basketti said:


> Where did I say they were getting special rights?


Okay it was "more rights".


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

basketti said:


> No, I wasn't questioning transgenders rights. I'm questioning why some people think transgenders should have more rights than other people.
> 
> What I'm questioning is the consistency of laws and people's attitudes. Why is it okay for girls to see the dreaded penis in a locker room but not anywhere else in public. And how do we continue to prosecute men as sexual offenders when they simply expose the same part in public that an transwoman legally can in a locker room?
> What About nudists, or the many people who have a sensory disorder that makes them uncomfortable with wearing clothes? Don't they have rights too? Why do we force anyone to wear clothing? Isn't it because it makes others uncomfortable if people run around nekkid?
> ...


Legal/illegal, basically. The dreaded penis exposed in the wild to minors equals illegal. The dreaded penis exposed in a locker room equals legal in some states, illegal in others, and confusion over most of the country. Who do you think would expose their dreaded penis more often if it were legal outdoors- cismen or transgender women? Why?

Again, transgenders are Americans with rights. Which are you willing to do without because it makes other people uncomfortable?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> Legal/illegal, basically. The dreaded penis exposed in the wild to minors equals illegal. The dreaded penis exposed in a locker room equals legal in some states, illegal in others, and confusion over most of the country. Who do you think would expose their dreaded penis more often if it were legal outdoors- cismen or transgender women? Why?
> 
> Again, transgenders are Americans with rights. Which are you willing to do without because it makes other people uncomfortable?


Legal/illegal doesn't equal right or wrong. A few years ago it would have been illegal for a transwoman to expose her penis in a locker room. That doesn't mean it was wrong, does it?

Where did I say I was wiling to curtail ANYONE's rights? I want MORE people to have the right to the same thing that transgenders do.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

basketti said:


> Legal/illegal doesn't equal right or wrong. A few years ago it would have been illegal for a transwoman to expose her penis in a locker room. That doesn't mean it was wrong, does it?
> 
> Where did I say I was wiling to curtail ANYONE's rights? I want MORE people to have the right to the same thing that transgenders do.


What extra rights do transgenders have that others do not?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> Who do you think would expose their dreaded penis more often if it were legal outdoors- cismen or transgender women? Why?
> 
> ?


Who cares? Why should it matter? If it's just a penis, and girls/woman in a locker room have to suck it up and see it regardless of their modest sensibilities, why shouldn't everyone else? 
I mean, if a person with a penis comes up and smacks you with it...lock them up. But why is one penis okay to be seen by people with vaginas, and not other penises?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

basketti said:


> Legal/illegal doesn't equal right or wrong. A few years ago it would have been illegal for a transwoman to expose her penis in a locker room. That doesn't mean it was wrong, does it?
> 
> Where did I say I was wiling to curtail ANYONE's rights? I want MORE people to have the right to the same thing that transgenders do.


What do we do to solve the dilemma other than use the legality of the thing in question when some people feel something is wrong and others feel it is right?

Are you saying that you want the dreaded penis to be legally exposed in public? I want to be certain what you're saying.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

basketti said:


> Who cares? Why should it matter? If it's just a penis, and girls/woman in a locker room have to suck it up and see it regardless of their modest sensibilities, why shouldn't everyone else?
> I mean, if a person with a penis comes up and smacks you with it...lock them up. But why is one penis okay to be seen by people with vaginas, and not other penises?


Because some penises are actually attached to a woman, a transgender woman.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

If you could legally walk around naked then you would know what to expect. You know what to expect in a locker room and can choose not to use it if penises bother you.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> Because some penises are actually attached to a woman, a transgender woman.


Thanks for the laugh of the day, that was a good one.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

painterswife said:


> If you could legally walk around naked then you would know what to expect. You know what to expect in a locker room and can choose not to use it if penises bother you.


its not about the rights to use a locker room or the rights of what you don't want to see. It's about the rights of everyone to expose their genitals if they want to.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> Because some penises are actually attached to a woman, a transgender woman.


Who it's attached to is incidental. A penis is a penis and a vagina is a vagina. Why can't everyone have the right to not cover up their genitals to those with the opposite genitalia?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

basketti said:


> Who it's attached to is incidental. A penis is a penis and a vagina is a vagina. Why can't everyone have the right to not cover up their genitals to those with the opposite genitalia?


It's the _feelings_ for the penis- is it superfluous or a much loved thing? If it's superfluous the majority of the owners aren't interested in vaginas unless it's in regard to getting one of their own. 

Because that would be discriminatory to those that have a penis and think it should be a vagina.

ETA: Is that what you really want? The right for everyone to expose everything?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

basketti said:


> Who it's attached to is incidental. A penis is a penis and a vagina is a vagina. Why can't everyone have the right to not cover up their genitals to those with the opposite genitalia?


Looks like that would be the only way to have equality.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

no really said:


> Looks like that would be the only way to have equality.


Do you really want that or is it just the argument of the day? I'm curious.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> Do you really want that or is it just the argument of the day? I'm curious.


Not an argument, just an observation about equality.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

no really said:


> Not an argument, just an observation about equality.


Do you really feel that the only way to equality is free ranging penises?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Irish Pixie said:


> Do you really feel that the only way to equality is free ranging penises?


Equal is equal, a penis is a penis.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

no really said:


> Equal is equal, a penis is a penis.


Ahh, I understand, it's the argument of the day. My opinion of course...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

I'm curious. Do you (collective you) think that all LGBT shouldn't have rights or just transgenders? If it's just transgenders why do you single them out?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> It's the _feelings_ for the penis- is it superfluous or a much loved thing? If it's superfluous the majority of the owners aren't interested in vaginas unless it's in regard to getting one of their own.
> 
> Because that would be discriminatory to those that have a penis and think it should be a vagina.
> 
> ETA: Is that what you really want? The right for everyone to expose everything?


I think it would be hard to legislate feelings. If someone doesn't like the feeling of being confined in pants or bra, they should have the right to not wear them. 

What I want is immaterial and has no bearing on the argument that everyone should have the same civil rights. I don't like to see middle aged men in Speedos but I won't deny them their right to wear them. I'm not sure that isn't worse than seeing penises and boobs bobbing on city streets either.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm curious. Do you (collective you) think that all LGBT shouldn't have rights or just transgenders? If it's just transgenders why do you single them out?


OK, I'll bite. In the case of the Illinois girl, she received equal rights when she joined the girls sports team. When using a privacy curtain in the shower was deemed illegal, all the other girls on the team, the natural born girls for lack of a better term, were therefore stripped of their right to innocence. The rights of the one were deemed more important than the rights of the many. 
It isn't discrimination against transgenders to simply acknowledge the reality of their body parts. 

As far as the public restrooms I think it's a tempest in a teapot because there are stalls and therefore privacy. But the shower, sauna, other facilities where people are expected to be naked together are different from a rest room.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> The difference _is_ ill intent. Public urination unless it's your own property is disgusting, unhygienic, and can be used as an excuse for a man to expose himself for sexual gratification
> 
> *As it stands right now, no one can be forced to shower or change in front of the same sex, never less the opposite sex. *






Irish Pixie said:


> *I can't find on any state or federal BOE site (and I looked extensively) that states showering is mandatory. There are web hits of individual schools that say it's mandatory but a simple lawsuit would take care of that pretty easily.*



And of course what everyone needs MORE of, is lawsuits.




Irish Pixie said:


> *Can you point out a state or federal BOE site (I've looked and can't find it anywhere) that showering is mandatory? Thanks.*



I can't tell if this distinction is being missed intentionally or not, but I've seen it repeated multiple times........

No, people are NOT being thrown into showers at gunpoint, not even by legal mandate and I doubt any school policies are so inflexible that they would "force" a shower on someone if they objected to having one.

I'm pretty sure everyone knows a shower after gym class or sport practice is just a choice - but a nice one to have.


The choice or "right" that is being given or taken away seems obvious, even to those who seem not to see it.:shrug:




Irish Pixie said:


> *
> ETA: I did find this: "But according to parents, the fact that the student has exposed her male genitalia, in one instance in the sauna, is cause for concern.
> 
> "[A mother] reported her daughter was upset because she observed a person at the women's locker room naked and displaying male genitalia," said a police report filed in September by a mother on behalf of her 17-year-old daughter."*
> ...




If you "choose" to shower in a male/female segregated facility, and you are interrupted by a member of the opposite "team" with original equipment on display, didn't you just get "forced" into the situation you were avoiding and had enjoyed as a "right" up until that moment?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

MO_cows said:


> OK, I'll bite. In the case of the Illinois girl, she received equal rights when she joined the girls sports team. When using a privacy curtain in the shower was deemed illegal, all the other girls on the team, the natural born girls for lack of a better term, were therefore stripped of their right to innocence. The rights of the one were deemed more important than the rights of the many.
> It isn't discrimination against transgenders to simply acknowledge the reality of their body parts.
> 
> As far as the public restrooms I think it's a tempest in a teapot because there are stalls and therefore privacy. But the shower, sauna, other facilities where people are expected to be naked together are different from a rest room.


If the "I'll bite" is a reference to trolling, my stance on this and all LGBT rights has never wavered. 

Right to innocence? Can you explain?

The reality is that they were born the wrong gender. 

The privacy curtain wasn't deemed illegal, it was that she couldn't be forced to use it. She did say she probably would use it. I'm sure the other girls could use it as well.

What rights are you willing to give up because they make people uncomfortable? Guns make the majority of the US uncomfortable so the 2nd Amendment should be repealed?

ETA: Can you answer the question in the post you responded to regarding all LGBT?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

basketti said:


> Did you see somewhere in your reading that Colleen Francis was NOT allowed to walk naked through the locker room where the swim team was changing? The reports I have read say that she had equal access to it regardless of whether she happened to be in the sauna or not.
> 
> I'm not trying to vilify Colleen Francis or say she had intent to expose her penis to teens. I'm saying that she or another transwoman COULD legally walk through the that locker room nude.
> 
> ...


SOrry. If it has a penis, it's still a dude. If my male dog identitifies as a ***** instead, will she be able to have puppies?:stars:


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

no really said:


> Equal is equal, a penis is a penis.


No. Really?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Heritagefarm said:


> SOrry. If it has a penis, it's still a dude. If my male dog identitifies as a ***** instead, will she be able to have puppies?:stars:


Nope, it could be a pre-op transgender woman. 

Do you think all LGBT shouldn't have rights or just the transgendered? Why?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> ETA: Is that what you really want? The right for everyone to expose everything?


That's the question that is being asked (sometimes silently) by a lot of people.
How far is this going to go? And by that logic, what's to stop it from going there?



no really said:


> Looks like that would be the only way to have equality.


That's what we've been told isn't it?
Rights for ALL.

Unless the right of a male to stroll in the women's shower is somehow legally objectionable. We wouldn't want to be accused of discriminating against men now, would we?




no really said:


> Equal is equal, a penis is a penis.





Heritagefarm said:


> No. Really?


ound:

No, sometimes they say that to protect our egos........
ound:

But to paraphrase "Animal Farm" - some men are more equal than others.

eep:


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope, it could be a pre-op transgender woman.
> 
> Do you think all LGBT shouldn't have rights or just the transgendered? Why?


WHy is it even about rights? Why not admit that, according to at least several million years of evolution, a male is a male and a female is a female. This is an entirely modern phenomenon. And since 75% of transgender women have not undergone surgery, it's safe bet to say it's probably nor a pro-op trans woman.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Heritagefarm said:


> WHy is it even about rights? Why not admit that, according to at least several million years of evolution, a male is a male and a female is a female. This is an entirely modern phenomenon. And since 75% of transgender women have not undergone surgery, it's safe bet to say it's probably nor a pro-op trans woman.


Because the transgendered are human beings that know they were born the wrong gender. They are also Americans. You are an American and have rights, why can't they?

Like other LGBT, the transgender had to hide who they were for several millions of years for fear of being beaten or killed. These are supposed to be more enlightened times and safe for being that aren't straight to come forward. Apparently many of us as a species haven't progressed past the bigot stage. 

Do you think all LGBT shouldn't have rights or just the transgendered? Why?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Because the transgendered are human beings that know they were born the wrong gender.
> 
> Like other LGBT, the transgender had to hide who they were for several millions of years for fear of being beaten or killed. These are supposed to be more enlightened times and safe for being that aren't straight to come forward. Apparently many of us as a species haven't progressed past the bigot stage.
> 
> Do you think all LGBT shouldn't have rights or just the transgendered? Why?


OK, the truth is, I'm probably just wierded out by this. I've always been firmly entrenched in being a guy, and have always thought in binary terms. Maybe it's just been a bit of culture shock.
I don't want to see a penis, a vagina, I freaking don't want to be in the same bathroom with anyone, let alone a shower. What I'm trying to do is not subject people to seeing the bodily parts that they do not want to see. That's all I;m trying for. I don't care if someone wants to dice their penis in half and stuff it back up somewhere. Honestly. It's their body. Expecting people to NOT think that's odd is a bit of a stretch in my opinion.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Heritagefarm said:


> OK, the truth is, I'm probably just wierded out by this. I've always been firmly entrenched in being a guy, and have always thought in binary terms. Maybe it's just been a bit of culture shock.
> I don't want to see a penis, a vagina, I freaking don't want to be in the same bathroom with anyone, let alone a shower. What I'm trying to do is not subject people to seeing the bodily parts that they do not want to see. That's all I;m trying for. I don't care if someone wants to dice their penis in half and stuff it back up somewhere. Honestly. It's their body. Expecting people to NOT think that's odd is a bit of a stretch in my opinion.


You don't have to shower with anyone you know that right? Relax, the bathroom has stalls and you're more likely to run into a man with a vagina than a woman with a penis in the male bathroom. 

I'll bet it was odd to some that black folks didn't want to be slaves, women didn't want to be barefoot and pregnant, and so on.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> You don't have to shower with anyone you know that right? Relax, the bathroom has stalls and you're more likely to run into a man with a vagina than a woman with a penis in the male bathroom.
> 
> I'll bet it was odd to some that black folks didn't want to be slaves, women didn't want to be barefoot and pregnant, and so on.


Honestly I think that's rather insulting to blacks and women. Both have existed for forever, basically - transgenderism only recently has a fix. 

I'm not really concerned about who I run into in the bathroom - they're honestly at a much higher risk than me. Why are we supposed to tell the people uncomfortable around the opposite gender to just shut up?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Heritagefarm said:


> Honestly I think that's rather insulting to blacks and women. Both have existed for forever, basically - transgenderism only recently has a fix.
> 
> I'm not really concerned about who I run into in the bathroom - they're honestly at a much higher risk than me. Why are we supposed to tell the people uncomfortable around the opposite gender to just shut up?


Nope, it's not. Transgenders have been around and wanting sexual reassignment surgery since the 30s. I'm sure they have existed for millennia (just like all LGBT) but could never even say they were never mind actually live as the other gender. Again, the beatings and deaths from good (to use your word) normal people kept them living a lie.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope, it's not. Transgenders have been around and wanting sexual reassignment surgery since the 30s. I'm sure they have existed for millennia (just like all LGBT) but could never even say they were never mind actually live as the other gender. Again, the beatings and deaths from good (to use your word) normal people kept them living a lie.


That's all well and good. And you do realize my only qualm with them is that it means men, dressing/posing/acting as women, will be allowed in the women's restroom. Men are historically more perverted than women. (Men view a lot more porn than women.) It seems like a step backwards in terms of womens' protection. My relative is scared spotless of men - involved in many abusive relationships. Now she might have to share the restroom with them. What gives? IS she a bigot for having a valid psychological problem, so she should stuff it?


----------



## Ozarka (Apr 15, 2007)

this is sooooooooo tedious....

If there were only unisex bathrooms none of these issues or the conversation itself would exist. 

However, since most men are pigs and still have not discovered how not to pee on the floor, I can understand women's reluctance to step foot in one. There is so much homophobia and hatred of any non hetero sexual inclination visible on here. Sad. So much of these 6 pages is just mental masturbation by people with obviously too much time on your hands and with zero love for themselves or any else. When you spit out vile, bitter half truths and negativity and unsupported conclusions just 'cause someone is different than you, don't be surprised that your life continues to serve up more of the same garbage for you to get upset over.

The more people I hear argue these dead talking points the more I like my dog.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Heritagefarm said:


> That's all well and good. And you do realize my only qualm with them is that it means men, dressing/posing/acting as women, will be allowed in the women's restroom. Men are historically more perverted than women. (Men view a lot more porn than women.) It seems like a step backwards in terms of womens' protection. My relative is scared spotless of men - involved in many abusive relationships. Now she might have to share the restroom with them. What gives? IS she a bigot for having a valid psychological problem, so she should stuff it?


So what? Have you ever been in a woman's bathroom? It is either one room with one toilet and a locking door or there are stalls. Either way you have privacy while peeing. So people are freaking out that they _may_ see a transgender woman washing her hands or touching up her makeup. Absolutely ridiculous. 

Exactly. I'm not afraid of transgenders, it's violent men that make me nervous and they are everywhere. And blaming men's "perversions" on porn is a lot like blaming violence on video games, both are trying to excuse bad behavior. Instead of doing that why not start teaching young men that women aren't sex objects?

There is nothing wrong with porn in moderation. 

I don't know enough about your family member to comment.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Heritagefarm said:


> Men are historically more perverted than women. (Men view a lot more porn than women.) ....it?



Lol now there is the silliest least thoughtfull most offensive statement and reason of the year. 

I think you are accepting women's ideas of perverted. 
Women tend to define "bad" things in terms of the things men do while ignoring the perversions of women.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

basketti said:


> I don't like to see middle aged men in Speedos but I won't deny them their right to wear them. I'm not sure that isn't worse than seeing penises and boobs bobbing on city streets either.



Lol bad news usually when you see a group of middle aged men in speedos you DO see boobs bouncing in the streets. 
Big old floppy guy boobs. 

Errrp.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Yall can go back and forth all you want. Just wait and see the ratings drop when a transgender wants to be on The Bachelor or The Bachelorette...:bow:


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

TripleD said:


> Yall can go back and forth all you want. Just wait and see the ratings drop when a transgender wants to be on The Bachelor or The Bachelorette...:bow:


Was that a meme on Facebook or did you read it on a bumper sticker? :facepalm:


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Was that a meme on Facebook or did you read it on a bumper sticker? :facepalm:


I came up with that on my own. Thank you...


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> So what? Have you ever been in a woman's bathroom? It is either one room with one toilet and a locking door or there are stalls. Either way you have privacy while peeing. So people are freaking out that they _may_ see a transgender woman washing her hands or touching up her makeup. Absolutely ridiculous.
> 
> Exactly. I'm not afraid of transgenders, it's violent men that make me nervous and they are everywhere. And blaming men's "perversions" on porn is a lot like blaming violence on video games, both are trying to excuse bad behavior. Instead of doing that why not start teaching young men that women aren't sex objects?
> 
> ...


Based upon that reasoning, teaching young men women are not sex objects should be accomplished by having them view porn in moderation. Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

TripleD said:


> Yall can go back and forth all you want. Just wait and see the ratings drop when a transgender wants to be on The Bachelor or The Bachelorette...:bow:


Target is down about 10 billion, just maybe that bathroom policy not a good decision.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

elevenpoint said:


> Target is down about 10 billion, just maybe that bathroom policy not a good decision.


Gotta link or are you pulling that figure out of your  as usual?


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Another site says 11 billion, then we have a small bomb that went off in a Chicago area Target women's bathroom.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

elevenpoint said:


> Another site says 11 billion, then we have a small bomb that went off in a Chicago area Target women's bathroom.


Link? People that post credible information provide them.

In your opinion (no link needed) was the bomb a good thing?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> Gotta link or are you pulling that figure out of your  as usual?


Here's the link: 
http://www.snopes.com/target-stock-boycott/

Target is doing fine...better than a lot of retailers.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Once again a UNRELIABLE slopes~! Wow how some sure get a thrill in using such a site and that. And being over a month old how is THAT any indication what has happened in the PAST MONTH???? Hmmmmmm LOL
And yet another Pro site is used to once again to PUSH THEIR AGENDA FORWARD. Shoving it once again down the American peoples throats.
Target IS being hurt DIRECTLY from what they have done NOW to its customers and their customers ARE SPEAKING loud and clear, and so are their stock holders. LOL


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Once again a UNRELIABLE slopes~! Wow how some sure get a thrill in using such a site and that. And being over a month old how is THAT any indication what has happened in the PAST MONTH???? Hmmmmmm LOL
> And yet another Pro site is used to once again to PUSH THEIR AGENDA FORWARD. Shoving it once again down the American peoples throats.
> Target IS being hurt DIRECTLY from what they have done NOW to its customers and their customers ARE SPEAKING loud and clear, and so are their stock holders. LOL


Just a heads up: there are links in that "unreliable slopes" to stock pages. I already knew Target stock was fine because my DH is an investor. So if Snopes is pushing an "agenda" of the truth...alrighty then.

No issue is ever resolved for anyone by using lies or faulty information.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

TGT institutes inclusive "pedophile friendly" zones in its stores - stock plummets! CEO blames it on the weather
*Ya can't fix stupid*

This was written 17 minutes ago on Targets Stock message board. LOL


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> TGT institutes inclusive "pedophile friendly" zones in its stores - stock plummets! CEO blames it on the weather
> *Ya can't fix stupid*
> 
> This was written 17 minutes ago on Targets Stock message board. LOL


No...you really can't fix stupid. 

Most retail, including Target gapped down in May. By a few dollars. Right now they are down a few cents. 

You must be unaware that people troll stock boards pushing agendas? Yahoo stock boards are a waste of time.

Most retail suffers during bad weather and the Target CEO hasn't claimed bad weather since the quarter after Christmas.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Walmart profit and revenue beat expectations, they can send the Target CEO a thank you note for that.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

elevenpoint said:


> Walmart profit and revenue beat expectations, they can send the Target CEO a thank you note for that.


LOL...hardly proof of your original claim. Target has a more upscale customer base than Walmart and doesn't sell nearly as much in the way of groceries and gas which is where Walmart pulled in their big profits.


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

basketti said:


> No...you really can't fix stupid.
> 
> Most retail, including Target gapped down in May. By a few dollars. Right now they are down a few cents.
> 
> ...


The recent quarter the Target CEO blamed slumping sales on a cold wet spring.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

elevenpoint said:


> The recent quarter the Target CEO blamed slumping sales on a cold wet spring.


Where is your link proving your original claim?


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

basketti said:


> Where is your link proving your original claim?


You already looked it up....find ABC news quoting the CEO on May 19th.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

elevenpoint said:


> You already looked it up....find ABC news quoting the CEO on May 19th.


Is your refusal to provide links because it can point out your IP address? I'm curious.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> So what? Have you ever been in a woman's bathroom? It is either one room with one toilet and a locking door or there are stalls. Either way you have privacy while peeing. So people are freaking out that they _may_ see a transgender woman washing her hands or touching up her makeup. Absolutely ridiculous.
> 
> Exactly. I'm not afraid of transgenders, it's violent men that make me nervous and they are everywhere. And blaming men's "perversions" on porn is a lot like blaming violence on video games, both are trying to excuse bad behavior. Instead of doing that why not start teaching young men that women aren't sex objects?
> 
> ...


Nothing wrong with porn? How do you figure? It denigrates women, typically to the point of nothing more than a sex toy. Worse, there is an abundance of rape porn that may help contribute to the current rape culture seen in some places. And I wasn't blaming men's perversions on porn - quite the opposite; it's a symptom. Anyways, not a rabbit I really want to chase.

My family member was abused constantly by men. She cannot tolerate them, she barely tolerates me, they make her nervous, and she rarely goes into male-dominant stores like feed stores or hardware stores.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

elevenpoint said:


> You already looked it up....find ABC news quoting the CEO on May 19th.


Maybe I'm just a little slow today. I didn't see anything backing up your original claim that Target is down 10-11 billion.

Humor me and post it.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Is your refusal to provide links because it can point out your IP address? I'm curious.


How so?


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> Is your refusal to provide links because it can point out your IP address? I'm curious.


That's a new one, I didn't know that. Must be some sort of conspiracy.
Am I the only person with Google?


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

basketti said:


> Maybe I'm just a little slow today. I didn't see anything backing up your original claim that Target is down 10-11 billion.
> 
> Humor me and post it.


The humor is that some have no access to what I have on a simple basic phone?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

elevenpoint said:


> The humor is that some have no access to what I have on a simple basic phone?


Uh-huh.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

elevenpoint said:


> The humor is that some have no access to what I have on a simple basic phone?


Maybe it's just too annoying to tap that screen so many times to bring up the copy and paste options?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...oom-policy-just-like-first-used-blacks-ads-2/

This article cites 4.5 billion.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> The recent quarter the Target CEO blamed slumping sales on a cold wet spring.


That's the quarter *before* the bathroom policy was announced
Their stock performance now pretty much matches what it's done historically


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Heritagefarm said:


> Maybe it's just too annoying to tap that screen so many times to bring up the copy and paste options?
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...oom-policy-just-like-first-used-blacks-ads-2/
> 
> This article cites 4.5 billion.


Might want to check something like the WSJ. Breitbart is an extreme right wing website.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Heritagefarm said:


> Nothing wrong with porn? How do you figure? It denigrates women, typically to the point of nothing more than a sex toy. Worse, there is an abundance of rape porn that may help contribute to the current rape culture seen in some places. And I wasn't blaming men's perversions on porn - quite the opposite; it's a symptom. Anyways, not a rabbit I really want to chase.
> 
> My family member was abused constantly by men. She cannot tolerate them, she barely tolerates me, they make her nervous, and she rarely goes into male-dominant stores like feed stores or hardware stores.


All porn is fantasy (and you brought it up BTW). Are you saying that men can't differentiate between reality and fantasy? Do you think porn is real? How about police shows on TV, real or fantasy? Movies? Real or fantasy? Rape porn causes rape? Absolutely not, rapists cause rape. There is no excuse for rape. Period. 

Moderation, all things in moderation. Words to live by. 

I still don't know enough about your family member to comment.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> TGT institutes inclusive "pedophile friendly" zones in its stores - stock plummets! CEO blames it on the weather
> 
> *Ya can't fix stupid*
> 
> This was written 17 minutes ago on Targets Stock message board. LOL


On that we do agree


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> All porn is fantasy (and you brought it up BTW). Are you saying that men can't differentiate between reality and fantasy? Do you think porn is real? How about police shows on TV, real or fantasy? Movies? Real or fantasy? Rape porn causes rape? Absolutely not, rapists cause rape. There is no excuse for rape. Period.
> 
> Moderation, all things in moderation. Words to live by.
> 
> I still don't know enough about your family member to comment.


I believe you have swallowed the liberal bait line that porn is acceptable. Maybe it is, I don't consider it. Porn can become addicting - it directly stimulates the base rewards center of the brain.

Regardless, your views do not match up with reality. I knew before I posted that you would be in favor of porn...

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/tech-support/201407/what-porn-does-intimacy



> Porn-free relationships are stronger, with a lower rate of infidelity.
> 
> Thatâs what Amanda Maddox and her colleagues found in a study of men and women, ages 18 to 34, who were in romantic relationships. The researchers measured the levels of negative communication, relationship adjustment, dedication or interpersonal commitment, sexual satisfaction, and infidelity. In their study, 76.8 percent of men and 34.6 percent of women looked at sexually explicit material alone; 44.8 percent reported viewing it with partners. They found that people who didnât view any porn had lower levels of negative communication, were more committed to the relationship, and had higher sexual satisfaction and relationship adjustment. Their rate of infidelity was at least half of those who had watched sexual material alone and with their partners. But people who only watched porn with their partners were more dedicated to the relationship and more sexually satisfied than those who watched alone.
> 
> ...





> The fantasy alternative leads to real-world cheating.
> 
> In another study, Andrea Mariea Gwinn, Nathaniel Lambert, and others further explored the nature of the other alternatives imaginatively offered up by pornography. They suggested two possibilities: First, that seeing physically attractive and sexually available partners on screen may heighten a personâs perceptions of his own possible partners. And second, that porn may make the idea of multiple sexual partners more appealingâanother wound to a committed relationship.
> 
> ...


*

And then there's another article, from the same source, that basically contradicts everything in the quote block, but no studies to back it up. So take your pick.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...02/common-sense-about-the-effects-pornography*


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Heritagefarm said:


> I believe you have swallowed the liberal bait line that porn is acceptable. Maybe it is, I don't consider it. Porn can become addicting - it directly stimulates the base rewards center of the brain.
> 
> Regardless, your views do not match up with reality. I knew before I posted that you would be in favor of porn...
> 
> ...


Thanks for providing links that I never asked for... In my marriage of 34 years, porn is a nice diversion. My husband nor I have ever raped anyone, and neither of us is addicted. Do people have issues with porn? Yes. People can have addiction issues with pretty much anything. 

Google Courtney Trouble and feminist porn. Here's a link to her and a TED talk. [ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x38-iHvUqLY[/ame] 

Can you answer the questions I asked?


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's the quarter *before* the bathroom policy was announced
> Their stock performance now pretty much matches what it's done historically


:umno:

Targets fourth quarter ended about February 19th, actually sales were up 1.9%.
Now the first quarter that ended about May 18th, with the bathroom policy announced about April 20th, they have losses about 10 billion and lost what % of their share value?
Maybe six different sites that report these figures are all false.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Can you answer the questions I asked?


Which ones?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

elevenpoint said:


> :umno:
> 
> Targets fourth quarter ended about February 19th, actually sales were up 1.9%.
> Now the first quarter that ended about May 18th, with the bathroom policy announced about April 20th, they have losses about 10 billion and lost what % of their share value?
> Maybe six different sites that report these figures are all false.


So you've refuted your own argument now?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-sunny-side-of-smut/



> What if it turns out that -pornography use actually reduces the desire to rape? It is a controversial idea, but some studies support it. Work in the 1960s and 1970s reported that sexual criminals tend to be exposed to pornographic materials at a later age than noncriminals. In 1992 Richard Green, a psychiatrist at Imperial College London, disclosed in his book Sexual Science and the Law that patients requesting treatment in clinics for sex offenders commonly say that pornography helps them keep their abnormal sexuality within the confines of their imagination. &#8220;Pornography seems to be protective,&#8221; Diamond says, perhaps because exposure correlates with lower levels of sexual repression, a potential rape risk factor.


I notice not too many are poking this issue. Bible Belt consumes the most amount of Internet porn!!!


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Heritagefarm said:


> Which ones?


"All porn is fantasy (and you brought it up BTW). *Are you saying that men can't differentiate between reality and fantasy? Do you think porn is real? How about police shows on TV, real or fantasy? Movies? Real or fantasy? Rape porn causes rape? *Absolutely not, rapists cause rape. There is no excuse for rape. Period."


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> "All porn is fantasy (and you brought it up BTW). *Are you saying that men can't differentiate between reality and fantasy? Do you think porn is real? How about police shows on TV, real or fantasy? Movies? Real or fantasy? Rape porn causes rape? *Absolutely not, rapists cause rape. There is no excuse for rape. Period."


I agree with this 100%


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> I agree with this 100%


Which part?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Which part?


That the responsibility for rape lies squarely and completely with the rapist.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> That the responsibility for rape lies squarely and completely with the rapist.


This is the second time in as many days that we have agreed on something. Are you as weirded out as I am?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> "All porn is fantasy (and you brought it up BTW). *Are you saying that men can't differentiate between reality and fantasy? Do you think porn is real? How about police shows on TV, real or fantasy? Movies? Real or fantasy? Rape porn causes rape? *Absolutely not, rapists cause rape. There is no excuse for rape. Period."


I didn't say rape porn causes rape, although think about it. If you can watch it, you can become desensitized to it. People just assume that if they watch something, they will always be able to keep it separate in their minds. Not so - the brain pathways used for watching porn and having sex are obviously similar. Sympathetic (scientific term, not actual sympathy) neurons fire in response to seeing someone in pain. What happens if we override those pathways?

Further, porn degrades both men and women to mere sex machines.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Heritagefarm said:


> I didn't say rape porn causes rape, although think about it. If you can watch it, you can become desensitized to it. People just assume that if they watch something, they will always be able to keep it separate in their minds. Not so - the brain pathways used for watching porn and having sex are obviously similar. Sympathetic (scientific term, not actual sympathy) neurons fire in response to seeing someone in pain. What happens if we override those pathways?
> 
> Further, porn degrades both men and women to mere sex machines.


Although think about it? Are you really making excuses for rape?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> This is the second time in as many days that we have agreed on something. Are you as weirded out as I am?


Yeah I'm skeered :lookout:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

elevenpoint said:


> :umno:
> 
> Targets fourth quarter ended about February 19th, actually sales were up 1.9%.
> Now the first quarter that ended about May 18th, with the bathroom policy announced about April 20th, they have losses about 10 billion and lost what % of their share value?
> Maybe six different sites that report these figures are all false.


You're talking about a few *months* only.
I'm talking about the past several years.

The variations now are pretty much the same as they have always been



> Maybe *six different sites* that report these figures are all false.


I haven't seen you post *any* sites.
I just see you repeating yourself

https://www.bing.com/search?q=targe...ttps=1&redig=587B6C11DCDC409CBC2D65892AF881E1


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Forget what happened in the PAST. This is the Here and NOW. And the reason their stock has gone down is VERY VERY apparent~! It WAS cause by this dumb stupid mindset that one just has to stoop to the lowest level and Bow Down to the progressive liberals in this country. And that is BUNK~!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> Forget what happened in the PAST. This is the Here and NOW. And the reason their stock has gone down is VERY VERY apparent~! It WAS cause by this* dumb stupid mindset* that one just has to stoop to the lowest level and Bow Down to the progressive liberals in this country. And that is BUNK~!


You don't have to "bow down" to anyone.

No one is forcing you to shop at Target, and you can't force Target to go by your rules

If you don't like their rules, don't go there.

The "dumb stupid mindset" is thinking the world has to suit you alone


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

arabian knight said:


> Forget what happened in the PAST. This is the Here and NOW. And the reason their stock has gone down is VERY VERY apparent~! It WAS cause by this dumb stupid mindset that one just has to stoop to the lowest level and Bow Down to the progressive liberals in this country. And that is BUNK~!


You know what the excuse will be next quarter?
A hot and dry summer and people didn't shop that much.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

These whackjobs were at my local Target and they don't seem to have hurt business at all. I was just there yesterday and spent more than I meant to. I like Target. I don't go near Wal mart. Yech.


. [ame]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RxUeFHUlHT4[/ame]


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

basketti said:


> These whackjobs were at my local Target and they don't seem to have hurt business at all. I was just there yesterday and spent more than I meant to. I like Target. I don't go near Wal mart. Yech.


I always come out with a cart full even I just ran in for only a few things. I really like their jersey sheets. 

Whackjob is the official term for that type.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Although think about it? Are you really making excuses for rape?


I just said I wasn't. Do you think I am? If so, I don't give an iota what you think about what I think.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Heritagefarm said:


> I just said I wasn't. Do you think I am? If so, I don't give an iota what you think about what I think.


Good. I was just thinking the same thing while I was forming my response to your post on the other thread. We do agree about something.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Good. I was just thinking the same thing while I was forming my response to your post on the other thread. We do agree about something.


:stars::bouncy:


----------

