# Appeals Court Rules on Transgender Bathrooms



## Bearfootfarm

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/appeals-court-rules-transgender-bathroom-rules-n558496



> A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that public schools must allow transgender students to use the bathrooms that match their gender identity, the first such decision of its kind.
> 
> The ruling is a victory for a Virginia high school student, Gavin Grimm, who was born female but identifies as male, has undergone hormone therapy, and has legally changed his name.
> 
> School officials were supportive and allowed him to use the boys' restrooms, but the school board later barred the school from making that accommodation.


----------



## flewism

So this person still has female genataila but a federal court ruled he/she is allowed to use the male's bathroom in a high school. I hope it works out well for all.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bearfootfarm said:


> http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/appeals-court-rules-transgender-bathroom-rules-n558496


A definite win against discrimination.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Female in male restroom won't be good.


----------



## RichNC

elevenpoint said:


> Female in male restroom won't be good.


Why, why do you think that, my goodness, my sisters and I used the same outhouse at the same time, yes we were spoiled and had a three seater! I also used the outhouse when little friends came over, oh dear me at the same time, nothing happened other than children eliminating urine from their bodies!


----------



## arabian knight




----------



## Elevenpoint

RichNC said:


> Why, why do you think that, my goodness, my sisters and I used the same outhouse at the same time, yes we were spoiled and had a three seater! I also used the outhouse when little friends came over, oh dear me at the same time, nothing happened other than children eliminating urine from their bodies!


Whatever you and your sister's did is private. Public is another matter.


----------



## dixiegal62

I don't really care about trans using it. I've probably been in a restroom with them before. I do however worry that some men will take advantage of it who want to do harm to women. I think a better solution is men's, women's and a separate private room for family's or anyone else wanting a more private place. I don't think a trans comfort out weights others discomfort.


----------



## Elevenpoint

dixiegal62 said:


> I don't really care about trans using it. I've probably been in a restroom with them before. I do however worry that some men will take advantage of it who want to do harm to women. I think a better solution is men's, women's and a separate private room for family's or anyone else wanting a more private place. I don't think a trans comfort out weights others discomfort.


Exactly...give them their own bathroom. But they won't use the trans bathroom.
Because they have decided what they are in their mind and will infringe upon others common respectful decency.


----------



## Irish Pixie

RichNC said:


> Why, why do you think that, my goodness, my sisters and I used the same outhouse at the same time, yes we were spoiled and had a three seater! I also used the outhouse when little friends came over, oh dear me at the same time, nothing happened other than children eliminating urine from their bodies!


I share my bathroom too. 

I've shared a dressing room with at least one transgender woman- she asked me to zip up her dress. Of course she was in a separate stall the same as there are in most bathrooms. She thanked me for not refusing to use the changing room like the other women in the store did. Idiots.

Perhaps there can be a special bathroom for bigots?


----------



## dixiegal62

flewism said:


> So this person still has female genataila but a federal court ruled he/she is allowed to use the male's bathroom in a high school. I hope it works out well for all.


Exactly. Some teenage boys can be awful. I hope she doesn't come to harm but if all the boys know who she is it could end badly. I hope the school is taking precautions for her safety.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> I don't really care about trans using it. I've probably been in a restroom with them before.
> 
> *I do however worry that some men will take advantage of it who want to do harm to women*.
> 
> I think a better solution is men's, women's and a separate private room for family's or anyone else wanting a more private place. I don't think a trans comfort out weights others discomfort.


That's one of the most common arguments
What's stopping them now? Wouldn't any bad behavior be illegal anyway?

Like you said, it's probably already happening.

I also keep hearing what a small percentage of the population they comprise, so you're as likely to be struck by lightning as to have to actually be in the same room with one


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> Female in male restroom won't be good.


So you think males have no self control?
Does Chastity Bono make you lose yours?


----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's one of the most common arguments
> What's stopping them now? Wouldn't any bad behavior be illegal anyway?
> 
> Like you said, it's probably already happening.
> 
> I also keep hearing what a small percentage of the population they comprise, so you're as likely to be struck by lightning as to have to actually be in the same room with one


Sure it's illegal now but when it comes to a real perverted person and I'm not talking about a trans, looking for ways to harm why make it easier for them? If there are really so few trans then why change the laws to begin with? What is wrong with them using the private family bathroom?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> Exactly. Some teenage boys can be awful. I hope she doesn't come to harm but if all the boys know who she is it could end badly. I hope the school is taking precautions for her safety.


The school was already allowing it and there had been no problems other than the school board getting involved.



> School officials were supportive and allowed him to use the boys' restrooms, but the school board later barred the school from making that accommodation.


----------



## RichNC

dixiegal62 said:


> Sure it's illegal now but when it comes to a real perverted person and I'm not talking about a trans, looking for ways to harm why make it easier for them?


Why would they (rapist) need to go to such measures, why wouldn't they just go in a bathroom and rape whomever they want...which by the way happens far to often than it should, which is never.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> Sure it's illegal now but when it comes to a real perverted person and I'm not talking about a trans, looking for ways to harm *why make it easier for them?* If there are really so few trans then why change the laws to begin with? What is wrong with them using the private family bathroom?


Nothing is "making it easier".

If they have bad intentions, that is already illegal, and nothing stops them from going through the door now.

If you're not peeking, you will never know the difference


----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> Nothing is "making it easier".
> 
> If they have bad intentions, that is already illegal, and nothing stops them from going through the door now.
> 
> If you're not peeking, you will never know the difference


As I already said I don't care about trans using it and I already said I've probably been in the women's room with them before, so there's no need to tell me I won't know the difference.

Nothings going to stop them now except some may not be willing to take the chance..once it becomes law that any sex can use whatever bathroom they want it'll make it easier on the ones who may not be brave enough to try it now and risk being caught.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> So you think males have no self control?
> Does Chastity Bono make you lose yours?


No thanks...never again.


----------



## JJ Grandits

Im old fashion. The stalls have doors so there is some privacy, however I would feel weird urinating next to some woman who calls herself Bill.
To be honest, the bathrooms don't really both me. It's allowing the use of the locker rooms and showers that do. I don't like the idea of janet and her penis showering next to my grand daughter.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's one of the most common arguments
> What's stopping them now? Wouldn't any bad behavior be illegal anyway?
> 
> Like you said, it's probably already happening.
> 
> I also keep hearing what a small percentage of the population they comprise, so you're as likely to be struck by lightning as to have to actually be in the same room with one


Big difference of thinking such things then having a female thrown into a boys locker room . Hormones fly and spontaneous bad decisions can take place.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> As I already said I don't care about trans using it and I already said I've probably been in the women's room with them before, so there's no need to tell me I won't know the difference.
> 
> Nothings going to stop them now except some may not be willing to take the chance..*once it becomes law that any sex can use whatever bathroom they want *it'll make it easier on the ones who may not be brave enough to try it now and risk being caught.


That's a misinterpretation of the law.
It's about the gender with which they identify.

It doesn't "allow" just any man to use any bathroom *unless* he's living as a woman

I'd be willing to bet you will never notice any difference at all


----------



## Vahomesteaders




----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's a misinterpretation of the law.
> It's about the gender with which they identify.
> 
> It doesn't "allow" just any man to use any bathroom *unless* he's living as a woman
> 
> I'd be willing to bet you will never notice any difference at all


So how would that be enforced? How can you tell a man dressed as a woman from a man dressed as a woman who lives as a woman? Who decides which one is a real trans or just a perv? Should be interesting seeing your version of this law enforced


----------



## Elevenpoint

I don't know a man or woman that would stand by while a dude in a skirt tries to go in that women's bathroom their daughter is in.
Him is not her...or her him. That is mental illness.
My daughter in a public restroom and a guy wants to go in? No. Well..not only no but....
LGBT is in for a war here.
Your going to force your rights at the YMCA?.
Want to see that.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Vahomesteaders said:


>


Your being anti-gay....transgender etc....are you a racist too?


----------



## Vahomesteaders

elevenpoint said:


> Your being anti-gay....transgender etc....are you a racist too?


Nope. Just showing the types of people who will take advantage of these laws. You see the beauty in the possibility but never the danger. It's very sad.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Vahomesteaders said:


> Nope. Just showing the types of people who will take advantage of these laws. You see the beauty in the possibility but never the danger. It's very sad.


Very sad indeed.


----------



## mreynolds

Seeing that picture made me wonder. If a man who identified as a woman, goes topless at the beach, can he get a ticket for showing his breasts? 


If not why?


----------



## arabian knight

Vahomesteaders said:


> Nope. Just showing the types of people who will take advantage of these laws. You see the beauty in the possibility but never the danger. It's very sad.


The moral decay is in high speed in this once great America. Can't stand much longer, she will fall and fall hard.


----------



## wiscto

If we fall, it won't be because we ruled one way or another on this cockamamie argument. It'll be because we put a priority on this cockamamie argument. I vote knock out all the walls, install full amenity closed door restrooms in their place, and shut everybody the %$%##$ up. A few more people are going to scat themselves waiting for a toilet to open up, but if I have to listen to one more day of this STUPID gd argument, I think I might just find a shoreline, start swimming, and never look back. I'm sure I can find a country where the people realize where they crap is the least of the gd concerns, unless they don't have plumbing, in which case they actually have a $#@%%^ reason to prioritize the ins and outs of where they crap.


----------



## City Bound

elevenpoint said:


> I don't know a man or woman that would stand by while a dude in a skirt tries to go in that women's bathroom their daughter is in.
> Him is not her...or her him. That is mental illness.
> My daughter in a public restroom and a guy wants to go in? No. Well..not only no but....
> LGBT is in for a war here.
> Your going to force your rights at the YMCA?.
> Want to see that.


 don't worry, daughters will be brainwashed to be "tolerant" until they are neurotic messes


----------



## City Bound

dixiegal62 said:


> So how would that be enforced? How can you tell a man dressed as a woman from a man dressed as a woman who lives as a woman? Who decides which one is a real trans or just a perv? Should be interesting seeing your version of this law enforced


 more at danger are the women who imagine they are men. There are going to be many rapes in those men's rooms. 

can you imagine some silly girl using the mens room at a club well after midnight when most men are drunk and sexually frustrated?


----------



## wiscto

mreynolds said:


> Ok Wistco. Time to open up your feelings and tell us how you really feel.
> 
> I agree somewhat though. I have been to concerts that the women had to use the men's bathroom and it wasn't a big deal to me. Of course w had all had a few spirits too and were adults after all.


Well I mean I understand why you guys are talking about it. I just can't believe it has to be an issue in the first place. We don't have time for this crap.

And I've gone in the ladies room, and I don't mean one of those restrooms that's just a single user one with a lady symbol on it, I mean I really had no choice and the girls let me in...and then of course all of them ran out....but that's because I said "I can't help it sorry I'm pretty sure this is gonna be bad..."


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Vahomesteaders said:


> Big difference of thinking such things then having a female thrown into a boys locker room . Hormones fly and spontaneous bad decisions can take place.


Nothing in the ruling to my knowledge mentioned "locker rooms"
The school was already allowing it and evidently had no problems


----------



## Bearfootfarm

City Bound said:


> more at danger are the women who imagine they are men. *There are going to be many rapes in those men's rooms.*
> 
> can you imagine some silly girl using the mens room at a club well after midnight when most men are drunk and sexually frustrated?


So your main assertion is those men can't control themselves on one side of a particular door, but can on the other?

That reminds me of that silly argument:
"If you let people carry guns, they will all just shoot each other over any little thing at all"


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> *So how would that be enforced?* How can you tell a man dressed as a woman from a man dressed as a woman who lives as a woman? Who decides which one is a real trans or just a perv? Should be interesting seeing your version of this law enforced


How's it being enforced now? 
What's stopping all these "rapes"?

Do you *seriously* think guys are going to dress up like women and go out in public just to go in a bathroom? 
Anyone that deranged would be doing it already


----------



## Bearfootfarm

mreynolds said:


> Seeing that picture made me wonder. If a man who identified as a woman, goes topless at the beach, can he get a ticket for showing his breasts?
> If not why?


I imagine it would depend on the wording of the statutes, and whether or not anyone complained


----------



## DEKE01

Bearfootfarm said:


> Nothing in the ruling to my knowledge mentioned "locker rooms"
> The school was already allowing it and evidently had no problems


wrong. locker rooms apply because of DoEd Title IX rules. 

My DD was a swimmer, changed 1 to 4 times a day in a locker room before and after school. when 100+ girls, boys, and young adults get out of the pool at 7AM to get ready for school at 8AM, there are no stalls to offer privacy. Under the system you advocate, an 18 year old HS senior male who believes he is a woman could go in there and strip down right in front of the girls, run naked to the showers and prove he is not woman. 

Even if you don't have a problem with your DD in such a situation, can you at least understand why I might not want my 11 year old pressured into that? 

BTW - I'm no prude. We took DD to nude beaches when she was a kid. She chose to wear a swim suit, fine her choice. I had no worries she would see man parts, and I had no worries some freak would harass her because I was there. I'm not going to hang out in the girl's locker room to supervise. 

Why are you denying her the choice to be modest in a locker room? Why don't you care about her feelings?


----------



## Irish Pixie

City Bound said:


> more at danger are the women who imagine they are men. There are going to be many rapes in those men's rooms.
> 
> can you imagine some silly girl using the mens room at a club well after midnight when most men are drunk and sexually frustrated?


Rape is wrong. Every man in this country knows that rape is wrong. It's not the transgender man's fault that that some men are violent. 

Forcing a transgender woman to use the men's bathroom _will_ get her hurt by anti-LGBT zealots. Many of that ilk are violent.


----------



## mmoetc

DEKE01 said:


> wrong. locker rooms apply because of DoEd Title IX rules.
> 
> My DD was a swimmer, changed 1 to 4 times a day in a locker room before and after school. when 100+ girls, boys, and young adults get out of the pool at 7AM to get ready for school at 8AM, there are no stalls to offer privacy. Under the system you advocate, an 18 year old HS senior male who believes he is a woman could go in there and strip down right in front of the girls, run naked to the showers and prove he is not woman.
> 
> Even if you don't have a problem with your DD in such a situation, can you at least understand why I might not want my 11 year old pressured into that?
> 
> BTW - I'm no prude. We took DD to nude beaches when she was a kid. She chose to wear a swim suit, fine her choice. I had no worries she would see man parts, and I had no worries some freak would harass her because I was there. I'm not going to hang out in the girl's locker room to supervise.
> 
> Why are you denying her the choice to be modest in a locker room? Why don't you care about her feelings?


I do care about her feelings. But I also care about the 18 year old who identifies as female and has gone through years of counseling and therapy who looks, dresses and acts in every way as a fema&#322;e being forced to use the boys locker room. Modesty and locker rooms almost never mix. Should your modest daughter be subjected to the older girls showing off their budding secondary sexual characteristics or talking of their sexual conquest the night before? Should only the the straight girls be allowed? What of the lesbians? We know how immodest they can be. I'd give your daughter the same advice for all- close your eyes and ears to that which you don't wish to see or hear and treat everyone you meet as a person not a manifestation of what may, or may not be, present between their legs.


----------



## greg273

City Bound said:


> more at danger are the women who imagine they are men. There are going to be many rapes in those men's rooms.
> 
> can you imagine some silly girl using the mens room at a club well after midnight when most men are drunk and sexually frustrated?


 So a female, who looks and dresses like a man, is going to suddenly be in danger of being raped by horny club goers?


----------



## flewism

Bearfootfarm said:


> http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/appeals-court-rules-transgender-bathroom-rules-n558496


Why can't they just complete the transition (surgically) to the sex to match their gender, then the debate is mute.


----------



## arabian knight

Changing the OUTSIDE Plumbing does not change the INSIDE PLUMBING. One is born one way, and one way ONLY, and THAT is what and WHO you are Period~! Don't like what sex you are TUFF COOKIES. You ARE who you ARE., God Made YOU that way. End Of Story.


----------



## Irish Pixie

flewism said:


> Why can't they just complete the transition (surgically) to the sex to match their gender, then the debate is mute.


Nope, apparently not to zealots... It's sad that they need to try to control everyone, isn't it? 

The surgery is expensive and isn't covered under many (most?) insurance plans.


----------



## itsb

DEKE01 said:


> wrong. locker rooms apply because of DoEd Title IX rules.
> 
> My DD was a swimmer, changed 1 to 4 times a day in a locker room before and after school. when 100+ girls, boys, and young adults get out of the pool at 7AM to get ready for school at 8AM, there are no stalls to offer privacy. Under the system you advocate, an 18 year old HS senior male who believes he is a woman could go in there and strip down right in front of the girls, run naked to the showers and prove he is not woman.
> 
> Even if you don't have a problem with your DD in such a situation, can you at least understand why I might not want my 11 year old pressured into that?
> 
> BTW - I'm no prude. We took DD to nude beaches when she was a kid. She chose to wear a swim suit, fine her choice. I had no worries she would see man parts, and I had no worries some freak would harass her because I was there. I'm not going to hang out in the girl's locker room to supervise.
> 
> Why are you denying her the choice to be modest in a locker room? Why don't you care about her feelings?





Irish Pixie said:


> Nope, apparently not to zealots... It's sad that they need to try to control everyone, isn't it?
> 
> The surgery is expensive and isn't covered under many (most?) insurance plans.


that would make Bernie a great campaign slogan, a free pennis for everyone


----------



## DEKE01

mmoetc said:


> I do care about her feelings. But I also care about the 18 year old who identifies as female and has gone through years of counseling and therapy who looks, dresses and acts in every way as a fema&#322;e being forced to use the boys locker room.


Well, he doesn't look like a female in every way, now does he? If he looked like a girl in every way, this wouldn't be an issue. 

Why do you put his feelings, the feelings of a mentally ill person ahead of the feelings of many others?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Ah. Trying to get the thread closed. :facepalm: More control from the anti LGBT crowd.


----------



## Elevenpoint

flewism said:


> Why can't they just complete the transition (surgically) to the sex to match their gender, then the debate is mute.


I'm guessing not a big enough market to open a penis store yet? Unless you were born with one you can't just run out and pick one up.


----------



## TripleD

elevenpoint said:


> I'm guessing not a big enough market to open a penis store yet? Unless you were born with one you can't just run out and pick one up.


If some get their way you will be able to find one in every restroom.:facepalm:


----------



## itsb

Irish Pixie said:


> Ah. Trying to get the thread closed. :facepalm: More control from the anti LGBT crowd.


would it anti LGBT rights or anti my daughter or anti grandather rights


----------



## flewism

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope, apparently not to zealots... It's sad that they need to try to control everyone, isn't it?
> 
> The surgery is expensive and isn't covered under many (most?) insurance plans.


 Then;
1) these people need this condition reclassified as a birth defect so insurance will pay. 
2) Create, support charities, with celebrities and infomercials to raise funds for their plight.

Or just pay for it themselves like some of us do when there is something we want or need.


----------



## mmoetc

flewism said:


> Why can't they just complete the transition (surgically) to the sex to match their gender, then the debate is mute.


Because many are too young. And even that wouldn't negate the NC jaw that requires everyone to use the bathroom of the sex that appears in their birth certificate. 

My wife wears her hair short and often wears comfortably baggy clothes that hide some secondary sexual characteristics. She is also of an age where unwanted facial hair might appear and depending on her mood she might or might not groom it off before going out. She gets called sir often enough that it has become a family joke. She takes no offense and people are usually quick to realize their mistake and apologize. She deals with such things good naturedly. She was on one occassion challenged by another woman when she tried to enter a gender appropriate restroom. No blood was shed. It might be different if she had to produce her ID and birth certificate every time she wished to use a public restroom.


----------



## Irish Pixie

itsb said:


> would it anti LGBT rights or anti my daughter or anti grandather rights


I don't understand what you're trying to say. :shrug:


----------



## flewism

mmoetc said:


> Because many are too young. And even that wouldn't negate the NC jaw that requires everyone to use the bathroom of the sex that appears in their birth certificate.
> 
> My wife wears her hair short and often wears comfortably baggy clothes that hide some secondary sexual characteristics. She is also of an age where unwanted facial hair might appear and depending on her mood she might or might not groom it off before going out. She gets called sir often enough that it has become a family joke. She takes no offense and people are usually quick to realize their mistake and apologize. She deals with such things good naturedly. She was on one occassion challenged by another woman when she tried to enter a gender appropriate restroom. No blood was shed. It might be different if she had to produce her ID and birth certificate every time she wished to use a public restroom.


 Somebody signed off on the name change and hormone therapy of this minor person so signing off on the surgery should not be an issue. Birth certificates are amendable. The quicker the reassignment is made the better for all concerned.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> Ah. Trying to get the thread closed. :facepalm: More control from the anti LGBT crowd.


Or is it the LGBT crowd that wants to control?
I've yet to meet one person in my life that cares one bit what any person does in their private life.
There is a reason there are men and women bathrooms in public.
Everyone knows which bathroom to use and why.
The LGBT community should band together and talk about respecting the privacy of a public bathroom.
Transgender need to understand even if their mind tells them they are of an opposite sex...it does not make it true.


----------



## mmoetc

flewism said:


> Why can't they just complete the transition (surgically) to the sex to match their gender, then the debate is mute.





DEKE01 said:


> Well, he doesn't look like a female in every way, now does he? If he looked like a girl in every way, this wouldn't be an issue.
> 
> Why do you put his feelings, the feelings of a mentally ill person ahead of the feelings of many others?


I don't put them ahead of others. I give them equal weight whether they are a majority or minority. Why are you dismissive of them? What other "mental illnesses" shouldn't you have to deal with in a public place because it makes you uncomfortable? Tourette's and its incesscent motion and vocalizations? The autistic who can't make eye contact and socialize "normally"? There are many human behaviors that make many people uncomfortable. There was a time when such people were locked away to save the sensibilities of those who were 
made so uncomfortable. Oh for simpler times.


And if you've been poolside at any major swim meet the suits (if they can rightfully be called that) the young men wear might cause your modest daughter equal distress.


----------



## Lisa in WA

arabian knight said:


> Changing the OUTSIDE Plumbing does not change the INSIDE PLUMBING. One is born one way, and one way ONLY, and THAT is what and WHO you are Period~! Don't like what sex you are TUFF COOKIES. You ARE who you ARE., God Made YOU that way. End Of Story.


So we shouldn't separate conjoined twins or repair birth defects because God made us that way?


----------



## arabian knight

And now yo are being just ridiculous. PERIOD


----------



## flewism

basketti said:


> So we shouldn't separate conjoined twins or repair birth defects because God made us that way?


 So your position is that gender identity disorder is a physical defect?


----------



## DEKE01

mmoetc said:


> I don't put them ahead of others. I give them equal weight whether they are a majority or minority. Why are you dismissive of them? What other "mental illnesses" shouldn't you have to deal with in a public place because it makes you uncomfortable? Tourette's and its incesscent motion and vocalizations? The autistic who can't make eye contact and socialize "normally"? There are many human behaviors that make many people uncomfortable. There was a time when such people were locked away to save the sensibilities of those who were
> made so uncomfortable. Oh for simpler times.
> 
> 
> And if you've been poolside at any major swim meet the suits (if they can rightfully be called that) the young men wear might cause your modest daughter equal distress.


DD was a junior Olympian, so been there, done that. It's not the sight of the guys that bothered her, she didn't want to have to disrobe in front of them. It's not that I didn't want her seeing men, it's that I don't want them with uncontrolled access in a women's locker room.

As to other mental illnesses, and you need not put it in quotes because it is a long established fact, it all matters, of course, with the degree of imposition on others. The Tourette's kid shouldn't get to disrupt a movie theatre, out on the street, it's tough luck for me if I don't like it. 

And if you weighed the feelings equally, you would see that 50 is more than 1. We all have a right to privacy, which you are destroying and a couple of Obama lib judges are destroying.


----------



## DEKE01

Irish Pixie said:


> Rape is wrong. Every man in this country knows that rape is wrong. It's not the transgender man's fault that that some men are violent.
> 
> Forcing a transgender woman to use the men's bathroom _will_ get her hurt by anti-LGBT zealots. Many of that ilk are violent.


And you are advocating a position where a mentally ill woman will use the men's locker room and be subject to just as much danger. You don't really care about the danger, you care about control and forcing your views on others.


----------



## Shine

Please see my previous opinions regarding this subject. If the person has a Penis, then this person uses the Male or Individual Bathroom. If the person has a vagina, then this person uses the Female or Individual Bathroom. Anything else is a violation of the privacy rights of the person(s) FORCED to use what normally would be a space set apart for private activities.

Why do you wish to force others to surrender their rights so that this small percentage of people have rights that they should not have? Can you prove that this is not, beyond a reasonable doubt, a mental issue? Can you show me a test other than one that accepts the admission of the suspected persons "opinions" as the final word?

Again, why should others surrender their right to privacy?


----------



## Irish Pixie

DEKE01 said:


> And advocating a woman use the men's locker room will subject her to just as much danger. *You* don't really care about the danger, *you* care about control and forcing *your* views on others.


Getting a mite personal aren't you? Your last two posts to me were both personal and insulting. Can you tone that down, please?


----------



## Lisa in WA

flewism said:


> So your position is that gender identity disorder is a physical defect?


If a person is a woman born into a man's body (or vice versa) and they require surgery to change it, then I guess in a way it is.
I can't imagine how hard it would be to have that problem.


----------



## mmoetc

DEKE01 said:


> DD was a junior Olympian, so been there, done that. It's not the sight of the guys that bothered her, she didn't want to have to disrobe in front of them. It's not that I didn't want her seeing men, it's that I don't want them with uncontrolled access in a women's locker room.
> 
> As to other mental illnesses, and you need not put it in quotes because it is a long established fact, it all matters, of course, with the degree of imposition on others. The Tourette's kid shouldn't get to disrupt a movie theatre, out on the street, it's tough luck for me if I don't like it.
> 
> And if you weighed the feelings equally, you would see that 50 is more than 1. We all have a right to privacy, which you are destroying and a couple of Obama lib judges are destroying.


But men won't have uncontrolled access any more than they do now. A transgendered male transitioning isn't a man. Why should your daughter disrobing in front of that person make her any more uncomfortable than disrobing in front of any of the other people in that locker room? A group who statistics show will include girls who find her sexually attractive and desirable. Why should her discomfort in disrobing dictate others actions. Think about what you said about the Tourette's patient. Should my discomfort in seeing him be enough to deny him? And that is what were talking about. A person doing nothing but being there. No allegations of unwanted advances or behaviors. Just your daughter's of feeling of discomfort by the presence of that person. Why should her feelings be the trump card? 

And I weigh the feelings of each individual equally. Weighing them by how many feel a certain way is a dangerous way to govern. True democracy seldom leads to true equality.


----------



## Shine

basketti said:


> If a person is a woman born into a man's body (or vice versa) and they require surgery to change it, then I guess in a way it is.



Not wanting to seem insulting but the above statement is quite outside of the realm of reasonableness... 

"If a person is a *woman* born into a *man*'s body"

If you look at natural situations, you will never find anywhere/anything where something can be called the opposite of what it is and then expect people to agree with you. This is pure insanity.


----------



## Shine

mmoetc said:


> Why should her feelings be the trump card?


Why should the person who is in the minority be able to use the Trump card, why should she have to surrender her right to privacy?


----------



## Irish Pixie

mmoetc said:


> But men won't have uncontrolled access any more than they do now. A transgendered male transitioning isn't a man. Why should your daughter disrobing in front of that person make her any more uncomfortable than disrobing in front of any of the other people in that locker room? A group who statistics show will include girls who find her sexually attractive and desirable. Why should her discomfort in disrobing dictate others actions. Think about what you said about the Tourette's patient. Should my discomfort in seeing him be enough to deny him? And that is what were talking about. A person doing nothing but being there. No allegations of unwanted advances or behaviors. Just your daughter's of feeling of discomfort by the presence of that person. Why should her feelings be the trump card?
> 
> And I weigh the feelings of each individual equally. Weighing them by how many feel a certain way is a dangerous way to govern. True democracy seldom leads to true equality.


Exactly.


----------



## flewism

mmoetc said:


> But men won't have uncontrolled access any more than they do now. *A transgendered male transitioning isn't a man*. Why should your daughter disrobing in front of that person make her any more uncomfortable than disrobing in front of any of the other people in that locker room? A group who statistics show will include girls who find her sexually attractive and desirable. Why should her discomfort in disrobing dictate others actions. Think about what you said about the Tourette's patient. Should my discomfort in seeing him be enough to deny him? And that is what were talking about. A person doing nothing but being there. No allegations of unwanted advances or behaviors. Just your daughter's of feeling of discomfort by the presence of that person. Why should her feelings be the trump card?
> 
> And I weigh the feelings of each individual equally. Weighing them by how many feel a certain way is a dangerous way to govern. True democracy seldom leads to true equality.


 That strictly depends on at what stage the transition is at and the court ruled that a name change and hormone therapy is enough within a public school setting.


----------



## Bubba1358

mmoetc said:


> A transgendered male transitioning isn't a man. Why should your daughter disrobing in front of that person make her any more uncomfortable than disrobing in front of any of the other people in that locker room?


How in the bloody H-E-double hockey sticks is Jane Q. Stranger supposed to know?! ESPECIALLY at first glance.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's not a duck because it really thinks it's a cat. 

How can we even be having a discussion on how to *legislate it* so THIS duck should not be alarming the cats when it waltzes into the litter box, but still keep the REAL cis-ducks out pooping in the pond where they belong, while at the same time *legislate it* to provide medical $$$ for Jane Cat to have webbed feet surgically attached and get anti-fur hormones so she/he/whatever can swim to the pond too because the cat was really born a duck????

:frypan:

Is real life just the Jerry Springer Show now, and government is the audience?


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Bubba1358 said:


> How in the bloody H-E-double hockey sticks is Jane Q. Stranger supposed to know?! ESPECIALLY at first glance.
> 
> If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's not a duck because it really thinks it's a cat.
> 
> How can we even be having a discussion on how to *legislate it* so THIS duck should not be alarming the cats when it waltzes into the litter box, but still keep the REAL cis-ducks out pooping in the pond where they belong, while at the same time *legislate it* to provide medical $$$ for Jane Cat to have webbed feet surgically attached and get anti-fur hormones so she/he/whatever can swim to the pond too because the cat was really born a duck????
> 
> :frypan:
> 
> Is real life just the Jerry Springer Show now, and government is the audience?


Excellent post. If someone goes to the doctor and says in hallucinating and hearing voices. The doc runs physical test and determines there is nothing physically wrong so you have a mental disorder. Well physically almost all transsexuals have normal physical bodies and no scientific medical reason for their disorder. It's just what their mind has created. So they take a perfectly working body and mutilate it to match a sick mind. Instead they should fix the sick mind to match the perfectly normal and working body. Again. Suicide after sex change operations are astronomical. Because the change didn't have the desired affect because the problem is still there.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Why are *you* denying her the choice to be modest in a locker room? Why don't you care about her feelings?


I'm not denying anyone anything.
I wasn't consulted.
I'm saying most are simply overreacting.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Vahomesteaders said:


> Excellent post. If someone goes to the doctor and says in hallucinating and hearing voices. The doc runs physical test and determines there is nothing physically wrong so you have a mental disorder. Well physically almost all transsexuals have normal physical bodies and no scientific medical reason for their disorder. It's just what their mind has created. So they take a perfectly working body and mutilate it to match a sick mind. Instead they should fix the sick mind to match the perfectly normal and working body. Again. Suicide after sex change operations are astronomical. Because the change didn't have the desired affect because the problem is still there.


I believe that someone that is transgender goes through more significant testing, especially if they want to physically transition. 

Why is it OK to have faith in a religion and/or god but not that someone knows what gender they are? Both things are invisible... yet transgender is a mental illness to you? Can you explain? Please?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

flewism said:


> *Why can't they *just complete the transition (surgically) to the sex to match their gender, then the debate is mute.


There are many requirements that have to be met first.
They have to live as the opposite sex for a given period of time, take the appropriate hormones, consult with psychiatrists, and last but certainly not least, come up with many thousands of dollars to pay for the surgery.

It's not a spur of the moment process


----------



## Bearfootfarm

arabian knight said:


> And now yo are being just ridiculous. PERIOD


No moreso than yourself.
Your religious beliefs have nothing to do with what others choose


----------



## flewism

Bearfootfarm said:


> There are many requirements that have to be met first.
> They have to live as the opposite sex for a given period of time, take the appropriate hormones, consult with psychiatrists, and last but certainly not least, come up with many thousands of dollars to pay for the surgery.
> 
> It's not a spur of the moment process





flewism said:


> Then;
> 1) these people need this condition reclassified as a birth defect so insurance will pay.
> 2) Create, support charities, with celebrities and infomercials to raise funds for their plight.
> 
> Or just pay for it themselves like some of us do when there is something we want or need.


 This was all ready answered once, Do it. I could care less about adults 
that need to do this to themselves, but minor children? in public schools in a gender transitional state.

Obtain the funds, pull them out of school, home school them, get the sex change done, change the birth certificate, Then send them back to school.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Irish Pixie said:


> I believe that someone that is transgender goes through more significant testing, especially if they want to physically transition.
> 
> Why is it OK to have faith in a religion and/or god but not that someone knows what gender they are? Both things are invisible... yet transgender is a mental illness to you? Can you explain? Please?


Yes to me and seasoned globally esteemed doctors, it is a mental condition. Why? Because the physical body, the dna and the hormones say what sex you are. Now if people insist that we can choose what ever we choose to be and make it so based solely on feelings or emotion, then you have to say that ok, pedephiles, those into beastiality and rapist are the way they are because they were born that way. They desire and long for children, sheep and the unwilling. Would you not classify them as mentally ill due to their sexual desires and identity? What about the 53 year old man in England that swears he is an 8 year old girl trapped in a man's body. He dresses like a little girl and his parts go along with it. Is he not mentally ill? We talk so much about mental health care yet we are taking mental health issues and forcing them on people abs treating the illness add if it were ok. This nation had laws against this kind of stuff since it's birth. And for some reason in the last decade or two we decided we know better. We don't. We just have allowed ourselves to be fooled into believing a lie and running on pure emotion instead of common sense.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Not wanting to seem insulting but the above statement is quite outside of the realm of reasonableness...
> 
> "If a person is a *woman* born into a *man*'s body"
> 
> If you look at natural situations, you will never find anywhere/anything where something can be called the opposite of what it is and then expect people to agree with you. *This is pure insanity*.


Insanity is repeating yourself but expecting different results each time.

Your own sources in a previous thread explained that "gender" has nothing to do with "biological sex", and you keep acting as if they are the same thing.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Vahomesteaders said:


> Excellent post. If someone goes to the doctor and says in hallucinating and hearing voices. The doc runs physical test and determines there is nothing physically wrong so you have a mental disorder. Well physically almost all transsexuals have normal physical bodies and no scientific medical reason for their disorder. It's just what their mind has created. So they take a perfectly working body and mutilate it to match a sick mind. Instead they should fix the sick mind to match the perfectly normal and working body. Again. Suicide after sex change operations are astronomical. Because the change didn't have the desired affect because the problem is still there.


You would think before spending a fortune on remodeling the entire house...you would fix the roof first.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Why should the person who is in the minority be able to use the Trump card, why should she have to surrender her right to privacy?


There's no "right to privacy" in a school locker room


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's no "right to privacy" in a school locker room


And I take it your ok with little girls having no privacy in a school locker room from male genitalia?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

flewism said:


> This was all ready answered once, Do it. I could care less about adults
> that need to do this to themselves, but minor children? in public schools in a gender transitional state.
> 
> Obtain the funds, *pull them out of school*, home school them, get the sex change done, change the birth certificate, Then send them back to school.


You're free to pull your kids out of school and you won't have to pay for all the Dr's and surgery.


----------



## flewism

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're free to pull your kids out of school and you won't have to pay for all the Dr's and surgery.


 What does this mean???


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Vahomesteaders said:


> And I take it your ok with little girls having no privacy in a school locker room from male genitalia?


I have no delusions that they haven't seen them already.
*How many* MTF transgenders are there at your kid's school?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

flewism said:


> What does this mean???


It means exactly what it says.
No one is forced to send their kids to a particular school if they disagree with conditions there.

*How many* transgenders attend your kid's school?


----------



## flewism

Bearfootfarm said:


> It means exactly what it says.
> No one is forced to send their kids to a particular school if they disagree with conditions there.
> 
> *How many* transgenders attend your kid's school?


 Agreed, changing conditions is what this thread is about.

None, How many are in your neighborhood?


----------



## Bubba1358

Shine said:


> Why do you wish to force others to surrender their rights so that this small percentage of people have rights that they should not have? Can you prove that this is not, beyond a reasonable doubt, a mental issue? Can you show me a test other than one that accepts the admission of the suspected persons "opinions" as the final word?
> 
> Again, why should others surrender their right to privacy?





bubb1358 said:


> How in the bloody H-E-double hockey sticks is Jane Q. Stranger supposed to know?! ESPECIALLY at first glance.


No takers?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

flewism said:


> Agreed, changing conditions is what this thread is about.
> 
> *None*, How many are in your neighborhood?


There are none that I am aware of, so as I have often said, most are just overreacting. It's not going to affect most people in the least bit.

I've seen women wrap themselves in a blanket and change clothes on a public beach and one never sees anything other than heads and feet.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Vahomesteaders said:


> Yes to me and seasoned globally esteemed doctors, it is a mental condition. Why? Because the physical body, the dna and the hormones say what sex you are. Now if people insist that we can choose what ever we choose to be and make it so based solely on feelings or emotion, then you have to say that ok, pedephiles, those into beastiality and rapist are the way they are because they were born that way. They desire and long for children, sheep and the unwilling. Would you not classify them as mentally ill due to their sexual desires and identity? What about the 53 year old man in England that swears he is an 8 year old girl trapped in a man's body. He dresses like a little girl and his parts go along with it. Is he not mentally ill? We talk so much about mental health care yet we are taking mental health issues and forcing them on people abs treating the illness add if it were ok. This nation had laws against this kind of stuff since it's birth. And for some reason in the last decade or two we decided we know better. We don't. We just have allowed ourselves to be fooled into believing a lie and running on pure emotion instead of common sense.


But believing in (and talking to, some say the voice talks to them) an imaginary figure is fine and dandy? Seriously? SMH


----------



## flewism

I will say this, If I had a child struggling with their identity and professionals recommended it I would do just as I describe, there would be no halfway or trans label and without any public involvement .


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Bearfootfarm said:


> I have no delusions that they haven't seen them already.
> *How many* MTF transgenders are there at your kid's school?


That's irrelevant. The fact is that thanks to new laws there can be. I'm not sure of your parenting choices but my daughter is 12 years old. Other than her brothers penis she has seen no males penis. And there is zero threat or even thought of threat from a loved family members in most households. There is however very real threat from outside sources all over this world everyday and anyone who would put a child in that situation should be ashamed of themselves and tried for child abuse.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

flewism said:


> I will say this, If I had a child struggling with their identity and professionals recommended it I would do just as I describe, there would be no halfway or trans label without public involvement .


Not everyone makes their decisions to suit the will of "the public".


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Irish Pixie said:


> But believing in (and talking to, some say the voice talks to them) an imaginary figure is fine and dandy? Seriously? SMH


Just love attacking religion when I've made no comment to the fact here. A spiritual figure of which 84% of the world believes in in one form or another has far more proof and justification.


----------



## flewism

Irish Pixie said:


> But believing in (and talking to, some say the voice talks to them) an imaginary figure is fine and dandy? Seriously? SMH


 Once again you state believing in God and having gender identity issues are comparable human traits. You are not going win many point with that position.:facepalm:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Vahomesteaders said:


> *That's irrelevant.* The fact is that thanks to new laws there can be. I'm not sure of your parenting choices but my daughter is 12 years old. Other than her brothers penis she has seen no males penis. And there is zero threat or even thought of threat from a loved family members in most households. There is however very real threat from outside sources all over this world everyday and anyone who would put a child in that situation should be ashamed of themselves and tried for child abuse.


It's totally relevant.
If there are none, she will see none.
If she's seen one, she's seen them all pretty much.
There is little "danger" from anyone who thinks of themselves as the same sex as she. 

I'd be more concerned about gay girls making advances in a shower than a transgender. If she's concerned about what she might "see", tell her to keep her eyes up above shoulder level


----------



## Irish Pixie

Vahomesteaders said:


> Just love attacking religion when I've made no comment to the fact here. A spiritual figure of which 84% of the world believes in in one form or another has far more proof and justification.


I'm not attacking religion- I'm asking why it's perfectly acceptable to believe in an imaginary figure but not OK if someone _knows_ they are another gender. Can you explain? Neither are quantifiable by physical standards- isn't that what you said earlier? Yes, it is:



Vahomesteaders said:


> Excellent post. If someone goes to the doctor and says in hallucinating and hearing voices. The doc runs physical test and determines there is nothing physically wrong so you have a mental disorder. Well physically almost all transsexuals have normal physical bodies and no scientific medical reason for their disorder. It's just what their mind has created. So they take a perfectly working body and mutilate it to match a sick mind. Instead they should fix the sick mind to match the perfectly normal and working body. Again. Suicide after sex change operations are astronomical. Because the change didn't have the desired affect because the problem is still there.


----------



## Bubba1358

Irish Pixie said:


> But believing in (and talking to, some say the voice talks to them) an imaginary figure is fine and dandy? Seriously? SMH


So what's the criteria?

When does believing something not immediately apparent to an outside observer get classified as "real"?

Is there a test? A questionnaire? A government-sponsored re-education program I'm not aware of?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Vahomesteaders said:


> Just love *attacking religion* when I've made no comment to the fact here. A spiritual figure of which 84% of the world believes in in one form or another has far *more proof* and justification.


You're confusing "attack" with the simple truth.

You say what a transgender believes in *their* mind is some "illness" but what you believe in *yours* is the truth.

There is no "proof" any religion is real, but that's really not the topic in this thread


----------



## Elevenpoint

Vahomesteaders said:


> That's irrelevant. The fact is that thanks to new laws there can be. I'm not sure of your parenting choices but my daughter is 12 years old. Other than her brothers penis she has seen no males penis. And there is zero threat or even thought of threat from a loved family members in most households. There is however very real threat from outside sources all over this world everyday and anyone who would put a child in that situation should be ashamed of themselves and tried for child abuse.


What's interesting in the article is that she refused to use a unisex bathroom.
If you have female genitals...say your a male...unisex.
I doubt there is a legal right to privacy in these situations nor does there need to be...the overiding aspect of common decency and respect applies here.
But what is very troubling is 5...8...14 year old transgender.
There are reasons we have laws protecting minors.
These parents should be arrested for child abuse....they have no idea what is going on at that age.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bubba1358 said:


> So what's the criteria?
> 
> When does believing something not immediately apparent to an outside observer get classified as "real"?
> 
> Is there a test? A questionnaire? A government-sponsored re-education program I'm not aware of?


I dunno. I don't believe in imaginary people.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

flewism said:


> Once again you state *believing* in God and having gender identity issues are *comparable human traits*. Your not going to going win many point with that position.:facepalm:


They are identical in that they both exist only in the human mind.
To argue one is "real" and the other an "illness" is hypocritical


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Bubba1358 said:


> So what's the criteria?
> 
> *When does believing something not immediately apparent to an outside observer get classified as "real"?*
> 
> Is there a test? A questionnaire? A government-sponsored re-education program I'm not aware of?


Why don't you tell us what you think is the answer?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> What's interesting in the article is that she refused to use a unisex bathroom.
> If you have female genitals...say your a male...unisex.
> I doubt there is a legal right to privacy in these situations nor does there need to be...the overiding aspect of common decency and respect applies here.
> But what is very troubling is 5...8...14 year old transgender.
> There are reasons we have laws protecting minors.
> These parents should be arrested for child abuse...*.they have no idea what is going on at that age*.


The parents would have more of an idea than anyone else, since it's their child.
Some don't seem to know "what's going on" at any age.


----------



## flewism

Bearfootfarm said:


> Not everyone makes their decisions to suit the will of "the public".


I would do it for the well being of my child


----------



## Bubba1358

Irish Pixie said:


> I dunno. I don't believe in imaginary people.


Yes, you do.

You believe in the fairy tale that gender and biology are NOT inextricably linked. You believe in the mythical paradox that you can divorce your mind from your matter, when in your own reality nothing beyond the physical _actually_ exists. You believe that if one just has faith in and creates the version of themselves that exists ONLY in their minds, then they will achieve their own eternal happiness and self-actualization. In short, you believe in Peter Pan and his ilk.

Just like you are not compelled to accept my beliefs, so I am not compelled to accept yours. You see my beliefs as a fairy tale, and I see yours as the same.

So back to my question.


> How in the bloody H-E-double hockey sticks is Jane Q. Stranger supposed to know [that it's a transitioning male]?! ESPECIALLY at first glance.


Translated: How is an average woman supposed to know that the person who entered looks to her like (s)he** doesn't belong, but according to him/her**, (s)he** does? They both believe different things. They both deserve to have their feelings protected.

** Using the gender inclusive form to respect all opinions.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bubba1358 said:


> Yes, you do.
> 
> You believe in the fairy tale that gender and biology are NOT inextricably linked. You believe in the mythical paradox that you can divorce your mind from your matter, when in your own reality nothing beyond the physical _actually_ exists. You believe that if one just has faith in and creates the version of themselves that exists ONLY in their minds, then they will achieve their own eternal happiness and self-actualization. In short, you believe in Peter Pan and his ilk.
> 
> Just like you are not compelled to accept my beliefs, so I am not compelled to accept yours. You see my beliefs as a fairy tale, and I see yours as the same.
> 
> So back to my question.
> 
> Translated: How is an average woman supposed to know that the person who entered looks to her like (s)he** doesn't belong, but according to him/her**, (s)he** does? They both believe different things. They both deserve to have their feelings protected.
> 
> ** Using the gender inclusive form to respect all opinions.


How do you know what I believe? Crystal ball? Telepathy? You don't. You may think you do because _you've_ made a decision based on what I've written here, but that's just your opinion. 

I'm an average woman, and I simply don't care if I use the stall next to a transgender person.


----------



## Shrek

In the 1980s two employees in our plant chose to purchase gender reassignment surgery and as the first began their transition processes, they were given the key to the single commode and wash basin special needs restroom in their work area to ensure both their privacy and safety.


----------



## JJ Grandits

mreynolds said:


> Seeing that picture made me wonder. If a man who identified as a woman, goes topless at the beach, can he get a ticket for showing his breasts?
> 
> 
> If not why?



In New York topless bathing is totally legal.


----------



## JJ Grandits

By the way, if you are born male, have male genitalia, have XY chromosomes, you are male. If for some reason you identify with being female, or are female but identify with being male, you are psychologically screwed up. You do not need access to a locker room. You need access to a good therapist.
I am sorry you are crazy, but I am not going to alter my lifestyle to support your delusion.

Just because I believe I am a dog does not mean you and your family have to quietly watch me poop in the street.


----------



## City Bound

greg273 said:


> So a female, who looks and dresses like a man, is going to suddenly be in danger of being raped by horny club goers?


Yes. men will have sex with anything especially when they are drunk or on drugs. If she is a "man" as she claims then she is going to have to go a male prison if she is a criminal. Good luck there, they will eat her alive.


----------



## Irish Pixie

JJ Grandits said:


> By the way, if you are born male, have male genitalia, have XY chromosomes, you are male. If for some reason you identify with being female, or are female but identify with being male, you are psychologically screwed up. You do not need access to a locker room. You need access to a good therapist.
> I am sorry you are crazy, but I am not going to alter my lifestyle to support your delusion.
> 
> Just because I believe I am a dog does not mean you and your family have to quietly watch me poop in the street.


No one is asking for your permission to either know they are the opposite gender or have any type of bodily function in the street.


----------



## City Bound

JJ Grandits said:


> In New York topless bathing is totally legal.


I did not know that until I saw some lovely bare chested women at the beach one day. After a while it was like "so what" and it became mundane.


----------



## Irish Pixie

JJ Grandits said:


> In New York topless bathing is totally legal.


Actually a woman can be topless anywhere a man can be in New York, not just sunbathing or at the beach.


----------



## RichNC

City Bound said:


> Yes. men will have sex with anything especially when they are drunk or on drugs.


My goodness that is a pretty sweeping generalization!


----------



## Irish Pixie

City Bound said:


> Yes. men will have sex with anything especially when they are drunk or on drugs. If she is a "man" as she claims then she is going to have to go a male prison if she is a criminal. Good luck there, they will eat her alive.


Friends of yours? I know many men that will not "have sex with anything" even when drunk or on drugs. Don't generalize.


----------



## City Bound

People being delusional about delusional people, interesting.


----------



## City Bound

RichNC said:


> My goodness that is a pretty sweeping generalization!


What planet are you living on?


----------



## Bubba1358

Irish Pixie said:


> How do you know what I believe? Crystal ball? Telepathy? You don't. You may think you do because _you've_ made a decision based on what I've written here, but that's just your opinion.
> 
> I'm an average woman, and I simply don't care if I use the stall next to a transgender person.


Exactly


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> Friends of yours? I know many men that will not "have sex with anything" even when drunk or on drugs. Don't generalize.


First of al don't tell me what to do. Secondly, you think you know those men but you don't know all of them. You would have to be a man hanging out with other men to ever fully understand, more or less, how disgusting and sex crazed they are.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Insanity is repeating yourself but expecting different results each time.
> 
> Your own sources in a previous thread explained that "gender" has nothing to do with "biological sex", and you keep acting as if they are the same thing.


So, you think that male means female and female means male? Who are you trying to kid?


----------



## Irish Pixie

City Bound said:


> First of al don't tell me what to do. Secondly, you think you know those men but you don't know all of them. You would have to be a man hanging out with other men to ever fully understand, more or less, how disgusting and sex crazed they are.


 There are decent men in the world, perhaps you need to expand your friend circle? :facepalm:


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's no "right to privacy" in a school locker room


So, males or females are welcome in *all* school locker rooms, college too? What about the rest of the locker rooms anywhere?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Fifty years ago some people were horrified to discover their kids would have to go to school (share a bathroom and locker room too!) with blacks. Think about that...


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> They are identical in that they both exist only in the human mind.
> To argue one is "real" and the other an "illness" is hypocritical


So, it is your contention that both Religion and Transgenderism are Mental Aberrations?


----------



## City Bound

Irish Pixie said:


> Fifty years ago some people were horrified to discover their kids would have to go to school (share a bathroom and locker room too!) with blacks. Think about that...


 50 years later many people still are horrified so not much really changed did it.


----------



## Bubba1358

Irish Pixie said:


> How do you know what I believe? Crystal ball? Telepathy? You don't. You may think you do because _you've_ made a decision based on what I've written here, but that's just your opinion.
> 
> I'm an average woman, and I simply don't care if I use the stall next to a transgender person.


Exactly 

How are we supposed to know?

How are we expecting women to accommodate what appears to be a man when _they don't know_ what the person believes?



Bearfootfarm said:


> Why don't you tell us what you think is the answer?


Sure. There is no answer. You can't, and that's the point. There's no way to look at someone and guess what they believe, and there's no way to hold that every opinion must be true simply because it's an opinion.

Therefore, the relativist naturally assumes that his reality is correct, or doesn't care, because everyone sees reality differently, right? The absolutist sees that there must be something empirical that is True, and that which contradicts it is false.

That's why this argument is so inane. Nobody can empirically prove the trans is telling the truth, just like nobody can empirically prove God didn't talk to Joe Schmo last night. So our laws are now being based on whose feelings matter and whose were hurt the most.


----------



## City Bound

50 years from now people will still b horrified about having to share bathrooms and locker rooms with trans people and then again not much will have changed because basic human nature does not change.

The difference though is instead of letting people be honest about it people are instead chastised and silenced. That is not really advancement or real acceptance. It is just a false community built on lies and threats.


----------



## Irish Pixie

City Bound said:


> 50 years later many people still are horrified so not much really changed did it.


Do you feel white people are superior to black people?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bubba1358 said:


> Exactly
> 
> How are we supposed to know?
> 
> How are we expecting women to accommodate what appears to be a man when _they don't know_ what the person believes?


You simply can't _know_ anyone by basing an opinion on a few posts on a forum. 

You do realize that the whole point of transgender is because the person knows they were born in the wrong body, right? So they want to _look_ like that sex... so the transgender woman entering the woman's bathroom isn't going to _look_ like a masculine man. If the woman is afraid (or rather dim) and the person entering the bathroom looks like a man she can ask politely if this is the appropriate bathroom. 

I'm sorry if I'm not explaining this so you can understand. I am trying.


----------



## arabian knight

City Bound said:


> 50 years from now people will still b horrified about having to share bathrooms and locker rooms with trans people and then again not much will have changed because basic human nature does not change.
> 
> The difference though is instead of letting people be honest about it people are instead chastised and silenced. That is not really advancement or real acceptance. It is just a false community built on lies and threats.


I ain't gonna be sharing no sticker bathroom with no opposite sex or some wanna be opposite one other then what God made that person. 

These signs MEAN SOMETHING Better be some learn it~! And stop this liberal nonsense crap~!


----------



## flewism

Irish Pixie said:


> How do you know what I believe? Crystal ball? Telepathy? You don't. You may think you do because _you've_ made a decision based on what I've written here, but that's just your opinion.
> 
> I'm an average woman, and I simply don't care if I use the stall next to a transgender person.


Oh come on, you have stated your perceived views on religion multiple times. I too as an average adult male don't care about a self-proclaimed transgender using the stall next to me. I do care about the minor adolescents that are in this position. Just googling sex reassignment surgery cost, it doesn't that insurmountable 15 to 24k for male to female and 50k+ for female to male. 
I believe the the court decision is wrong, because no sex reassignment surgery has been started. The person is still considered female by society's standards. So get the surgery done and close the chapter. My my limited reading the debate is still raging in the medical community whether this condition is a mental defect or a physical defect but the agreed cure is sex reassignment surgery.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Irish Pixie said:


> Fifty years ago some people were horrified to discover their kids would have to go to school (share a bathroom and locker room too!) with blacks. Think about that...


And African Americans have made it clear that the gay comparison sickens them. They had to literally wear their difference on their sleaves. I have never seen en mass a place where gays weren't aloud. Maybe a business or two here or there but not entire cities and states. I gay person has always been able to walk into any business of their choosing. Just don't act gay. A black person had no choice as their differences could not be hidden. So it's an awful comparison. And I'm part of a mixed race family. Trust me. They hate it the comparisons.


----------



## Irish Pixie

flewism said:


> Oh come on, you have stated your perceived views on religion multiple times. I too as an average adult male don't care about a self-proclaimed transgender using the stall next to me. I do care about the minor adolescents that are in this position. Just googling sex reassignment surgery cost, it doesn't that insurmountable 15 to 24k for male to female and 50k+ for female to male.
> I believe the the court decision is wrong, because no sex reassignment surgery has been started. The person is still considered female by society's standards. So get the surgery done and close the chapter. My my limited reading the debate is still raging in the medical community whether this condition is a mental defect or a physical defect but the agreed cure is sex reassignment surgery.


I think a lot of court decisions are wrong. 

The bottom line is that a transgender person doesn't have to have gender reassignment surgery. And that is a good bit of money.


----------



## flewism

Irish Pixie said:


> I think a lot of court decisions are wrong.
> 
> The bottom line is that a transgender person doesn't have to have gender reassignment surgery. And that is a good bit of money.


Explain why they wouldn't want to? Wouldn't that not make them complete with their mind?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Vahomesteaders said:


> And African Americans have made it clear that the gay comparison sickens them. They had to literally wear their difference on their sleaves. I have never seen en mass a place where gays weren't aloud. Maybe a business or two here or there but not entire cities and states. I gay person has always been able to walk into any business of their choosing. Just don't act gay. A black person had no choice as their differences could not be hidden. So it's an awful comparison. And I'm part of a mixed race family. Trust me. They hate it the comparisons.


You don't speak for all African Americans, you just don't. :facepalm:

It's a legitimate comparison, as is the religion, transgender, and mental illness one.


----------



## Irish Pixie

flewism said:


> Explain why they wouldn't want to? Wouldn't that not make them complete with their mind?


I'm not transgender so I have no idea why they wouldn't want to...


----------



## JJ Grandits

Irish Pixie said:


> No one is asking for your permission to either know they are the opposite gender or have any type of bodily function in the street.


They do not need my permission. Biology has made the decision for them.
Remember Biology? it is one of those sciences that progressives worship.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/no-gay-isnt-the-new-black_b_5567150.html
Written by gay black man on hp


----------



## Irish Pixie

Vahomesteaders said:


> http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/no-gay-isnt-the-new-black_b_5567150.html
> Written by gay black man on hp


For anyone wondering what the link is it's to a blog. It's a personal opinion with the title, "No, Gay Isn't the New Black" catchy title.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

flewism said:


> I would do it for the well being of my child


I suspect that is exactly what the parents of those transgender children do also.


----------



## Shine

What if a Black man decides that he is a Caucasian man, or visa versa? Lives 5 years as a their choice, dresses like one, acts like one and then, oh my goodness, marks the box on a government form confirming the lie. Should he be punished for falsifying a government document?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Bubba1358 said:


> Yes, you do.
> 
> *You believe in the fairy tale that gender and biology are NOT inextricably linked.* You believe in the mythical paradox that you can divorce your mind from your matter, when in your own reality nothing beyond the physical _actually_ exists. You believe that if one just has faith in and creates the version of themselves that exists ONLY in their minds, then they will achieve their own eternal happiness and self-actualization. In short, you believe in Peter Pan and his ilk.
> 
> Just like you are not compelled to accept my beliefs, so I am not compelled to accept yours. You see my beliefs as a fairy tale, and I see yours as the same.
> 
> So back to my question.
> 
> Translated: How is an average woman supposed to know that the person who entered looks to her like (s)he** doesn't belong, but according to him/her**, (s)he** does? They both believe different things. They both deserve to have their feelings protected.
> 
> ** Using the gender inclusive form to respect all opinions.


So are you saying the source Shine posted in another thread isn't credible, because they stated gender had nothing to do with biological sex.



> You believe that *if one just has faith* in and creates the version of themselves that exists ONLY in their minds, then they will achieve their own eternal happiness and self-actualization.


Didn't you just describe how most religions work?


----------



## spiritbear

When the states catch up with the rest of the world and start making restrooms gender neutral this will all be a moot point.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

RichNC said:


> My goodness that is a pretty sweeping generalization!


I was going to call it something else, but decided against it


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> So, you think that male means female and female means male? Who are you trying to kid?


We've had this conversation already.
You posted the source that explained it, so I'm not repeating it all for you again.

Insanity would be thinking it would somehow be different this time


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> So, males or females are welcome in *all* school locker rooms, college too? What about the rest of the locker rooms anywhere?


Did I *say* that, or did I say there is no "right to privacy"?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> So, it is your contention that both Religion and Transgenderism are Mental Aberrations?


They both exist only in the mind.
Why must *everything* be repeated before you understand what was said?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

flewism said:


> Explain why they wouldn't want to? Wouldn't that not make them complete with their mind?


She didn't say anything about "want to"
Read it again


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> What if a Black man decides that he is a Caucasian man, or visa versa? Lives 5 years as a their choice, dresses like one, acts like one and then, oh my goodness, marks the box on a government form confirming the lie. Should he be punished for falsifying a government document?


Obviously you aren't interested in logical, rational discussion of this issue if you think that's a valid comparison.


----------



## Irish Pixie

JJ Grandits said:


> They do not need my permission. Biology has made the decision for them.
> Remember Biology? it is one of those sciences that progressives worship.


Biology, at least human biology, is the study of humans through various fields. It does not disprove transgenderism. Unless you have new information that I haven't seen? If so, I'd love to read it.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Just thoughtless...shameful and cruel to encourage a mentally ill person to mutilate themself. A man can never be a woman...a woman can never be a man. Not possible.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Bearfootfarm said:


> Obviously you aren't interested in logical, rational discussion of this issue if you think that's a valid comparison.


It is very valid. It's someone being something other than what they were born as because it feels right. It's exactly the same thing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Vahomesteaders said:


> It is very valid. It's someone being something other than what they were born as because it feels right. It's exactly the same thing.


If you think it's "valid" then you're being ridiculous also.
Race is biological.
Sex is biological
Gender is not


----------



## Bubba1358

Bearfootfarm said:


> Didn't you just describe how most religions work?


Of course I did. Transgenderism is being propped up on religious faith. Let's all just call it a religious belief and be done with it. After all, just like a deity, we can't _see_ this other human stuck inside. But we've been asked to accept it on faith.



Bearfootfarm said:


> If you think it's "valid" then you're being ridiculous also.
> Race is biological.
> Sex is biological
> Gender is not


According to whom? What authority just decided this one day?


----------



## Bubba1358

Vahomesteaders said:


> It is very valid. It's someone being something other than what they were born as because it feels right. It's exactly the same thing.


I asked a question in a different thread about transgenderism is significantly different from anorexia.

The only substantial difference I can see if that one usually results in interventions, and the other is now being pushed into law.


----------



## flewism

Irish Pixie said:


> I think a lot of court decisions are wrong.
> 
> The bottom line is that a transgender person doesn't have to have gender reassignment surgery. And that is a good bit of money.





flewism said:


> Explain why they wouldn't want to? Wouldn't that not make them complete with their mind?





Irish Pixie said:


> I'm not transgender so I have no idea why they wouldn't want to...





Bearfootfarm said:


> She didn't say anything about "want to"
> Read it again


You read it again, please explain from one of the resident experts on the subject.


----------



## arabian knight

spiritbear said:


> When the states catch up with the rest of the world and start making restrooms gender neutral this will all be a moot point.


Well the USA is NOT like the rest of the world THANK GOD of that. Nor do we want to be. I don;t give a floppy do da what the REAT OF THE WORLD IS OR WANTS OR DOES in the way of this immoral and stupid idea that the liberals want to step IN and stop the privacy of people going to take a dump.


----------



## flewism

spiritbear said:


> When the states catch up with the rest of the world and start making restrooms gender neutral this will all be a moot point.


Please post information about the rest of the world converting to gender neutral bathrooms in public facility's.

I did see that Germany passed sweeping legislation on women rights include that any board of directors must contain 30% females.

That Sweden added a gender neutral sir name to their dictionary and professors at universities are forcing it's use with resistance from the student body.


----------



## coolrunnin

arabian knight said:


> Well the USA is NOT like the rest of the world THANK GOD of that. Nor do we want to be. I don;t give a floppy do da what the REAT OF THE WORLD IS OR WANTS OR DOES in the way of this immoral and stupid idea that the liberals want to step IN and stop the privacy of people going to take a dump.


I typically take a dump in the stall with a door, but then I'm more offended by the chuck wagon next to me talking on his phone, beyond that I don't care who is over there.


----------



## flewism

Bearfootfarm said:


> I suspect that is exactly what the parents of those transgender children do also.


Then complete the task and move past the stigma associated with the label, otherwise consider it a failure.


----------



## spiritbear

flewism said:


> Please post information about the rest of the world converting to gender neutral bathrooms in public facility's.
> 
> I did see that Germany passed sweeping legislation on women rights include that any board of directors must contain 30% females.
> 
> That Sweden added a gender neutral sir name to their dictionary and professors at universities are forcing it's use with resistance from the student body.



http://time.com/4175774/san-francisco-gender-neutral-bathrooms/

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/gender-neutral-bathrooms-colleges_n_5597362.html

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/..._outdated_relic_of_victorian_paternalism.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...troduces-gender-neutral-toilets-a6834916.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...435d48-0df0-11e5-a0fe-dccfea4653ee_story.html

Just a simple google search.


----------



## wiscto

mmoetc said:


> I do care about her feelings. But I also care about the 18 year old who identifies as female and has gone through years of counseling and therapy who looks, dresses and acts in every way as a fema&#322;e being forced to use the boys locker room. Modesty and locker rooms almost never mix. Should your modest daughter be subjected to the older girls showing off their budding secondary sexual characteristics or talking of their sexual conquest the night before? Should only the the straight girls be allowed? What of the lesbians? We know how immodest they can be. I'd give your daughter the same advice for all- close your eyes and ears to that which you don't wish to see or hear and treat everyone you meet as a person not a manifestation of what may, or may not be, present between their legs.


So you see the problem here, right? You aren't outwardly expressing care for both, you're putting one before the other and telling everyone who prioritize the opposite that they aren't being sensitive the feelings of others'.


----------



## mreynolds

wiscto said:


> So you see the problem here, right? You aren't outwardly expressing care for both, you're putting one before the other and telling everyone who prioritize the opposite that they aren't being sensitive the feelings of others'.


Uh oh. Now you've done it.


----------



## flewism

spiritbear said:


> When the states catch up with the rest of the world and start making restrooms gender neutral this will all be a moot point.





spiritbear said:


> http://time.com/4175774/san-francisco-gender-neutral-bathrooms/
> 
> http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/gender-neutral-bathrooms-colleges_n_5597362.html
> 
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/..._outdated_relic_of_victorian_paternalism.html
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...troduces-gender-neutral-toilets-a6834916.html
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...435d48-0df0-11e5-a0fe-dccfea4653ee_story.html
> 
> Just a simple google search.


Hardly this mass conversion to unisex public bathrooms in the world outside of the states but it's a start.
The need for the traffic signal revisions in Vienna was unique. 

We are talking about a transgender person of high school age still with female genitalia insisting on using the boys bathrooms even thou a unisex bathroom was provided and said person refuses to use it on grounds of sexual discrimination. 

Lets make all bathrooms in Virginia public schools unisex or convert this child to a boy and be done with it.


----------



## Shine

"The council asked parents to support their child&#8217;s choice on whether they identified as male or female and allowed them to leave the form blank if their child had &#8220;another gender identity&#8221;, according to the Sun."

http://www.theguardian.com/society/...asked-to-choose-gender-on-primary-school-form

And this is just the start.....


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Bubba1358 said:


> Of course I did. Transgenderism is being propped up on religious faith. Let's all just call it a religious belief and be done with it. After all, just like a deity, we can't _see_ this other human stuck inside. But we've been asked to accept it on faith.
> 
> According to whom? What authority just decided this one day?


Shine says this is a credible source:

http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children


> 2. *No one is born with a gender.*
> Everyone is born with a biological sex.
> Gender (an awareness and sense of oneself as male or female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective biological one.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

flewism said:


> Then complete the task and move past the stigma associated with the label, otherwise consider it a failure.


Any "stigma" is in your mind.
I'm content with letting them decide what to do and when to do it.
I keep hearing what a minute portion of the population they are


----------



## hippygirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's a misinterpretation of the law.
> It's about the gender with which they identify.
> 
> _*It doesn't "allow" just any man to use any bathroom unless he's living as a woman*_
> 
> I'd be willing to bet you will never notice any difference at all


To be honest, I could care less who's taking a pee in the stall beside me, but I had to laugh at your statement...

I can see it now..."Gender ID expert wanted...must be able to discern, at a mere glance, whether or not a suspected trans-gender person is, in fact, living the life of their chosen gender...apply within."


----------



## Bearfootfarm

flewism said:


> You read it again, please explain from one of the resident experts on the subject.


That wasn't *the post you quoted* or the one to which I replied.
She obviously hadn't answered the question before you asked

Post 136:	


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Irish Pixie View Post
> I think a lot of court decisions are wrong.
> 
> The bottom line is that a transgender person doesn't have to have gender reassignment surgery. And that is a good bit of money.


flewism:


> Explain why they wouldn't want to? Wouldn't that not make them complete with their mind?


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Shine says this is a credible source:
> 
> http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children


I really wish that you would have included the rest of the paragraph, but as you did not, here it is:

"No one is born with an awareness of themselves as male or female; this awareness develops over time and, like all developmental processes, may be derailed by a child&#8217;s subjective perceptions, relationships, and adverse experiences from infancy forward. People who identify as &#8220;feeling like the opposite sex&#8221; or &#8220;somewhere in between&#8221; do not comprise a third sex. They remain biological men or biological women."


...and from Paragraph 3.
" When an otherwise healthy biological boy believes he is a girl, or an otherwise healthy biological girl believes she is a boy, an objective psychological problem exists that lies in the mind not the body, and it should be treated as such. "

Do you believe that 4 year old children should be asked to identify which gender that they are?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

flewism said:


> Hardly this mass conversion to unisex public bathrooms in the world outside of the states but it's a start.
> The need for the traffic signal revisions in Vienna was unique.
> 
> We are talking about a transgender person of high school age still with female genitalia insisting on using the boys bathrooms even thou a unisex bathroom was provided and said person refuses to use it on grounds of sexual discrimination.
> 
> *Lets make all bathrooms in Virginia public schools unisex or convert this child to a boy and be done with it*.


Are you offering to pay for the surgery?
Otherwise it's really none of your business if and when they do it or not


----------



## dixiegal62

Someone brought up a point I never thought about. If they break the law and go to jail or prison which one do they go to? Do they still ask to be treated as their chosen sex? Hard to imagine what could happen especially if they haven't finished the transition.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Otherwise it's really none of your business if and when they do it or not


This part I agree with.

...as long as they do not force themselves upon others in a fashion which violates their right to privacy. 

Remember? That right that Roe v Wade identified as a Constitutional Right?


----------



## City Bound

spiritbear said:


> When the states catch up with the rest of the world and start making restrooms gender neutral this will all be a moot point.


 No it won't. other then the fact that many people have a very real aversion to perverting nature and they will never honestly understand or accept them, whoever these crack pots are who push for these silly needless social revolutions will just dream up some other crusade to chase after. If it is not men in dresses using women's public toilets it will be something else. Eventually it will be about having the first gay president, then the first transgendered president, then it will be about getting rid of families because if most people have families it will make orphans feel bad and cry. 

While we are at it, why can't people marry dolphins or their pet bird? I guess that is going to have to change because banning interspecies love could be considered bigotry.


----------



## City Bound

Do you know that pedophiles are starting to use this same line of attack (or defense depending on what angle one is working.). They are saying that they were born the way they are and that it is discrimination to prevent to them from being who they are.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

hippygirl said:


> To be honest, I could care less who's taking a pee in the stall beside me, but I had to laugh at your statement...
> 
> I can see it now..."Gender ID expert wanted...must be able to discern, at a mere glance, whether or not a suspected trans-gender person is, in fact, living the life of their chosen gender...apply within."


Most of the transgenders (as opposed to transvestites) I've seen were without a doubt undergoing a real transformation due to hormone treatments.

The only one I've known personally was a Dr who was definitely "male" in gender appearance when I met him, and 2-3 years later was pretty much unrecognizable as anything other than "female". 

I don't know if he had completed the surgery, since it was never a topic of conversation.

There is nothing "feminine" at all about the person in this case, and it's obvious they didn't make a sudden decision to throw on opposite gender clothes in order to get some cheap thrills in a bathroom.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> I really wish that you would have included the rest of the paragraph, but as you did not, here it is:
> 
> "No one is born with an awareness of themselves as male or female; this awareness develops over time and, like all developmental processes, may be derailed by a childâs subjective perceptions, relationships, and adverse experiences from infancy forward. People who identify as âfeeling like the opposite sexâ or âsomewhere in betweenâ do not comprise a third sex. They remain biological men or biological women."
> 
> ...and from Paragraph 3.
> " When an otherwise healthy biological boy believes he is a girl, or an otherwise healthy biological girl believes she is a boy, an objective psychological problem exists that lies in the mind not the body, and it should be treated as such. "
> 
> *Do you believe *that 4 year old children should be asked to identify *which gender that they are?*


I believe *you *have no say in the matter.

Posting the rest of the paragraph doesn't negate the first sentences at all.
If your source is credible, they meant that just as much as they meant everything else.

In the end they are still a very small group with an agenda, and you are big on saying we shouldn't listen to those who fit that description


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> This part I agree with.
> 
> ...as long as they do not force themselves upon others in a fashion which violates their right to privacy.
> 
> Remember? That right that Roe v Wade identified as a Constitutional Right?


No one has a "right to privacy" in a locker room or a public bathroom beyond that given by closing the stall door

No one is forcing anyone to look at anyone else, and realistically the odds of there being a transgender in any particular room are minute


----------



## Vahomesteaders

One thing I keep hearing is you can't tell its a transgendered person many times so it makes no difference to the child. But we have to be honest. Unless you have tons of money m2f transgender can be quite standoutish. Some quite scary looking. So a little girl could easily recognize this and be alarmed. There are trans men out there that just buy a wig makeup and clothes and go on their merry way. No hormone therapy or anything. We have one here that does it. Very large fellow who wears zebra skin tights every time you see him. Big bulges everywhere. This can be quite alarming to a child if that type walks into a restroom. And there are majority of those types out there.


----------



## mmoetc

Shine said:


> Why should the person who is in the minority be able to use the Trump card, why should she have to surrender her right to privacy?


There is no trump card being used by the transgender person. They are doing only what everyone else does. They are using the facilities of the gender with which they identify. The young lady in question is doing the same thing. She self identifies as female and uses that lockerroom. The difference is you don't question her self identification. 

As to privacy. There is some expectation of privacy in a locker room but it is far from absolute. There's the expectation that someone won't be assaulted, harassed or photographed without their permission. There is no expectation that they won't see things that disturb them or have to associate with people they don't like or they disagree with. Else all lockerrooms would be individual rooms. And the swimmer in question is asking for just that. It's her discomfort that she is asking to be accommodated by denying the transgender swimmer. I'll ask you. Who else should she be able to exclude because she's not comfortable. The more developed who make her question get own body? The lesbian? Who?


----------



## mmoetc

Bubba1358 said:


> Of course I did. Transgenderism is being propped up on religious faith. Let's all just call it a religious belief and be done with it. After all, just like a deity, we can't _see_ this other human stuck inside. But we've been asked to accept it on faith.
> 
> 
> 
> According to whom? What authority just decided this one day?


Cool. If we define it as a religous faith it gains all the protections other religous faiths have and must be treated equally and not be discriminated against. Problem solved.


----------



## mmoetc

wiscto said:


> So you see the problem here, right? You aren't outwardly expressing care for both, you're putting one before the other and telling everyone who prioritize the opposite that they aren't being sensitive the feelings of others'.


No, I'm simply asking why their feelings are more important. Why are one persons feelings of discomfort in disrobing in front a transgender person more important than the transgender persons feeling of discomfort in disrobing in a lockerroom they don't identify with. Aren't both feelings equally valid. What of the kid who is uncomfortable with having the transgender in the lockerroom the transgender doesn't identify with? Aren't his feelings equally valid. How do you accomodate him without excluding the transgender kid from that lockerroom also? I think we worry too much about such things as what's hanging, or not, between ones legs.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Better not shop at Target if you're afraid that you'll somehow be offended by seeing a transgender person washing their hands in the bathroom. 

"Target Corp said on Tuesday that transgender employees and customers can now use the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity, becoming the first big retailer to weigh in on an issue at the center of a heated national debate."

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/04/...-transgender-people-use-bathroom-their-choice


----------



## Irish Pixie

Vahomesteaders said:


> One thing I keep hearing is you can't tell its a transgendered person many times so it makes no difference to the child. But we have to be honest. Unless you have tons of money m2f transgender can be quite standoutish. Some quite scary looking. So a little girl could easily recognize this and be alarmed. There are trans men out there that just buy a wig makeup and clothes and go on their merry way. No hormone therapy or anything. We have one here that does it. Very large fellow who wears zebra skin tights every time you see him. Big bulges everywhere. This can be quite alarming to a child if that type walks into a restroom. And there are majority of those types out there.


I see women dressed like that (bulges and all) quite often and they aren't transgender. I see men with huge bellies and skin tight (or worse not long enough shirts) all the time too. Not attractive, really not attractive but they're not transgender. Do you keep your kids locked on the farm? If not, how do you avoid having them see people in not appropriate for their size clothes? 

Dang. You tell your kids that everyone is not the same and that is OK.


----------



## arabian knight

Well the one or two times I have shopped at Target over the past year will STOP as of now.
They don't need anymore of my money if they are going to be THAT way about things. Done with Target and the Superstore that goes along with it.


----------



## Irish Pixie

arabian knight said:


> Well the one or two times I have shopped at Target over the past year will STOP as of now.
> They don't need anymore of my money if they are going to be THAT way about things. Done with Target and the Superstore that goes along with it.


There are transgender EVERYWHERE! They just don't wear a sign or ANNOUNCE who they are. I'm absolutely sure that you have ate at the same restaurant or shopped at a store WITH A TRANSGENDER AND NOT EVEN KNEW IT. To be completely SAFE You just better stay home just in case. :facepalm:

Since you don't Shop regularly at Target I'm sure they will REALLY mourn the Loss of your money.


----------



## arabian knight

And once again al this stuff including the gay movement has to be SHOVED into the face of people shut up and go on with life. No need to be on the front page unless you are doing this just for 15 minutes of fame of which the candle has burned out years ago.


----------



## Irish Pixie

arabian knight said:


> And once again al this stuff including the gay movement has to be SHOVED into the face of people shut up and go on with life. No need to be on the front page unless you are doing this just for *15 minutes of fame* of which *the candle has burned out years ago*.


You realize that Andy Warhol and Elton John were/are gay, right? You paraphrased both of them in your rant. Just sayin'.


----------



## mmoetc

hippygirl said:


> To be honest, I could care less who's taking a pee in the stall beside me, but I had to laugh at your statement...
> 
> I can see it now..."Gender ID expert wanted...must be able to discern, at a mere glance, whether or not a suspected trans-gender person is, in fact, living the life of their chosen gender...apply within."


A whole new set of duties for Paul Blart, mall cop. That's a sequel I'm sure to miss.


----------



## City Bound

Vahomesteaders said:


> One thing I keep hearing is you can't tell its a transgendered person many times so it makes no difference to the child. But we have to be honest. Unless you have tons of money m2f transgender can be quite standoutish. Some quite scary looking. So a little girl could easily recognize this and be alarmed. There are trans men out there that just buy a wig makeup and clothes and go on their merry way. No hormone therapy or anything. We have one here that does it. Very large fellow who wears zebra skin tights every time you see him. Big bulges everywhere. This can be quite alarming to a child if that type walks into a restroom. And there are majority of those types out there.


 
In psychology class we talked about an experiment where babies were presented with people who it was very hard to tell the sex of the person and guess what, all the babies reacted with confusion at first and then fear and then they all cried in terror. The experiment was to see if babies recognize the sexes. The babies were fine with the people who they could clearly identify but the people they could not made them very uncomfortable which is the same reaction the majority of adults have. 

Unfortunately, the people pushing that trans is normal seem to completely ignore the fact that the majority of normal healthy human, both child and adult, have a very healthy biological instinct that tells them something is very wrong with the person.


----------



## Irish Pixie

City Bound said:


> In psychology class we talked about an experiment where babies were presented with people who it was very hard to tell the sex of the person and guess what, all the babies reacted with confusion at first and then fear and then they all cried in terror. The experiment was to see if babies recognize the sexes. The babies were fine with the people who they could clearly identify but the people they could not made them very uncomfortable which is the same reaction the majority of adults have.
> 
> Unfortunately, the people pushing that trans is normal seem to completely ignore the fact that the majority of normal healthy human, both child and adult, have a very healthy biological instinct that tells them something is very wrong with the person.


Do you have a link to the experiment? I'm sure if they discussed it in class it must be fairly well known. I'm interested in reading it.


----------



## hoddedloki

I find this entire argument hilariously ridiculous, especially as less than 4% of the population are LGBT, and of those, only a minority are trans. And yet this is a matter of national importance that is important enough for the government to risk alienating a majority of Americans. 

Kinda reminds me of Rome in the 300's

Loki


----------



## Bubba1358

mmoetc said:


> Cool. If we define it as a religous faith it gains all the protections other religous faiths have and must be treated equally and not be discriminated against. Problem solved.


Yep.  And then the rest of us can simply dismiss these ludicrous, unprovable claims out-of-hand as the "fairy tale" they really are. And then file lawsuits against them for pushing their religion in public, and against the governments for establishing a state religion. Because, really, having to go get a judge to come in and demand that the restrooms suddenly not be what they are (a place to relive oneself based on the biological mechanism of said relief) is a heck of a bigger overreach that affects a lot more people than, say, a Nativity scene.

Since it would be defined as a faith, we can all rest easy and sleep knowing the Big Brother has got our back to protect us from ever having encounter or talk about these fairy tales in public. Or, Darwin forbid, a school. Just like every other religion.


----------



## Irish Pixie

hoddedloki said:


> I find this entire argument hilariously ridiculous, especially as less than 4% of the population are LGBT, and of those, only a minority are trans. And yet this is a matter of national importance that is important enough for the government to risk alienating a majority of Americans.
> 
> Kinda reminds me of Rome in the 300's
> 
> Loki


Huh. I take discrimination quite seriously. To each his own.


----------



## dixiegal62

hoddedloki said:


> I find this entire argument hilariously ridiculous, especially as less than 4% of the population are LGBT, and of those, only a minority are trans. And yet this is a matter of national importance that is important enough for the government to risk alienating a majority of Americans.
> 
> Kinda reminds me of Rome in the 300's
> 
> Loki


I agree the whole thing is just plain silly. Guess it all boils down to who is uncomfortable and who's feelings matter. If 7 women in the ladies room are uncomfortable with a man being in there they should just deal with it. If one man is uncomfortable being in a men's room with 7 other men everyone should accommodate him and change the rules. The math is messed up.


----------



## arabian knight

hoddedloki said:


> I find this entire argument hilariously ridiculous, especially as less than 4% of the population are LGBT, and of those, only a minority are trans. And yet this is a matter of national importance that is important enough for the government to risk alienating a majority of Americans.
> 
> Kinda reminds me of Rome in the 300's
> 
> Loki


You go that right. What the heck did they do Last Year? 5 Years ago? 30 Years ago? They did not have it spewed all over he news they just were. And nothing happened. Go back and quit this in your face stuff. There is so few of any of them just blend in and forget this prime time stuff. and even fewer cross this and that stuff..


----------



## Bubba1358

hoddedloki said:


> I find this entire argument hilariously ridiculous, especially as less than 4% of the population are LGBT, and of those, only a minority are trans. And yet this is a matter of national importance that is important enough for the government to risk alienating a majority of Americans.
> 
> Kinda reminds me of Rome in the 300's
> 
> Loki


Yes. 0.3% of the population "identifies" as trans.

I agree with you. This is what happens when the Left suddenly decides that a human tradition that has existed just fine for 99.7% of the population now needs to be dismantled in the name of "Progress." Trouble is, the systems they try to erect in place of the "Patriarchial oppression" end up causing *more* confusion and chaos. They think we're creating Utopia, but in reality they're dragging us down to the lowest common denominator.


----------



## Bubba1358

dixiegal62 said:


> The math is messed up.


Got that right


----------



## Bubba1358

Irish Pixie said:


> Huh. I take discrimination quite seriously. To each his own.


Then why does the group you support ASK TO BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST? They are TRYING to be treated differently than everyone else.


----------



## arabian knight

This is what you get when the country is going for their progressive liberal crap.
Boy do www need a entire change over in not only the presidency but the Congress , which intern will get the liberals Out of the SC You bet this thought that they are holier the Thou, has to stop. They think they have to rule the roast, when they are just a little tiny tiny tiny pebble in the entire big picture.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> We've had this conversation already.
> You posted the source that explained it, so I'm not repeating it all for you again.
> 
> Insanity would be thinking it would somehow be different this time


Sorry, but you cherry picked the source that I provided, using only that that supported your contention. I posted the rest of the missing information that you omitted from the paragraph. Were you able to read that? If not, I recommend it because it turns your cherry picked portion right on it's head.

Please see post 172


----------



## mmoetc

dixiegal62 said:


> I agree the whole thing is just plain silly. Guess it all boils down to who is uncomfortable and who's feelings matter. If 7 women in the ladies room are uncomfortable with a man being in there they should just deal with it. If one man is uncomfortable being in a men's room with 7 other men everyone should accommodate him and change the rules. The math is messed up.


What's the threshold? One uncomfortable woman? Two , three, four, seven...? Maybe they should vote on each who enter. Who else who makes you uncomfortable should be denied access? The woman in a flannel shirt and comfortable shoes who gives you the once over head to toe when you walk in? If seven transgenderss are already in the bathroom can they kick you out because you make them uncomfortable? Last I checked there are no guarantees in life that something might not make you uncomfortable in public. How you react is largely up to you. 

I'll agree that there are larger problems in this country to solve. What would make you more uncomfortable- a person dressed as woman walking into a stall or a person dressed as a man? That's what these laws will mean. A transitioning transgender living as a woman will legally be required to March into a men's room. She could hike her skirt and use the urinal . Uncomfortable enough? Or a transgender woman transitioning to male and wearing that nice men's warehouse suit will be required to march into the ladies room and wait for a stall. How comfortable are you with that? But really, in both cases if they walked into the restroom of their dress and identity both would have to use private stalls and who would know? I'm quite comfortable with that.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Did I *say* that, or did I say there is no "right to privacy"?


So, as per Roe V Wade - a woman has no privacy in the decisions controlling her body? You would force a woman to disrobe in front of a man, not only that but force a child to disrobe in front of their opposite sex? 

You like to use the premise of someone "forcing" their ideas upon another. You like to tell people to mind their own business. There is no right listed in the Constitution where a female child can be forced to disrobe in the presence of a male child. Anyone that says so needs to prove that that right is there. There is no right that says that if a male or female chooses to not disrobe in front of another child of the opposite gender that they must homeschool or change schools. 

There are those that would destroy this nation and purportedly this planet with their understandings of how we should allow just anything that floats anyone's boat. It is reasonable to understand that if you are saying that this person genuinely feels this way and gets the courts to rule for a make-believe right that someone else with a different malady might get the courts to give them a make-believe right too. Exposing one's self to another one of the opposite sex is and has been illegal for the most part, it seems that you want that to be thrown away. You want to force people to have to surrender to others perceived shortcomings so that their feelings are not hurt or that they are not discriminated against. 

This is becoming a very sick world. 

Go ahead, put some more grease on that slope - get it nice and slippery.


----------



## TripleD

hoddedloki said:


> I find this entire argument hilariously ridiculous, especially as less than 4% of the population are LGBT, and of those, only a minority are trans. And yet this is a matter of national importance that is important enough for the government to risk alienating a majority of Americans.
> 
> Kinda reminds me of Rome in the 300's
> 
> Loki


Spot on ! With all this shoved in your face everyday one would think over half the population is LGBT ......


----------



## dixiegal62

mmoetc said:


> Last I checked there are no guarantees in life that something might not make you uncomfortable in public. How you react is largely up to you.


Well now, this statement could be made to me or the transgender. Your right, there are no guarantees and somebody needs to remind the transgenders of that little life lesson.

I already stated early in this thread I didn't care but some do and their comfort or lack of is just as justified as the man who is uncomfortable using the men's room. If they want to fight for something, fight for every public building to have a choice of men's, women's, or private bathroom.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one has a "right to privacy" in a locker room or a public bathroom beyond that given by closing the stall door
> 
> No one is forcing anyone to look at anyone else, and realistically the odds of there being a transgender in any particular room are minute


So, there is nothing stopping me, a male person, from walking into a female locker room area, there is nothing that makes that against the law?


----------



## Shine

mmoetc said:


> There is no trump card being used by the transgender person. They are doing only what everyone else does. They are using the facilities of the gender with which they identify. The young lady in question is doing the same thing. She self identifies as female and uses that lockerroom. The difference is you don't question her self identification.
> 
> As to privacy. There is some expectation of privacy in a locker room but it is far from absolute. There's the expectation that someone won't be assaulted, harassed or photographed without their permission. There is no expectation that they won't see things that disturb them or have to associate with people they don't like or they disagree with. Else all lockerrooms would be individual rooms. And the swimmer in question is asking for just that. It's her discomfort that she is asking to be accommodated by denying the transgender swimmer. I'll ask you. Who else should she be able to exclude because she's not comfortable. The more developed who make her question get own body? The lesbian? Who?


Sorry, this is a little bit out there.

[visa versa is in play all throughout this reply]

There is a Trump card that is being used by a transgendered person who has not made the surgical change. They are a male using a female facility that since I can remember and before that has been against the law.

You are telling me that they get a pass because I consider it OK for a female to use a female facility so they should too because, in their mind, they are a female too?

When does this transgendered person get a "free pass" to use female facilities across the planet, do they get a Card that identifies them as a male with rights to the female bathrooms that they can show the police in case they have been called? Or do the police give them a free pass if they are dressed appropriately and speak in a feminine manner? Just how does this work?

You go on about the following: " There is no expectation that they won't see things that disturb them or have to associate with people they don't like or they disagree with." 

Well, I would ask you this - are men currently allowed in women's areas where they will of necessity, be naked? 

What about children? Is a male allowed into a female's area in which they will, of necessity be naked?

Are there currently laws on the books that forbid their presence in these venues?


----------



## Bubba1358

mmoetc said:


> What's the threshold? One uncomfortable woman?


To your side, the answer is YES. Your camp is advocating for the law to destroy a public institution because ONE person MIGHT feel uncomfortable.

Why does one trans' discomfort supercede the discomfort of one non-trans?


----------



## itsb

Sooo lets say, a man thinks he is a woman and demans to use the womens bathroom, why does it bother him (or her ?) to use the mans bathroom, it seems to me, he-she? just wants to stir the pot (as look at me) cause if they realy think they are of the other sex and want to use that bathroom they must not want males in it, so are they by defalt defeating what they are trying to do.
don't get me wrong if you have a pennis you should use the mans bath PERIOD.


----------



## Bubba1358

dixiegal62 said:


> If they want to fight for something, fight for every public building to have a choice of men's, women's, or private bathroom.


Brilliant solution. Seems like a compromise everyone can accept. I sure can!


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bubba1358 said:


> Then why does the group you support ASK TO BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST? They are TRYING to be treated differently than everyone else.


I see it as being asked to be treated as equal- exactly the same as any other man or woman.


----------



## dixiegal62

itsb said:


> Sooo lets say, a man thinks he is a woman and demans to use the womens bathroom, why does it bother him (or her ?) to use the mans bathroom, it seems to me, he-she? just wants to stir the pot (as look at me) cause if they realy think they are of the other sex and want to use that bathroom they must not want males in it, so are they by defalt defeating what they are trying to do.
> don't get me wrong if you have a pennis you should use the mans bath PERIOD.


Exactly! They are uncomfortable using the bathroom or locker room with people they consider to be the opposite sex so to solve their problem they want to force others to use a bathroom or locker room with someone they may consider to be the opposite sex even if it makes others uncomfortable. :facepalm:


----------



## Bubba1358

Irish Pixie said:


> I see it as being asked to be treated as equal- exactly the same as any other man or woman.


No you're not. At least in practice, you're not. You're asking standards to be bent to accommodate someone who (as your posting buddy pointed out already) has a condition that is "all in their mind." Every other man or woman (the remaining 99.7% of us) is being asked to change their ways AND LAWS to allow for this fantasy.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Pretty much the same argument as 50 years ago when some people said they didn't want to share the lunch counter, bathrooms, locker rooms, classrooms, water foundations, etc. with blacks. 

Ugly, ugly, ugly.


----------



## Narshalla

dixiegal62 said:


> I don't really care about trans using it. I've probably been in a restroom with them before. I do however worry that some men will take advantage of it who want to do harm to women. I think a better solution is men's, women's and a separate private room for family's or anyone else wanting a more private place. I don't think a trans comfort out weights others discomfort.


Okay, I understand this worry, but at the same time, I don't understand.

Because right now, if a man goes into the women's restroom and rapes a woman there ... as with most cases, she's going to be asked why she was there, why she was alone, why she didn't go with friends, what she was wearing . . . in short, right now, the police don't really feel the need to investigate rape allegations. (If it's just physical assault, he stands a better chance of being caught. But rape? No.)

So now it's a crime for a man to put on a dress and assault a woman in a women's restroom. If this gets prosecuted, then it's going to look like the real crime is a man wearing a woman's dress, really.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> There are transgender EVERYWHERE! They just don't wear a sign or ANNOUNCE who they are. I'm absolutely sure that you have ate at the same restaurant or shopped at a store WITH A TRANSGENDER AND NOT EVEN KNEW IT. To be completely SAFE You just better stay home just in case. :facepalm:
> 
> Since you don't Shop regularly at Target I'm sure they will REALLY mourn the Loss of your money.


I know of about a half dozen people in this community that are transgendered. If they are any example of the general populace of "transgendered" people then, believe me, if you are not able to see right off the bat that they are "different" then they will sit you down and explain it to you and more...


----------



## Narshalla

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's one of the most common arguments
> What's stopping them now? Wouldn't any bad behavior be illegal anyway?
> 
> Like you said, it's probably already happening.
> 
> I also keep hearing what a small percentage of the population they comprise, so you're as likely to be struck by lightning as to have to actually be in the same room with one


Men assaulting women in women's bathrooms? Yes.
Men dressing up like women to do the same? No.
Trans women assaulting women in women's bathrooms? Also no.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Irish Pixie said:


> *I see it* as being asked to be treated as equal- exactly the same as any other man or woman.





Bubba1358 said:


> No you're not. At least in practice, you're not. You're asking standards to be bent to accommodate someone who (as your posting buddy pointed out already) has a condition that is "all in their mind." Every other man or woman (the remaining 99.7% of us) is being asked to change their ways AND LAWS to allow for this fantasy.


Hmm. Are you seriously trying to say that you know better what I believe than I do? Ya don't. :hysterical: :facepalm:


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> I see it as being asked to be treated as equal- exactly the same as any other man or woman.


OK, as long as they are biologically a male, I treats them as males. OK?

This would seem to be quite fair.


----------



## flewism

Irish Pixie said:


> Pretty much the same argument as 50 years ago when some people said they didn't want to share the lunch counter, bathrooms, locker rooms, classrooms, water foundations, etc. with blacks.
> 
> Ugly, ugly, ugly.


 
Not even remotely close in comparison,


----------



## Bubba1358

Irish Pixie said:


> Pretty much the same argument as 50 years ago when some people said they didn't want to share the lunch counter, bathrooms, locker rooms, classrooms, water foundations, etc. with blacks.
> 
> Ugly, ugly, ugly.


Not even close.

Skin color is an inherited trait. Transgender is not.

Skin color can be objectively measured. Trans cannot.

No one has the ability to choose their skin color. Everyone has the ability to choose the correct loo.

Nice try, but no.


----------



## Bubba1358

Irish Pixie said:


> Hmm. Are you seriously trying to say that you know better what I believe than I do? Ya don't. :hysterical: :facepalm:


Belief or not, the argument you're putting forth call for trans people to be singled out and given rights different than the 99.7%. You may not believe you're calling for discrimination, but you are if the train of thought gets followed to its logical conclusion.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

dixiegal62 said:


> Exactly! They are uncomfortable using the bathroom or locker room with people they consider to be the opposite sex so to solve their problem they want to force others to use a bathroom or locker room with someone they may consider to be the opposite sex even if it makes others uncomfortable. :facepalm:


Posts of the day.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bubba1358 said:


> Belief or not, the argument you're putting forth call for trans people to be singled out and given rights different than the 99.7%. You may not believe you're calling for discrimination, but you are if the train of thought gets followed to its logical conclusion.


Nope, equal treatment. Or are you going to tell me that isn't what I _really_ believe again? 

LGBT gets to eat at the lunch counter, use the same bathroom, etc. if you (collective you) like it or not.


----------



## flewism

Irish Pixie said:


> Hmm. Are you seriously trying to say that you know better what I believe than I do? Ya don't. :hysterical: :facepalm:


No his statement "your definition of equal is inherently unequal, and he has a valid point.

My vote is now unisex multi-stall bathrooms nation wide.:sing::sing:


----------



## Irish Pixie

flewism said:


> Not even remotely close in comparison,


Why? Discrimination is discrimination.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> OK, as long as they are biologically a male, I treats them as males. OK?
> 
> This would seem to be quite fair.


Sigh. You don't get to choose another person's gender.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bubba1358 said:


> Not even close.
> 
> Skin color is an inherited trait. Transgender is not.
> 
> Skin color can be objectively measured. Trans cannot.
> 
> No one has the ability to choose their skin color. Everyone has the ability to choose the correct loo.
> 
> Nice try, but no.


That dog don't hunt, there is no choice with being gay or transgender either, a person is born that way.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Irish Pixie said:


> Sigh. You don't get to choose another person's gender.


No. Nature does that and human instinct and intellect goes along with natures choice.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Vahomesteaders said:


> No. Nature does that and human instinct and intellect goes along with natures choice.


No. Obviously not in the case of LGBT, or do you not consider them people?


----------



## itsb

Irish Pixie said:


> Pretty much the same argument as 50 years ago when some people said they didn't want to share the lunch counter, bathrooms, locker rooms, classrooms, water foundations, etc. with blacks.
> 
> Ugly, ugly, ugly.


NO not any way close! you keep throwing out the racial card, why is all problems racial to you ? do you know someone that was a slave or ever forced to pick cotton or even someone that had to ride in the back of a buss, heck when I had to ride a school bus the back is where I wanted to set, kinda like when I was a kid I always wanted to sit in the back at church lol guess I was discriminated against too ha ha


----------



## Irish Pixie

I understand completely why some people don't want LGBT discrimination to be compared to civil rights- it makes them look horrible. Nevertheless, it's how I see it, and many others do as well.


----------



## Bubba1358

Irish Pixie said:


> That dog don't hunt, there is no choice with being gay or transgender either, a person is born that way.


A person is born with certain parts, too, but that ain't stopping anybody.

I keep hearing that gender is "fluid" and not based on "biology." Isn't _being born that way_ the definition of biology?

So if a crack addict is "born that way," we need to bend laws so his habit can be subsidized now, too?

Or if a pedophile is "born that way," then we need to change the laws so we don't discriminate against his innate "preferences"?

Where does it end?

But we're not talking about being "born that way." We're talking about believing in and acting in a way that is contrary to nature.

It is specifically the ACTIONS that are under fire, not the pre-disposition.


----------



## TripleD

itsb said:


> NO not any way close! you keep throwing out the racial card, why is all problems racial to you ? do you know someone that was a slave or ever forced to pick cotton or even someone that had to ride in the back of a buss, heck when I had to ride a school bus the back is where I wanted to set, kinda like when I was a kid I always wanted to sit in the back at church lol guess I was discriminated against too ha ha


They have to do that because 90% of the population is either LGBT or Black . You just don't get it ....


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bubba1358 said:


> A person is born with certain parts, too, but that ain't stopping anybody.
> 
> I keep hearing that gender is "fluid" and not based on "biology." Isn't _being born that way_ the definition of biology?
> 
> So if a crack addict is "born that way," we need to bend laws so his habit can be subsidized now, too?
> 
> Or if a pedophile is "born that way," then we need to change the laws so we don't discriminate against his innate "preferences"?
> 
> Where does it end?
> 
> But we're not talking about being "born that way." We're talking about believing in and acting in a way that is contrary to nature.
> 
> It is specifically the ACTIONS that are under fire, not the pre-disposition.


I'm sorry, I can't help you. I suggest you do some research on LGBT and perhaps you'll understand. Oh, and also on the fact that drugs and pedophilia are illegal while being LGBT is not.


----------



## itsb

Irish Pixie said:


> Well, if you want to get technical it's the discrimination card. And are you seriously comparing you wanting to sit in the back of the bus to blacks being forced to sit there?


your the one that keep trying to drift the thread to blacks, I am trying to show the point that life is not always fair and right is right and trangender is a nental problem and should be delt with accordingly, not try to brainwash people into false beliefs. common sense is not always comnon


----------



## Bubba1358

Irish Pixie said:


> I understand completely why some people don't want LGBT discrimination to be compared to civil rights- it makes them look horrible. Nevertheless, it's how I see it, and many others do as well.


'Horrible'? HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

It's an unsuccessful attempt to try to keep others from losing all credibility for comparing apples to bananas. It's how I see it, and many others do as well.


Well...this conversation is clearly going nowhere. It's been fun, y'all.


----------



## hoddedloki

One of the major conceptual problems with protesters who are very actively advocating change is that they don't know when to stop. Congrats, you got the supreme court that agree that gay marriage is a constitutional right (still don't see it in the actual text, but whatever.) And now the LGBT push is for bathroom rights. But the protesting class cannot stop protesting, else they become less important, even when their protesting negatively affects their campaign. When a minority group keeps pushing and getting in people's faces, eventually they will push past the patience of the majority and get smacked down. The LGBT community and their advocates pushing for each new issue are running that risk now. 

Human psychology may not fun, but should not be ignored.
Loki


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> Sigh. You don't get to choose another person's gender.


And they do not, nor do you, get to tell me how I have to act.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> I understand completely why some people don't want LGBT discrimination to be compared to civil rights- it makes them look horrible. Nevertheless, it's how I see it, and many others do as well.


If that is correct, so is this:

I understand completely why some people don't want abortion compared to slavery- it makes them look horrible. Nevertheless, it's how I see it, and many others do as well. :shrug:


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm sorry, I can't help you. I suggest you do some research on LGBT and perhaps you'll understand. Oh, and also on the fact that drugs and pedophilia are illegal while being LGBT is not.


So, you close your eyes to the fact that a male going into a female locker room and disrobing is currently illegal and then dismiss the logical evolution along the lines where you say - well that law needs to change [disrobing in a female locker room] and then try to tell us that the pedophiles do not have a chance to get their lifestyles OK'ed because what they want to do is illegal???

This is just foolish.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> So, you close your eyes to the fact that a male going into a female locker room and disrobing is currently illegal and then dismiss the logical evolution along the lines where you say - well that law needs to change [disrobing in a female locker room] and then try to tell us that the pedophiles do not have a chance to get their lifestyles OK'ed because what they want to do is illegal???
> 
> This is just foolish.


The pedophile is hurting a child, and that will always illegal. Do you understand?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> If that is correct, so is this:
> 
> I understand completely why some people don't want abortion compared to slavery- it makes them look horrible. Nevertheless, it's how I see it, and many others do as well. :shrug:


Nope, it's not. A slave was a viable human being, a fetus is not viable until at least 21 weeks.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope, it's not. A slave was a viable human being, a fetus is not viable until at least 21 weeks.


It was believed, at the time, that slaves were less than human as well. The parallels are clear.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> It was believed, at the time, that slaves were less than human as well. The parallels are clear.


I'm sure _you_ think they are.  I didn't say neither were human, I said viable.


----------



## arabian knight

irish pixie said:


> pretty much the same argument as 50 years ago when some people said they didn't want to share the lunch counter, bathrooms, locker rooms, classrooms, water foundations, etc. With blacks.
> 
> Ugly, ugly, ugly.


 bull feathers~!


----------



## arabian knight

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope, equal treatment. Or are you going to tell me that isn't what I _really_ believe again?
> 
> LGBT gets to eat at the lunch counter, use the same bathroom, etc. if you (collective you) like it or not.


Don't even TRY to Redefine Right and Wrong~! Don't even Attempt it.
Cause the left in this case as in most ALL cases these ARE WRONG in what they are doing to this country and its great people. Cause that is exsatly what i going on redefining right from wrong just look at what has already taken place redefine marriage for Pete's Sake which has been around for Thousands and thousands of YEARS. But now a very tiny amount of the population want s to CONTROL what others now do.
Right and Wrong now is redefined into something that is not of this world.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm sure _you_ think they are.  I didn't say neither were human, I said viable.



Another excuse, commonly used by slave holders, was that their chattel could not survive on their own. If you stripped them naked, and threw them into the cold night, that attitude could have been proven correct. 

As I couldn't care less where a person pees, I didn't want to insert myself in this silly fight, but, to compare being lawfully required to use the restroom, that ones' plumbing would indicate, to the ugliness of segregation and other Jim Crow laws, is a stretch at best.


----------



## Irish Pixie

arabian knight said:


> bull feathers~!


Balderdash Codswallop Bunkum and Poppycock~!


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Another excuse, commonly used by slave holders, was that their chattel could not survive on their own. If you stripped them naked, and threw them into the cold night, that attitude could have been proven correct.
> 
> As I could care less where a person pees, I didn't want to insert myself in this silly fight, but, to compare being lawfully required to use the restroom, that ones' plumbing would indicate, to the ugliness of segregation and other Jim Crow laws, is a stretch at best.


Unless you are comparing forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term that she does not want to her being a slave the comparison just doesn't work. That won't stop you from repeating it constantly tho, so carry on.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Vahomesteaders said:


> One thing I keep hearing is you can't tell its a transgendered person many times so it makes no difference to the child. But we have to be honest. Unless you have tons of money m2f transgender can be quite standoutish. Some quite scary looking. So a little girl could easily recognize this and be alarmed. There are trans men out there that just buy a wig makeup and clothes and go on their merry way. No hormone therapy or anything. We have one here that does it. Very large fellow who wears zebra skin tights every time you see him. Big bulges everywhere. This can be quite alarming to a child if that type walks into a restroom. And there are majority of those types out there.


So how often have you seen him in a bathroom?
He won't be at the schools


----------



## Bearfootfarm

arabian knight said:


> And once again al this stuff including the gay movement has to be SHOVED into the face of people shut up and go on with life. No need to be on the front page unless you are doing this just for 15 minutes of fame of which the candle has burned out years ago.


Isn't it ironic whenever someone complains about gays it's "shoved in their face" or "forced down their throats".

*Think* about what you're saying once in a while.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Unless you are comparing forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term that she does not want to her being a slave the comparison just doesn't work. That won't stop you from repeating it constantly tho, so carry on.


No I am comparing the killing of the unborn using the "my body" excuse to the mistreatment of the slave using the "my property" excuse. The comparison fits together rather nicely, but, to the original point I do completely understand why you wouldn't want abortion compared to slavery......:ashamed:


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> Isn't it ironic whenever someone complains about gays it's "shoved in their face" or "forced down their throats".
> 
> *Think* about what you're saying once in a while.


You really should pay attention to what you say.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Irish Pixie said:


> Do you have a link to the experiment? I'm sure if they discussed it in class it must be fairly well known. I'm interested in reading it.


I'm betting you'll never see it


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Sorry, but you cherry picked the source that I provided, using only that that supported your contention. * I posted the rest of the missing information that you omitted from the paragraph.* Were you able to read that? If not, I recommend it because it turns your cherry picked portion right on it's head.
> 
> Please see post 172


I didn't cherry pick any more than you.

Your source stated that fact, along with lots of biased *opinions*
I posted a link so anyone could read it all.


----------



## flewism

Fights break out over first gender-neutral bathroom in L.A. Unified School District,

Let the games begin, 


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fi...hool-district/ar-BBs3JEZ?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Bubba1358 said:


> Yes. * 0.3% of the population "identifies" as trans.*
> 
> I agree with you. This is what happens when the Left suddenly decides that a human tradition that has existed just fine for 99.7% of the population now needs to be dismantled in the name of "Progress." Trouble is, the systems they try to erect in place of the "Patriarchial oppression" end up causing *more* confusion and chaos. They think we're creating Utopia, but in reality they're dragging us down to the lowest common denominator.


And you're *scared to death* one will show up in a bathroom at the same time as you. Think about it.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Farmerga said:


> It was believed, at the time, that slaves were less than human as well. The parallels are clear.


Planned parenthood founder Sanger certainly believed so. Now she has these sheep following her. Lol


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> So, as *per Roe V Wade* - a woman has no privacy in the decisions controlling her body? You would force a woman to disrobe in front of a man, not only that but force a child to disrobe in front of their opposite sex?
> 
> You like to use the premise of someone "forcing" their ideas upon another. You like to tell people to mind their own business. There is no right listed in the Constitution where a female child can be forced to disrobe in the presence of a male child. Anyone that says so needs to prove that that right is there. There is no right that says that if a male or female chooses to not disrobe in front of another child of the opposite gender that they must homeschool or change schools.
> 
> There are those that would destroy this nation and purportedly this planet with their understandings of how we should allow just anything that floats anyone's boat. It is reasonable to understand that if you are saying that this person genuinely feels this way and gets the courts to rule for a make-believe right that someone else with a different malady might get the courts to give them a make-believe right too. Exposing one's self to another one of the opposite sex is and has been illegal for the most part, it seems that you want that to be thrown away. You want to force people to have to surrender to others perceived shortcomings so that their feelings are not hurt or that they are not discriminated against.
> 
> This is becoming a very sick world.
> 
> Go ahead, put some more grease on that slope - get it nice and slippery.


This has no comparison to abortions.
No one is being "forced to disrobe"
Save all the lame rhetoric for someone who will fall for it
Stop with the melodrama


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> I know of about a half dozen people in this community that are transgendered. If they are any example of the general populace of "transgendered" people then, believe me, if you are not able to see right off the bat that they are "different" then they will sit you down and explain it to you and more...


They seem to be multiplying because before I'm pretty sure you said there were two.
I bet you look "different" to some people too


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JeffreyD said:


> You really should pay attention to what you say.


I do
I pay little to what you say though
And by "little" I mean "none at all"


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> And they do not, nor do you, get to tell me how I have to act.


But you want to tell them which is why you have no credibility.
You say one thing but do the opposite


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> This has no comparison to abortions.
> No one is being "forced to disrobe"
> Save all the lame rhetoric for someone who will fall for it
> Stop with the melodrama


Stop the shallow disassociation's just because you say so... No one compared this to abortions so there you are wrong once again. See how you twist and turn these things?

Roe v Wade established that the issue was the Woman's privacy from the Government's prying eyes. 

Now, you are trying to tell us that the government should force us to allow male persons to use the female showers and other areas where children are under certain stages of undress.

I say that type of thinking is dangerous and that it will come to a very ugly end. 

So, to be sure, you are saying that we should re-write the law regarding the disallowing of male persons in the areas where female persons are in various stages of undress and naked, so that the .03% of people in the entire US are not offended? Now you are understanding that this essentially forces 99.97% of the US parents who have middle and high school aged female children to have to allow male persons to be in stages of undress around them, correct? 

So, if I believe your answer is "Yes, those laws should be changed" then the following would be correct: "You want to force people that do not want their children to shower with other children of the opposite sex to do just that."

Who's forcing who to do what now?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Stop the shallow disassociation's just because you say so... No one compared this to abortions so there you are wrong once again. See how you twist and turn these things?


Yes you did when you first brought up Roe V Wade.
I don't have to twist anything when you start rambling , because *you forget what you have said.*



> Who's forcing who to do what now?


You're forcing me to yawn with the boring *repetition* of what you already said before, proving my point above. 

:boring:


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> They seem to be multiplying because before I'm pretty sure you said there were two.
> I bet you look "different" to some people too


Two transgendered people in my immediate community who have friends that visit. [you might want to update your top secret folder on me. Do you keep folders on everyone? Now that's disturbing :yuck:] 

Just what are you trying to take away from my observation. It remains to be valid on it's face no matter what you think.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Two transgendered people in my immediate community who have friends that visit. [you might want to update your top secret folder on me. Do you keep folders on everyone? Now that's disturbing :yuck:]
> 
> Just what are you trying to take away from my observation. It remains to be valid on it's face no matter what you think.


How is it you know so much about *their business*?
How do you find time to manage your own?
Do they know you keep tabs on them?
You seem to spend a lot of time talking about them


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> How is it you know so much about *their business*?
> How do you find time to manage your own?
> Do they know you keep tabs on them?
> You seem to spend a lot of time talking about them


...now that right there is a bunch of assumptions. 

In our particular community, some of what they do is my business. All told, I've spoke about them for maybe 3 posts,. Yes, they know that I pay attention to what they are doing. 

How long do you imagine that it would take to type three posts? Is that what you consider a "long time"?

Like I asked before, it seems that by the way you are able to bring up posts that are from some time ago, it is obvious that you "store" bits and pieces of information on certain or maybe all posters, can you share whether or not that you compile information regarding what people post?


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> I do
> I pay little to what you say though
> And by "little" I mean "none at all"


Yet here you are responding! ound:


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> The pedophile is hurting a child, and that will always illegal. Do you understand?


You do not think that the Male undressing before a young teen in the locker room does not harm her sense of privacy? Do you understand? 

A pedophile will always be illegal until people get together and FORCE people to accept them as they are... 

kind'a like what's happening with the Transgendered people. Do you understand?


----------



## DEKE01

Bearfootfarm said:


> If you think it's "valid" then you're being ridiculous also.
> Race is biological.
> Sex is biological
> Gender is not


Wrong. Until such time as the left redefines this word as well, gender is biological if you think sex is biological

from The American HeritageÂ® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition

n. Grammar A grammatical category used in the classification of nouns, pronouns, adjectives, and, in some languages, verbs that may be arbitrary or based on characteristics such as sex or animacy and that determines agreement with or selection of modifiers, referents, or grammatical forms.
n. Grammar One category of such a set.
n. Grammar The classification of a word or grammatical form in such a category.
n. Grammar The distinguishing form or forms used.
* n. Sexual identity, especially in relation to society or culture.*
* n. The condition of being female or male; sex.*
n. Females or males considered as a group: expressions used by one gender.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> You do not think that the Male undressing before a young teen in the locker room does not harm her sense of privacy? Do you understand?
> 
> A pedophile will always be illegal until people get together and FORCE people to accept them as they are...
> 
> kind'a like what's happening with the Transgendered people. Do you understand?


Do you really believe that anyone could force society to accept pedophilia? I find that simply ridiculous. You do realize what pedophilia is right? It's an adult that sexually assaults a kid, and you think that will ever be socially acceptable?


----------



## DEKE01

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's no "right to privacy" in a school locker room



Absolutely wrong. Constitutional and SCOTUS protections do not end at the locker room door. 

_Although the Constitution does not explicitly include the right to privacy, the Supreme Court has found that the Constitution implicitly grants a right to privacy against governmental intrusion. This right to privacy has been the justification for decisions involving a wide range of civil liberties cases, including Pierce v. Society of Sisters, which invalidated a successful 1922 Oregon initiative requiring compulsory public education, Griswold v. Connecticut, where a right to privacy was first established explicitly, Roe v. Wade, which struck down a Texas abortion law and thus restricted state powers to enforce laws against abortion, and Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down a Texas sodomy law and thus eliminated state powers to enforce laws against sodomy.

The 1890 Warren and Brandeis article "The Right To Privacy", is often cited as the first implicit declaration of a U.S. right to privacy.[3] This right is frequently debated. Strict constructionists[who?] argue that no such right exists (or at least that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to protect such a right), while some civil libertarians[who?] argue that the right invalidates many types of currently allowed civil surveillance (wiretaps, public cameras, etc.).

Most states of the United States[who?]also grant a right to privacy and recognize four torts based on that right:

Intrusion upon seclusion or solitude, or into private affairs;
Public disclosure of embarrassing private facts;
Publicity which places a person in a false light in the public eye; and
Appropriation of name or likeness._ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_privacy

Some may confuse, as you appear to have done, an expectation of privacy with a right to privacy. 

_There are two types of expectations of privacy:

Subjective expectation of privacy â a certain individual's opinion that a certain location or situation is private; varies greatly from person to person
Objective, legitimate, reasonable expectation of privacy â An expectation of privacy generally recognized by society
_ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy

Courts have held that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in a locker room. 

_"Privacy is not like a light switch which either is complete or does not exist," Burns (the ruling judge) wrote. "Rather, there are shades of grey on a gradation moving from absolute privacy to no privacy."

He pointed to state law that defines a place of solitude or seclusion as somewhere a person would intend to be in a state of undress, including public or private locker rooms or shower rooms.
_ http://journalstar.com/news/local/911/judge-some-expectation-of-privacy-exists-in-locker-room/article_8fd6ac6e-a89d-5643-8cc9-74c3a425d1a5.html


----------



## DEKE01

Irish Pixie said:


> Getting a mite personal aren't you? Your last two posts to me were both personal and insulting. Can you tone that down, please?


My, my, my. Someone has control issues. 

You believe in gov't control to force people to accept your gov't approved views. You stated as much in the thread about a GA law and about forcing commercial cake bakers to bend to the will of gov't or be forced out of business. 

I have not misrepresented your position or the facts. I have no desire to control what you say. I'm glad you're saying what you really believe.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> Do you really believe that anyone could force society to accept pedophilia? I find that simply ridiculous. You do realize what pedophilia is right? It's an adult that sexually assaults a kid, and you think that will ever be socially acceptable?


Do you really believe that main stream society will allow someone that believes that they are something that they are not to force others to be complicit in their misunderstanding? I find that simply ridiculous. Socially acceptable? Heck, I though naked boys in the girls locker rooms was illegal for the longest time, is it legal or illegal??? 

If it is illegal then I guess that they will have to change the law to allow it to happen, right? So here we have the probability that they will change the law to allow naked boys to shower with the naked girls. What's to stop them from letting adults have sex with kids? The progression is one and the same.

Oh, that's right, you promise us that pedophilia will never be legit.. got it...

I'm all in favor of not letting confused people get their foot in the door and I pray to the Almighty Lord in Heaven that it is NEVER allowed.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> Do you really believe that main stream society will allow someone that believes that they are something that they are not to force others to be complicit in their misunderstanding? I find that simply ridiculous. Socially acceptable? Heck, I though naked boys in the girls locker rooms was illegal for the longest time, is it legal or illegal???
> 
> If it is illegal then I guess that they will have to change the law to allow it to happen, right? So here we have the probability that they will change the law to allow naked boys to shower with the naked girls. What's to stop them from letting adults have sex with kids? The progression is one and the same.
> 
> Oh, that's right, you promise us that pedophilia will never be legit.. got it...
> 
> I'm all in favor of not letting confused people get their foot in the door.


You believe in god, right? Where is the proof that he's not a figment of your imagination? Is it because you _know_ he's real? Just like transgender people _know_ they were born the wrong sex?

Transgenderism is not illegal. Transgenderism doesn't hurt anyone. Pedophilia destroys lives, and it is illegal and will never be otherwise. To compare transgenderism to pedophilia even in an abstract way is really quite disgusting, and says a lot about you.


----------



## Irish Pixie

DEKE01 said:


> My, my, my. Someone has control issues.
> 
> You believe in gov't control to force people to accept your gov't approved views. You stated as much in the thread about a GA law and about forcing commercial cake bakers to bend to the will of gov't or be forced out of business.
> 
> I have not misrepresented your position or the facts. I have no desire to control what you say. I'm glad you're saying what you really believe.


No control issues, I don't want the thread locked because of your personal insults.


----------



## haypoint

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHt7EBCgJnI[/ame]

how's this working out?


----------



## Irish Pixie

haypoint said:


> how's this working out?


Do you really think that's real? Google "joeysalads" :hysterical: :facepalm:


----------



## dixiegal62

If you think kids aren't concerned you'd be wrong. I have 2 of my grand daughters tonight and the 8 year old told me her freinds where talking about it in school today. She wanted to know why she'd have to share the bathroom with boys. She's only eight, why should she even have to worry about this?


----------



## arabian knight

Because progressive liberals are Control Freaks that is why.
They or more to the point the few that are of the opposite marriage and sexual orientation wants to control the rest of the correct minded folks Right vs Wrong. and these lgbt people are Wrong Wrong Wrong. Always were and now they sure are making it so right is now wrong and wrong is now right,
Clear as mud isn't it? These control minded dudes have another thing coming if they think they are right in what they are doing to this country.


----------



## Heritagefarm

I see this as a way for males to sneak into the girl's bathroom.


----------



## arabian knight




----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> You believe in god, right? Where is the proof that he's not a figment of your imagination? Is it because you _know_ he's real? Just like transgender people _know_ they were born the wrong sex?
> 
> Transgenderism is not illegal. Transgenderism doesn't hurt anyone. Pedophilia destroys lives, and it is illegal and will never be otherwise. To compare transgenderism to pedophilia even in an abstract way is really quite disgusting, and says a lot about you.


No, No comparison. Transgenderism is not illegal but what they want to force us to allow is currently illegal or don't you see that?

Wrong sex? You can figure that one out real quick in a lighted room, you don't even have to disrobe. lol... 

I would add that Transgenderism destroys lives too, maybe if they got the help that they actually needed there would not be so many suicides. Nope, you guys want to help them to destroy their lives, do you stand in the shadows and smile as they go on through their personal torture? Why do you not help them? Suicide 20+ the normal rate. And you want them to continue that behavior... wait, I get it, it's just a different slant of Margaret Sanger... I should have seen this...


----------



## Shine

arabian knight said:


>



Please... no more, I give up...

One thing is for certain... The people of walmart website will grow...


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> No, No comparison. Transgenderism is not illegal but what they want to force us to allow is currently illegal or don't you see that?
> 
> Wrong sex? You can figure that one out real quick in a lighted room, you don't even have to disrobe. lol...
> 
> I would add that Transgenderism destroys lives too, maybe if they got the help that they actually needed there would not be so many suicides. Nope, you guys want to help them to destroy their lives, do you stand in the shadows and smile as they go on through their personal torture? Why do you not help them? Suicide 20+ the normal rate. And you want them to continue that behavior... wait, I get it, it's just a different slant of Margaret Sanger... I should have seen this...


If people didn't think their gender identification was all in their head, and use it as a weapon to hurt and mock, perhaps there wouldn't be a high rate of suicide among LGBT? 

You will never understand that gender is not the same as sex as I will never understand how anyone can believe that an imaginary figure somehow has control over lives, and has somehow magically provided a guide to live by if only one believes... 

There is really nothing left to discuss, is there?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> ...now that right there is a bunch of assumptions.
> 
> In our particular community, some of what they do is my business. All told, *I've spoke about them for maybe 3 posts*,. Yes, they know that I pay attention to what they are doing.
> 
> How long do you imagine that it would take to type three posts? Is that what you consider a "long time"?
> 
> Like I asked before, it seems that by the way you are able to bring up posts that are from some time ago, it is obvious that you "store" bits and pieces of information on certain or maybe all posters, can you share whether or not that you compile information regarding what people post?


You've spoken of them multiple times in multiple threads over a long period of time. Don't pretend this is the first time you've spoken about them.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> If people didn't think their gender identification was all in their head, and use it as a weapon to hurt and mock, perhaps there wouldn't be a high rate of suicide among LGBT?
> 
> There is really nothing left to discuss, is there?


Only that your first statement is an assumption.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JeffreyD said:


> Yet here you are responding! ound:


I can stop doing that.


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> I can stop doing that.



Yet, here you are again! Your hysterical, you really are. ROFLMAO :doh:

I will refrain from further comments about this, the tears of laughter are to voluminousness to continue.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

DEKE01 said:


> Wrong. Until such time as the left redefines this word as well, *gender is biological* if you think sex is biological
> 
> from The American HeritageÂ® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition
> 
> n. Grammar A grammatical category used in the classification of nouns, pronouns, adjectives, and, in some languages, verbs that may be arbitrary or based on characteristics such as sex or animacy and that determines agreement with or selection of modifiers, referents, or grammatical forms.
> n. Grammar One category of such a set.
> n. Grammar The classification of a word or grammatical form in such a category.
> n. Grammar The distinguishing form or forms used.
> * n. Sexual identity, especially in relation to society or culture.*
> * n. The condition of being female or male; sex.*
> n. Females or males considered as a group: expressions used by one gender.


Nothing in your definitions says anything about "gender" as it's being used in this context. You're talking about English Language usage.


Here is what it really means in the *context* of this discussion:



> Gender is the *range of characteristics* pertaining to, and differentiating between and from *masculinity and femininity*. Depending on the context, these characteristics *may include biological sex* (i.e. the state of being male, female or intersex), sex-based social structures (including gender roles and other social roles), or *gender identity*.
> 
> Sexologist John Money introduced the *terminological distinction between biological sex and gender* as a role in 1955.


Notice it says "May include biological sex".


----------



## DEKE01

Irish Pixie said:


> Do you really believe that anyone could force society to accept pedophilia? I find that simply ridiculous. You do realize what pedophilia is right? It's an adult that sexually assaults a kid, and you think that will ever be socially acceptable?


It has been socially acceptable for almost all of human history. Only in the last century did we define up the age of consent for pubescent males (14) and girls (12). I'm citing facts, not advocating, so don't even try it. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent

And further on ****/child sex...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty

Historically, pederasty has existed as a variety of customs and practices within different cultures. The status of pederasty has changed over the course of history, at times considered an ideal and at other times a crime. In the history of Europe, its most structured cultural manifestation was Athenian pederasty, and became most prominent in the 6th century BC. Greek pederasty's various forms were the subject of philosophic debates in which the purely carnal type was unfavorably compared with erotic friendships and moderate forms, known as Sophrosyne.[2]

Age of consent by country

you'll note there are more than a few countries in the 9 to 13 year old range. http://chartsbin.com/view/543


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> You've spoken of them multiple times in multiple threads over a long period of time. Don't pretend this is the first time you've spoken about them.


Use a little respect and you'll get some back. 

I am not pretending - show me more that three posts excluding this one and I'll grant that you are telling the truth, don't - I assert that what you are claiming is not true.

You keep track of what I post, this should be simple for you. I'll grant you that 3 is considered a "multiple" so you might just be yanking my chain. Prove what you say is true and I'll find a little gold star to stick on my screen whenever I read one of your posts... OK?

Even if there was ten, how long does it take you to post ten times? Typing ten posts is not really "a long time" so I don't get your point. OK - go find them - I'll wait here.

Oh, heck, we're not on that pretend thing again? It's AS IF we've already done this... right?


----------



## Irish Pixie

DEKE01 said:


> It has been socially acceptable for almost all of human history. Only in the last century did we define up the age of consent for pubescent males (14) and girls (12). I'm citing facts, not advocating, so don't even try it.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent


Most of us are more enlightened now.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

DEKE01 said:


> Absolutely wrong. Constitutional and SCOTUS protections do not end at the locker room door.


The judge you cited said:



> "Privacy is not like a light switch which either is complete or does not exist," Burns (the ruling judge) wrote. "Rather, *there are shades of grey* on a gradation moving from absolute privacy to *no privacy*."


It's silly to expect "privacy" in a room full of people


----------



## Bearfootfarm

DEKE01 said:


> Absolutely wrong. Constitutional and SCOTUS protections do not end at the locker room door.


The judge you cited said:



> "Privacy is not like a light switch which either is complete or does not exist," Burns (the ruling judge) wrote. "Rather, *there are shades of grey* on a gradation moving from absolute privacy to *no privacy*."


It's silly to expect "privacy" in a room full of people

The case involved taking pictures, not just being in the room


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> If you think kids aren't concerned you'd be wrong. I have 2 of my grand daughters tonight and the 8 year old told me her freinds where talking about it in school today. She wanted to know why she'd have to share the bathroom with boys. She's only eight, why should she even have to worry about this?


How many transgenders are in her class?


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> The judge you cited said:
> 
> 
> It's silly to expect "privacy" in a room full of people


It seems that you leave off the good part quite often:

_"He pointed to state law that defines a place of solitude or seclusion as somewhere a person would intend to be in a state of undress, including public or private locker rooms or shower rooms."

The sentence right below the one that you cut and pasted. So, yes, there would appear to be an expectation of privacy in a room full of people. Think on that one for a while...
_


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> How many transgenders are in her class?


Foolish question, it appears her intent in mentioning that would seem to be that the school admin is pushing the agenda there and the child is questioning it. {forgive me if I got it incorrect DG}


----------



## Shine

Double post


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> It seems that *you leave off* the food part quite often:
> 
> _"He pointed to state law that defines a place of solitude or seclusion as somewhere a person would intend to be in a state of undress, including public or private locker rooms or shower rooms."
> 
> The sentence right below the one that you cut and pasted.
> _


The state law isn't part of what *he* said about "privacy"



> So, yes, there would appear to be an expectation of privacy in a room full of people. Think on that one for a while...


He said there was a *range* going all the way to *no* privacy
Think about that


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Foolish question, *it appears* her intent in mentioning that would seem to be that the school admin is pushing the agenda there and the child is questioning it. {forgive me if I got it incorrect}


It appears to me the kids more likely have heard their parents overreacting.



> Foolish question


Explain how it's "foolish" when it's the subject of the court ruling, and this thread?


----------



## DEKE01

Irish Pixie said:


> No control issues, I don't want the thread locked because of your personal insults.


I went back and checked. Apparently WR thinks I did insult you but she didn't have the courtesy to tell me or explain why, so I might do it again out of ignorance of her standards and a failure to remember what was in that post. 

As to saying "you". If that is an insult, I'll use "ewe" instead. Sheep fear me. :shocked:

Don't run away from your position by hiding behind a sympathetic mod. I was accurate in my use of "you" at least in relative terms. You worry more about the feelings and potential dangers of a mentally ill adult than you do about the feelings and potential danger to children.


----------



## wiscto

mmoetc said:


> No, I'm simply asking why their feelings are more important. Why are one persons feelings of discomfort in disrobing in front a transgender person more important than the transgender persons feeling of discomfort in disrobing in a lockerroom they don't identify with. Aren't both feelings equally valid. What of the kid who is uncomfortable with having the transgender in the lockerroom the transgender doesn't identify with? Aren't his feelings equally valid. How do you accomodate him without excluding the transgender kid from that lockerroom also? I think we worry too much about such things as what's hanging, or not, between ones legs.


It's a question with a dead end. Does it matter which person people feel strongly about if there is no solution? If you respect both feelings equally.....then there is no solution, and all you have is a question. Unless you plan on converting all public restrooms into multiple single serve restrooms, costing the entire country a lot of money, then you have no solution. You're just asking one side to explain themselves, and not the other. And if you're only asking one side, then you have a bias that you aren't addressing.


----------



## DEKE01

Bearfootfarm said:


> Nothing in your definitions says anything about "gender" as it's being used in this context. You're talking about English Language usage.
> .


well, at least one of us is using the English language and the definition of the word is plain as day. Read it again, I bolded the relevant parts. The fact that you can find a different definition does not mean all other definitions are wrong. We still are speaking English. Words have meanings. Hey, who said that? 

I found lots of other citations that gender = sex. So you are wrong in that it does not mean that. However, to be fair to you, the way you want us to use gender is not wrong. It can mean sexual identity as a preference, it just doesn't have to. But take small comfort in the medical dictionary agreeing in part with your preferred definition, because it backs up my statement that gender identity disorder is a disorder of the mind...you know...a mental illness. 

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/gender

_gender [jenÂ´der]
sex (def. 1); see also gender identity and gender role.
gender identity disorder a disturbance of gender identification in which the affected person has an overwhelming desire to change their anatomic sex or insists that they are of the opposite sex, with persistent discomfort about their assigned sex or about filling its usual gender role; the disorder may become apparent in childhood or not appear until adolescence or adulthood. Individuals may attempt to live as members of the opposite sex and may seek hormonal and surgical treatment to bring their anatomy into conformity with their belief (see transsexualism). It is not the same as transvestism.
Miller-Keane Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing, and Allied Health, Seventh Edition. Â© 2003 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.
genÂ·der (jen'd&#277;r),
Category to which an individual is assigned by self or others, on the basis of sex. Compare: sex, gender role.
Farlex Partner Medical Dictionary Â© Farlex 2012
gender /genÂ·der/ (jenÂ´der) sex; the category to which an individual is assigned on the basis of sex.
Dorland's Medical Dictionary for Health Consumers. Â© 2007 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.
gender (j&#277;n&#8242;d&#601;r)
n.
1. Grammar
a. A grammatical category, often designated as male, female, or neuter, used in the classification of nouns, pronouns, adjectives, and, in some languages, verbs that may be arbitrary or based on characteristics such as sex or animacy and that determines agreement with or selection of modifiers, referents, or grammatical forms.
b. The fact of being classified as belonging to such a category: agreement in gender, number, and case.
2.
a. *Either of the two divisions, designated female and male, by which most organisms are classified on the basis of their reproductive organs and functions; sex.*
b. One's identity as female or male or as neither entirely female nor entirely male.
c. Females or males considered as a group: Students lined up with the genders in different lines._


----------



## Shine

Curious, when a baby is born, if not aborted, [could not help myself] how do they determine the gender?
a. Blood Test
b. Coin Flip
c. Check for Genitalia Type
d. Spin the Wheel!!!


----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> How many transgenders are in her class?


Like I said kids at school where talking. She asked about boys using the girls room I'm not going to be explaining transgender to her. Its not my place to tell her that's her parents job to tell her what they want her to know. I respect their rights as her parents to make that choice.


----------



## DEKE01

Irish Pixie said:


> Most of us are more enlightened now.


well, yes. But you acknowledge your statement is wrong? Adult to mid-teens sex is by far more of a worldly norm, now and in all of human history. I just want the discussion to be about real facts when facts are given as opposed to inaccurate emotionally charged claims when one is backed into a corner.


----------



## Irish Pixie

"For many people, the terms âgenderâ and âsexâ are used interchangeably, and thus incorrectly. This idea has become so common, particularly in western societies, that it is rarely questioned. We are born, assigned a sex, and sent out into the world. For many people, this is cause for little, if any dissonance. Yet biological sex and gender are different; gender is not inherently nor solely connected to oneâs physical anatomy."

From: https://www.genderspectrum.org/quick-links/understanding-gender/


----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> It appears to me the kids more likely have heard their parents overreacting.
> 
> ?


You spend a lot of time assuming.


----------



## Shine

dixiegal62 said:


> You spend a lot of time assuming.


yeah, he's hitting almost every one of them out of the park in this thread...


----------



## DEKE01

Bearfootfarm said:


> The judge you cited said:
> 
> The judge you cited said:
> 
> Quote:
> "Privacy is not like a light switch which either is complete or does not exist," Burns (the ruling judge) wrote. "Rather, there are shades of grey on a gradation moving from absolute privacy to no privacy."
> 
> It's silly to expect "privacy" in a room full of people


It is rather disingenuous to not include his other words when they have been provided to you. The judge said (paraphrasing) there is an expectation of at least some privacy in a locker room. 

Having been provided the info, do you now agree that there is a "right to privacy" in a locker room?


----------



## DEKE01

Bearfootfarm said:


> He said there was a *range* going all the way to *no* privacy
> Think about that


But in the context we are discussing, (Hey, who used that phrase before), the judge said in a bathroom/locker room there is an expectation of some privacy. it is easier to have a meaningful discussion if repeated attempts are not made to misrepresent the facts. If you disagree with the judge's opinion, fine, we all have that choice, but don't misrepresent his words when you have to go out of your way to avoid a portion of what you are cutting and pasting. 

we aren't talking about on a public street and we aren't talking about in your own bathroom, we are talking about in a public locker room or bathroom and have been since the thread started.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Coming soon to a public bathroom near you...transgender...may be pedophiles...could be anything their mind says at that moment.
Please send your children in for any desire at that moment.


----------



## farmrbrown

hoddedloki said:


> I find this entire argument hilariously ridiculous, especially as less than 4% of the population are LGBT, and of those, only a minority are trans. And yet this is a matter of national importance that is important enough for the government to risk alienating a majority of Americans.
> 
> Kinda reminds me of Rome in the 300's
> 
> Loki



Yep.





DEKE01 said:


> It has been socially acceptable for almost all of human history. Only in the last century did we define up the age of consent for pubescent males (14) and girls (12). I'm citing facts, not advocating, so don't even try it.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent
> 
> And further on ****/child sex...
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty
> 
> Historically, pederasty has existed as a variety of customs and practices within different cultures. The status of pederasty has changed over the course of history, at times considered an ideal and at other times a crime. In the history of Europe, its most structured cultural manifestation was Athenian pederasty, and became most prominent in the 6th century BC. Greek pederasty's various forms were the subject of philosophic debates in which the purely carnal type was unfavorably compared with erotic friendships and moderate forms, known as Sophrosyne.[2]
> 
> Age of consent by country
> 
> you'll note there are more than a few countries in the 9 to 13 year old range. http://chartsbin.com/view/543





Irish Pixie said:


> Nope, equal treatment. Or are you going to tell me that isn't what I _really_ believe again?
> 
> LGBT gets to eat at the lunch counter, use the same bathroom, etc. if you (collective you) like it or not.


Yep, we've been reminded many times that the law is the law and there's nothing we can do about it........:hammer:



Irish Pixie said:


> I'm sorry, I can't help you. I suggest you do some research on LGBT and perhaps you'll understand. Oh, and also on the fact that drugs and pedophilia are illegal while being LGBT is not.


Of course pedophilia is illegal........today.
But laws change, don't they?
And HOW do they get changed?
By a society changing its perception of what is "acceptable".


http://b4uact.org



Irish Pixie said:


> The pedophile is hurting a child, and that will always illegal. Do you understand?


Somehow, I don't think you can guarantee that, can you?



Irish Pixie said:


> Do you really believe that anyone could force society to accept pedophilia? I find that simply ridiculous. You do realize what pedophilia is right? It's an adult that sexually assaults a kid, and you think that will ever be socially acceptable?



It's as hard for me to believe that as is it for me to believe the things that were acceptable only a few generations ago, or even a little farther in the past.
I can't fathom thinking that another human is subhuman just because of their skin color, or that half the population didn't have voting or property rights because they were female.
Sometimes the things society accepts or rejects are an indication of their good morals, other times they are appallingly immoral.
But I admit that at times it can be quite unbelievable, even though I know it happened.


----------



## DEKE01

Irish Pixie said:


> "For many people, the terms âgenderâ and âsexâ are used interchangeably, and thus incorrectly. This idea has become so common, particularly in western societies, that it is rarely questioned. We are born, assigned a sex, and sent out into the world. For many people, this is cause for little, if any dissonance. Yet biological sex and gender are different; gender is not inherently nor solely connected to oneâs physical anatomy."
> 
> From: https://www.genderspectrum.org/quick-links/understanding-gender/


LOL - you should have read your cite before posting it. It backs up the idea that gender = sex in the second paragraph even though the article is as confused and contradictory as a transgendered 6 year old. 

*Biological Gender (sex) includes physical attributes such as external genitalia, sex chromosomes, gonads, sex hormones, and internal reproductive structures. At birth, it is used to assign sex, that is, to identify individuals as male or female. Gender on the other hand is far more complicated. It is the complex interrelationship between an individualâs sex (gender biology), oneâs internal sense of self as male, female, both or neither (gender identity) as well as oneâs outward presentations and behaviors (gender expression) related to that perception, including their gender role. 
*

And I have repeatedly seen gender used by the anti-put-our-kids-at-risk side of this debate in connection with the biology of one's sex/gender. You can argue there is a different definition of the word gender, and I'll agree with you, but that doesn't mean it does not mean sex. 

Gender as something other than biology is a pretense created to justify an agenda.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Shine said:


> yeah, he's hitting almost every one of them out of the park in this thread...


There has to be a crash soon...don't want to watch


----------



## Bearfootfarm

DEKE01 said:


> well, at least one of us is using the English language and the definition of the word is plain as day. Read it again, I bolded the relevant parts. The fact that you can find a different definition does not mean all other definitions are wrong. We still are speaking English. Words have meanings. Hey, who said that?
> 
> I found lots of other citations that gender = sex. So you are wrong in that it does not mean that. However, to be fair to you, the way you want us to use gender is not wrong. It can mean sexual identity as a preference, it just doesn't have to. But take small comfort in the medical dictionary agreeing in part with your preferred definition, because it backs up my statement that gender identity disorder is a disorder of the mind...you know...a mental illness.
> 
> http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/gender
> 
> _gender [jenÂ´der]
> sex (def. 1); see also gender identity and gender role.
> gender identity disorder a disturbance of gender identification in which the affected person has an overwhelming desire to change their anatomic sex or insists that they are of the opposite sex, with persistent discomfort about their assigned sex or about filling its usual gender role; the disorder may become apparent in childhood or not appear until adolescence or adulthood. Individuals may attempt to live as members of the opposite sex and may seek hormonal and surgical treatment to bring their anatomy into conformity with their belief (see transsexualism). It is not the same as transvestism.
> Miller-Keane Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing, and Allied Health, Seventh Edition. Â© 2003 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.
> genÂ·der (jen'd&#277;r),
> Category to which an individual is assigned by self or others, on the basis of sex. Compare: sex, gender role.
> Farlex Partner Medical Dictionary Â© Farlex 2012
> gender /genÂ·der/ (jenÂ´der) sex; the category to which an individual is assigned on the basis of sex.
> Dorland's Medical Dictionary for Health Consumers. Â© 2007 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.
> gender (j&#277;n&#8242;d&#601;r)
> n.
> 1. Grammar
> a. A grammatical category, often designated as male, female, or neuter, used in the classification of nouns, pronouns, adjectives, and, in some languages, verbs that may be arbitrary or based on characteristics such as sex or animacy and that determines agreement with or selection of modifiers, referents, or grammatical forms.
> b. The fact of being classified as belonging to such a category: agreement in gender, number, and case.
> 2.
> a. *Either of the two divisions, designated female and male, by which most organisms are classified on the basis of their reproductive organs and functions; sex.*
> b. One's identity as female or male or as neither entirely female nor entirely male.
> c. Females or males considered as a group: Students lined up with the genders in different lines._


Continuing to post grammar definitions is pointless.



> But take small comfort in the medical dictionary agreeing in part with your preferred definition, because it backs up my statement that gender identity disorder is *a disorder of the mind*...you know...a mental illness.


I can show you studies that say the same about religious beliefs.
We should stick to reality here, and reality is you'll never notice any difference at all. 

If you aren't seeing Transgenders everywhere now, you won't suddenly start seeing them due to any laws

It's silly to whine about a non existent problem.
From data shown on other threads, kids are in more danger from priests than from Transgenders


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Curious, when a baby is born, if not aborted, [could not help myself] how do they determine the gender?
> a. Blood Test
> b. Coin Flip
> c. Check for Genitalia Type
> d. Spin the Wheel!!!


They don't determine "gender"
They determine "sex"
Round and round. always in circles


----------



## Heritagefarm

Irish Pixie said:


> If people didn't think their gender identification was all in their head, and use it as a weapon to hurt and mock, perhaps there wouldn't be a high rate of suicide among LGBT?
> 
> You will never understand that gender is not the same as sex as I will never understand how anyone can believe that an imaginary figure somehow has control over lives, and has somehow magically provided a guide to live by if only one believes...
> 
> There is really nothing left to discuss, is there?


Actually I never knew there was a difference. Now I do. Honestly, I actually have no comprehension of how someone could think they're body was incorrect. But then, I have no mental problems. Last time I checked.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Use a little respect and you'll get some back.
> 
> *I am not pretending *- show me more that three posts excluding this one and I'll grant that you are telling the truth, don't - I assert that what you are claiming is not true.
> 
> You keep track of what I post, this should be simple for you. I'll grant you that 3 is considered a "multiple" so you might just be yanking my chain. Prove what you say is true and I'll find a little gold star to stick on my screen whenever I read one of your posts... OK?
> 
> Even if there was ten, how long does it take you to post ten times? Typing ten posts is not really "a long time" so I don't get your point. OK - go find them - I'll wait here.
> 
> Oh, heck, we're not on that pretend thing again? It's AS IF we've already done this... right?


Let's not play this game again
It's redundant



> Typing ten posts is not really "a long time" so *I don't get your point*.


You know what I said is true, and pretending the only time involved is the time it takes to type is pretty lame. You even admitted already that you "keep track" of them

You remind me of Gladys Kravitz on Bewitched, spying on the neighbors and talking about them behind their backs because "something strange is going on"

http://bewitched.wikia.com/wiki/Gladys_Kravitz


----------



## Bearfootfarm

DEKE01 said:


> It is rather disingenuous to not include his other words when they have been provided to you. The judge said *(paraphrasing) *there is an expectation of at least some privacy in a locker room.
> 
> Having been provided the info, do you now agree that there is a "right to privacy" in a locker room?


It's disingenuous of you to want to ignore what he said about a "range" of privacy, and assume that mentioning another law negates his actual wording.

You realize your "paraphrasing" is actually *fabrication* when we can see what he truly stated. 

Also note "an expectation of" isn't the same as "a right to".
Judges are very precise in their wording


----------



## Bearfootfarm

DEKE01 said:


> LOL - *you should have read your cite before posting it. *It backs up the idea that gender = sex in the second paragraph even though the article is as confused and contradictory as a transgendered 6 year old.
> 
> *Biological Gender (sex) includes physical attributes such as external genitalia, sex chromosomes, gonads, sex hormones, and internal reproductive structures. At birth, it is used to assign sex, that is, to identify individuals as male or female.
> 
> Gender on the other hand is far more complicated. It is the complex interrelationship between an individualâs sex (gender biology), oneâs internal sense of self as male, female, both or neither (gender identity) as well as oneâs outward presentations and behaviors (gender expression) related to that perception, including their gender role.
> *
> 
> And I have repeatedly seen gender used by the anti-put-our-kids-at-risk side of this debate in connection with the biology of one's sex/gender. You can argue there is a different definition of the word gender, and I'll agree with you, but that doesn't mean it does not mean sex.
> 
> Gender as something other than biology is a pretense created to justify an agenda.


Evidently you didn't read the entire paragraph where it explained the difference. 
You were too focused on "*biological* gender"


----------



## Elevenpoint

There is no doubt as soon as those pants are dropped.
Male..female.
Not like it is difficult.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> There is no doubt as soon as those pants are dropped.
> Male..female.
> Not like it is difficult.


You're still confusing "sex" with "gender".
Unless you can see through walls, you won't know what's in their pants.

Why not show some examples of all the assaults on kids by transgenders
If they are that dangerous, it shouldn't be hard to find lots of them.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Deja Moo......We had the *same conversation* 6 months ago and the world didn't end:

11/03/15
http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/sp...ool-must-allow-males-female-shower-areas.html


----------



## Irish Pixie

Heritagefarm said:


> Actually I never knew there was a difference. Now I do. Honestly, I actually have no comprehension of how someone could think they're body was incorrect. But then, I have no mental problems. Last time I checked.


Do you believe in god? Please provide proof (tangible) it's not all in your head. Or perhaps belief in a imaginary being is a mental illness? Hmm. Something to think about, eh?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bearfootfarm said:


> Evidently you didn't read the entire paragraph where it explained the difference.
> You were too focused on "*biological* gender"


It was a bit odd to cherry pick bits he thought I had missed, huh? Then oops! That whole reading for comprehension thang. 

Some people have no problem hurting _LGBT_ kids, perhaps because they find them sub-human/inferior/less than straight kids? Why is that so familiar?


----------



## mmoetc

wiscto said:


> It's a question with a dead end. Does it matter which person people feel strongly about if there is no solution? If you respect both feelings equally.....then there is no solution, and all you have is a question. Unless you plan on converting all public restrooms into multiple single serve restrooms, costing the entire country a lot of money, then you have no solution. You're just asking one side to explain themselves, and not the other. And if you're only asking one side, then you have a bias that you aren't addressing.


I'll get to the solution but much of this argument is built in two fallacies that try to equate the two sides. The first is that both sides are acting out of the same emotion, discomfort. It's not discomfort that drives most transgenders to use the bathroom they do. It is a neccessity in their life. They are undergoing a therapy that includes them having to live their lives as their chosen gender. Without doing so for some length of time how do the proceed to the surgery that some say cures all ills and makes them eligible to enter that room? There is also legitimate fear of the reaction a person in a dress will get walking into a men's room or one with a beard in a three piece suit walking into a woman's room will engender. This is what laws will require and will force people to accept. To put discomfort, even discomfort by many, on the same level as these concerns is at best disingenuous and there lies part of the bias you claim to see.

The second fallacy is that both sides are acting equally. Requesting the ability to do something isn't the same as legally banning it. I'll ask you the same question that no one else has answered. If discomfort of others is enough justification to ban them from restrooms who else could be banned because they make enough people uncomfortable? We all deal every day with a great many things about others that make us uncomfortable without advocating for laws that would ban them.

My solution. Both sides need to get over themselves a little bit. The transgendered need to lighten up their stridency in many cases and realize that the other sides feelings are legitimate and important to them. They need to realize that because you can do something doesn't always mean you should. They need to realize and act on the fact that using the unisex or family bathroom is often the best course of action for all. There will always be those that push boundaries and there are always those who will judge all by those boundary pushers. Both are wrong headed. The save our bathrooms crowd needs to realize that laws banning others are a step too far. Five states currently have laws allowing what they would ban and the world hasn't crashed down around them. They need to realize that proposing and passing laws to an an action often only leads to people digging their heels in deeper. Especially laws that are largely unenforcable without violating the very privacy many claim to hold so dear. Both sides need to lighten up and learn to live with one another just as we do every day with so many others. 

Private bathrooms and family restrooms are a good solution and more if the social trend is leading that way without laws mandating them. Or laws mandating who must use which.


----------



## Farmerga

I have a solution to this whole thing. In place of arguing about biological sex vs. Gender identity, how about we create rules, for bathroom use, based on biological sex, since that seem to be the more rigid (no pun intended) quality? 

Or, even better (for everything but government restrooms), let the owner of said facilities make their own rules.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Irish Pixie said:


> Do you believe in god? Please provide proof (tangible) it's not all in your head. Or perhaps belief in a imaginary being is a mental illness? Hmm. Something to think about, eh?


Does a physical instantaneous healing count? I have been there. Was very sick from a diseased gall bladder. Was on the couch in tears in pain. My 3 year old at the time came over and asked me to go out and play. And I told him I couldn't. I was sick. He put his hands on my stomach and asked God to please take the pain away so I could go out and play with him. When he said in Jesus name, amen, my pain instantly left. I sat up like a rocket. First time in 2 months with no pain. That's one of many instances. I have seen a dear friend healed of cancer after given 2 months to live. The doctors at the hospital were so shocked they started attending church and still go to this day. I seen another friend who had life threatening asthma healed after an entire night of church prayer for her. I'm not the only one who had seen these things. Billions around the world have. It's why Jesus has such as following. Other gods have come and gone. But the god of the bible has endured. And believe me. I didn't always feel this way. I drank smoked pot and loved to party with my friends. But when you truly cone to God there is a feeling of completion that is unmatched by anything in the world. That's all the proof any of us ever need. I'm sorry many have never experienced that joy. It's the only true joy there is.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Ah..the good old days.
We had attention deficit disorder back then too.
The principal called your house.
There were no Dr appointments.
Dad had the instant cure.
Oh dad...I think I am a girl really....
Another instant cure.
The good ol days when parents corrected foolishness instantly...no Dr's..no drugs.


----------



## mmoetc

elevenpoint said:


> Ah..the good old days.
> We had attention deficit disorder back then too.
> The principal called your house.
> There were no Dr appointments.
> Dad had the instant cure.
> Oh dad...I think I am a girl really....
> Another instant cure.
> The good ol days when parents corrected foolishness instantly...no Dr's..no drugs.


Yep, the good old days. My best friend in grade school would have been diagnosed with ADD in today's world. A very bright kid who couldn't sit still and focus no matter how he was disciplined at school or at home. He struggled al through school and in a short naval career. When he got out of the navy he continued to struggle until he was diagnosed and put on mild drug therapy. He'll retire shortly as a senior dog handler and trainer for a state police department. A career he never would have had without proper treatment. Who knows what he could have done if treatment was started earlier or what he would have become without it?

The good old days weren't always that good.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Vahomesteaders said:


> Does a physical instantaneous healing count? I have been there. Was very sick from a diseased gall bladder. Was on the couch in tears in pain. My 3 year old at the time came over and asked me to go out and play. And I told him I couldn't. I was sick. He put his hands on my stomach and asked God to please take the pain away so I could go out and play with him. When he said in Jesus name, amen, my pain instantly left. I sat up like a rocket. First time in 2 months with no pain. That's one of many instances. I have seen a dear friend healed of cancer after given 2 months to live. The doctors at the hospital were so shocked they started attending church and still go to this day. I seen another friend who had life threatening asthma healed after an entire night of church prayer for her. I'm not the only one who had seen these things. Billions around the world have. It's why Jesus has such as following. Other gods have come and gone. But the god of the bible has endured. And believe me. I didn't always feel this way. I drank smoked pot and loved to party with my friends. But when you truly cone to God there is a feeling of completion that is unmatched by anything in the world. That's all the proof any of us ever need. I'm sorry many have never experienced that joy. It's the only true joy there is.


Ah, um, big sigh. SMH. Nope. :facepalm:


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Irish Pixie said:


> Ah, um, big sigh. SMH. Nope. :facepalm:


Maybe not to you. But to everyone else it does. Infact with so many believers out numbering the non believers. Atheism could be a mental disorder. Lol


----------



## mmoetc

Vahomesteaders said:


> Does a physical instantaneous healing count? I have been there. Was very sick from a diseased gall bladder. Was on the couch in tears in pain. My 3 year old at the time came over and asked me to go out and play. And I told him I couldn't. I was sick. He put his hands on my stomach and asked God to please take the pain away so I could go out and play with him. When he said in Jesus name, amen, my pain instantly left. I sat up like a rocket. First time in 2 months with no pain. That's one of many instances. I have seen a dear friend healed of cancer after given 2 months to live. The doctors at the hospital were so shocked they started attending church and still go to this day. I seen another friend who had life threatening asthma healed after an entire night of church prayer for her. I'm not the only one who had seen these things. Billions around the world have. It's why Jesus has such as following. Other gods have come and gone. But the god of the bible has endured. And believe me. I didn't always feel this way. I drank smoked pot and loved to party with my friends. But when you truly cone to God there is a feeling of completion that is unmatched by anything in the world. That's all the proof any of us ever need. I'm sorry many have never experienced that joy. It's the only true joy there is.


When it can be repeated in controlled conditions and studies it might. 

There are other religous traditions far older than the bible that endure and claim the same healing powers of faith. The mind is a powerful thing. Believing can cause things to happen. But is it because of the internal power of each mind or some external power? Believe what you will.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Vahomesteaders said:


> Maybe not to you. But to everyone else it does. Infact with so many believers out numbering the non believers. Atheism could be a mental disorder. Lol


I'll bottom line it- why is it perfectly acceptable (not a mental illness) to believe something in your head with no tangible proof as long as it is "god", but not if your head is telling you you are a different gender (considered by some a mental illness)?


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Irish Pixie said:


> I'll bottom line it- why is it perfectly acceptable (not a mental illness) to believe something in your head with no tangible proof as long as it is "god", but not if your head is telling you you are a different gender (considered by some a mental illness)?


Because God can manifest himself in so many ways in one's life without any outside influence. A transgendered has to alter their body both physically and chemically to be something other than what they are. Their bodies are not broken. They are perfectly functioning bodies. Able to produce and carry children. So there is no natural reason to mutilate it and change it. All the evidence points to them being what they were born and they should exist as such. There have been several large studied on the mental health of believers. It's proven that belief is far better both physically and mentally over non believe. Less depression faster healing times, longer happier lifespans. Where as transgender especially after surgery shortens the life span of those who do. There is no good physical benefits associated with. It is bad both physically and mentally for those who choose it.


----------



## DEKE01

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's disingenuous of you to want to ignore what he said about a "range" of privacy, and assume that mentioning another law negates his actual wording.
> 
> You realize your "paraphrasing" is actually *fabrication* when we can see what he truly stated.
> 
> Also note "an expectation of" isn't the same as "a right to".
> Judges are very precise in their wording


Please see my prior message about right and expectation to privacy. You are still getting it wrong so you don't understand why he used expectation in that sense. And you don't seem to understand the plain language of his words why there is a range. As the concept is in law, the judge correctly said there is a range, it matters based on place, time, and circumstances.


----------



## DEKE01

Bearfootfarm said:


> Evidently you didn't read the entire paragraph where it explained the difference.
> You were too focused on "*biological* gender"


it is a biased source, and give it as much credibility as Irish Pixie would give me if I cited Michele Bachmann. However, it says what it says. It tries to make a distinction but it clearly equates gender and sex on the basis of biology, which has been the contention of several within this thread.


----------



## DEKE01

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're still confusing "sex" with "gender".
> Unless you can see through walls, you won't know what's in their pants.
> 
> Why not show some examples of all the assaults on kids by transgenders
> If they are that dangerous, it shouldn't be hard to find lots of them.


you're creating a strawman. The issue isn't transgenders assaulting kids, it is men in the girl's locker room. These men may or may not be transgenders, you can't really tell at all times. By misrepresenting the argument, you implicitly admit you can't defend your position against the real argument.


----------



## farmrbrown

Vahomesteaders said:


> Does a physical instantaneous healing count? I have been there. Was very sick from a diseased gall bladder. Was on the couch in tears in pain. My 3 year old at the time came over and asked me to go out and play. And I told him I couldn't. I was sick. He put his hands on my stomach and asked God to please take the pain away so I could go out and play with him. When he said in Jesus name, amen, my pain instantly left. I sat up like a rocket. First time in 2 months with no pain. That's one of many instances. I have seen a dear friend healed of cancer after given 2 months to live. The doctors at the hospital were so shocked they started attending church and still go to this day. I seen another friend who had life threatening asthma healed after an entire night of church prayer for her. I'm not the only one who had seen these things. Billions around the world have. It's why Jesus has such as following. Other gods have come and gone. But the god of the bible has endured. And believe me. I didn't always feel this way. I drank smoked pot and loved to party with my friends. But when you truly cone to God there is a feeling of completion that is unmatched by anything in the world. That's all the proof any of us ever need. I'm sorry many have never experienced that joy. It's the only true joy there is.



I was going to tell you not to bother, no matter what anyone can say or show, there are some who will never accept any proof or evidence as being credible, not even if God Himself offered it in person.
And don't bother offering stats that 84% of the world believes in a deity, when the transgender population discussed is less than 1%, that will be dismissed as well.

You just have to accept that our beliefs are viewed as ridiculous and contemptible, and have been to some, throughout history.
Your post was full of joy, love, faith and merciful healing.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Vahomesteaders said:


> Because God can manifest himself in so many ways in one's life without any outside influence. A transgendered has to alter their body both physically and chemically to be something other than what they are. Their bodies are not broken. They are perfectly functioning bodies. Able to produce and carry children. So there is no natural reason to mutilate it and change it. All the evidence points to them being what they were born and they should exist as such. There have been several large studied on the mental health of believers. It's proven that belief is far better both physically and mentally over non believe. Less depression faster healing times, longer happier lifespans. Where as transgender especially after surgery shortens the life span of those who do. There is no good physical benefits associated with. It is bad both physically and mentally for those who choose it.


No, god doesn't manifest himself in any way- that's the entire point of faith isn't it? There is no proof that god exists, none. 

You don't get to choose what other people do, dress, act, say, etc... The fact that you think that transgenderism is either imaginary or not healthy is simply not irrelevant.


----------



## Irish Pixie

OP edited and corrected himself.


----------



## dixiegal62

If someone wants to believe in God it's fine as long as they're not forcing you to kneel and pray with them. If someone wants to believe they're a different sex than what they where born with its fine as long as they're not forcing you to undress with them.
You can't have it both ways, either you can force someone to participate in what you believe or you can't. Which one is it?


----------



## farmrbrown

Yes, I find the use of abbreviations hard to keep up with at times, lol.

On another thread, the only post was a weird, 4 letter abbreviation I never heard of before that I had to google, otherwise I would have been clueless to what was being asked, and I think the poster who it was directed to, either never knew it, or just didn't bother to answer when they finally figured it out.:shrug:


----------



## mmoetc

A little light reading about penises. It doesn't explain why they're so important to some here but that's another discussion. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-do-boys-have-wieners/


----------



## Heritagefarm

Vahomesteaders said:


> Maybe not to you. But to everyone else it does. Infact with so many believers out numbering the non believers. Atheism could be a mental disorder. Lol


Well, most Americans say America has declining morality. We've also got more atheists now. Maybe we should stick those two things together and blame all the atheists. We could even through them in jail. We love throwing people in jail here, do it to just about everyone. It's probably a miracle our "super-tolerant" society hasn't thrown all the trains in prison before.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Irish Pixie said:


> Do you believe in god? Please provide proof (tangible) it's not all in your head. Or perhaps belief in a imaginary being is a mental illness? Hmm. Something to think about, eh?


Nope. What I believe in is closer to a Great Spirit of sorts, like what Native Americans believed in. But he/she has never spoken to me, so I've got no way of knowing. I'll let you know after I take some LSD.



Irish Pixie said:


> It was a bit odd to cherry pick bits he thought I had missed, huh? Then oops! That whole reading for comprehension thang.
> 
> Some people have no problem hurting _LGBT_ kids, perhaps because they find them sub-human/inferior/less than straight kids? Why is that so familiar?


They're obviously anamolous, so why not? Some people still want to do it to blacks. Arguably, race is declining anyways with all the intermarrying. WE may soon just all be brown!


----------



## Irish Pixie

mmoetc said:


> A little light reading about penises. It doesn't explain why they're so important to some here but that's another discussion. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-do-boys-have-wieners/


That was excellent, thank you. 

My then 3 year old granddaughter on seeing her newborn brother's penis- 
"Eww. It looks like a vaginia (pronounced va gi nee a) with a purple rope." 

That will be told at family parties until the end of time.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Heritagefarm said:


> Well, most Americans say America has declining morality. We've also got more atheists now. Maybe we should stick those two things together and blame all the atheists. We could even through them in jail. We love throwing people in jail here, do it to just about everyone. It's probably a miracle our "super-tolerant" society hasn't thrown all the trains in prison before.


We are declining in morality. Christians are declining as well. Coincidence? The youth of today care far more about self pleasure and indulgence than a good moral code. People care more about what's a hot emotional social topic than what the negative outcome and potential negative outcomes may be. They use emotion instead of common sense. In the last decade psychiatric therapy patients have grown by as much as 88% over the previous decade. What's wrong with everyone? Why are so many facing emotional challenges? Is because the youth are being raised in a backwards society where what is unnatural is pushed as natural and their minds can't handle it. It's total confusion. Magazine covers show the perfect body that most can't achieve. People have lost touch with their roots and thus lost touch with themselves and reality. They love in a uncertain world where you never know what the next "it" thing will be and how you ate going to cope with it. Life has no value because it has no meaning. Your just here by accident and you die only to be forgotten. Babies killed before they even have a chance. So no wonder there are so many confused people out there.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Heritagefarm said:


> Nope. What I believe in is closer to a Great Spirit of sorts, like what Native Americans believed in. But he/she has never spoken to me, so I've got no way of knowing. I'll let you know after I take some LSD.
> 
> 
> 
> They're obviously anamolous, so why not? Some people still want to do it to blacks. Arguably, race is declining anyways with all the intermarrying. WE may soon just all be brown!


Or peyote? I do like the American Indian beliefs. 

Discrimination never truly ends, and the same people rarely discriminate against just one type of person.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Vahomesteaders said:


> We are declining in morality. Christians are declining as well. Coincidence? The youth of today care far more about self pleasure and indulgence than a good moral code. People care more about what's a hot emotional social topic than what the negative outcome and potential negative outcomes may be. They use emotion instead of common sense. In the last decade psychiatric therapy patients have grown by as much as 88% over the previous decade. What's wrong with everyone? Why are so many facing emotional challenges? Is because the youth are being raised in a backwards society where what is unnatural is pushed as natural and their minds can't handle it. It's total confusion. Magazine covers show the perfect body that most can't achieve. People have lost touch with their roots and thus lost touch with themselves and reality. They love in a uncertain world where you never know what the next "it" thing will be and how you ate going to cope with it. Life has no value because it has no meaning. Your just here by accident and you die only to be forgotten. Babies killed before they even have a chance. So no wonder there are so many confused people out there.


I blame our affluence. We're on the tail end of our greatness. We think our way is better because we got the the top-top-top in global power and wealth. China may soon show us up, though, and they're communists! 
But I don't blame losing God. Native Americans lived in harmony with each other and the nature for centuries before Christians showed up and ruined everything.


----------



## TripleD

Heritagefarm said:


> I blame our affluence. We're on the tail end of our greatness. We think our way is better because we got the the top-top-top in global power and wealth. China may soon show us up, though, and they're communists!
> But I don't blame losing God. Native Americans lived in harmony with each other and the nature for centuries before Christians showed up and ruined everything.


What no war or killing between the tribes ? No murder, rape or theft ? Just blame in on the new people. That sounds like discrimination....


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Let's not play this game again
> It's redundant
> 
> 
> You know what I said is true, and pretending the only time involved is the time it takes to type is pretty lame. You even admitted already that you "keep track" of them
> 
> You remind me of Gladys Kravitz on Bewitched, spying on the neighbors and talking about them behind their backs because "something strange is going on"


No, what you said is incorrect. Except for this thread I have only spoke of them in maybe 3 or 4 other posts, you say that it is more, prove it, otherwise go on to something else. I "keep track" of what? My posts? Don't be foolish, this is not that important to keep track of.

Now you want to try to insult me using Gladys K. from Bewitched? Go away.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Heritagefarm said:


> I blame our affluence. We're on the tail end of our greatness. We think our way is better because we got the the top-top-top in global power and wealth. China may soon show us up, though, and they're communists!
> But I don't blame losing God. Native Americans lived in harmony with each other and the nature for centuries before Christians showed up and ruined everything.


Native Americans wared all the time. And they had an entire country to share amongst maybe a few million Indians. And they couldn't all get along. Interesting enough they had a story of the great flood and a great spirit creating the earth. Very spiritual people they were.


----------



## Irish Pixie

This has been popping up on my Facebook feed, yes I know it's anecdotal:

I shared a bathroom with a transgender woman today. I had my 3 babies, a duffel sized diaper bag, 2 dirty diapers and 0 patience. I also had 0 handguns and my husband, a voting republican, was certainly not there. Do you know what ghastly things happened to me? She handed me my wipes when I dropped them off the table. She had the audacity to smile at me and tell me that my children are beautiful. Then she proceeded to act all nonchalant and walk in a stall to do her business. Crazy right! You know what didn't happen? I didn't get molested! I wasn't grabbed inappropriately, and I actually didn't feel scared! Using a bathroom at a gas station with no door makes me feel scared. Using a bathroom at a drive in movie theatre puts me in a compromising situation. Using the bathroom with a transgender woman (who has been victimized the better part of her life I am sure!) who APOLOGIZED TO ME FOR POTENTIALLY MAKING ME UNCOMFORTABLE didn't scare me at all, though? I have cried for her, to her, and about her all afternoon. People! Your wives and daughters aren't safe in a public restroom as it is! If you believe that criminals obey the law, then I am certain you're voting to abolish guns for the protection of your
family, too? Right? Wait.... Use your common sense, stay alert, and be so cautious of your surroundings, but especially of your words. If you put your hate out into the world, it might just turn around and be your little boy who decides that he is a woman one day. Stop the hate!


----------



## no really

I really enjoy the reading about the Olmec, Aztec and the Maya, you can gain a very good understanding of early indigenous Americans. Many records of religious practices, forms of government and social structures.


----------



## Heritagefarm

mmoetc said:


> A little light reading about penises. It doesn't explain why they're so important to some here but that's another discussion. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-do-boys-have-wieners/


One study I read a while back said it was probably parasites that encouraged the evolution of sexual reproduction in the first place. According to their computer sim, asexual reproduction produced enough diversity. But the diversity created by two gametes from the same parent are obviously not as great as a gamete from both parents.


----------



## Shine

no really said:


> I really enjoy the reading about the Olmec, Aztec and the Maya, you can gain a very good understanding of early indigenous Americans. Many records of religious practices, forms of government and social structures.


The Hopi Indians in the Four Corners area have a "Jesus" figure in their historical stories, stories carried by the Anasazi [Ancient Ones] that are fascinating in their telling. It is indeed odd that so many people like the way that the indians lived but cast scorn on the spiritual side of this life...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Vahomesteaders said:


> *Does a physical instantaneous healing count? *I have been there. Was very sick from a diseased gall bladder. Was on the couch in tears in pain. My 3 year old at the time came over and asked me to go out and play. And I told him I couldn't. I was sick. He put his hands on my stomach and asked God to please take the pain away so I could go out and play with him. When he said in Jesus name, amen, my pain instantly left. I sat up like a rocket. First time in 2 months with no pain. That's one of many instances. I have seen a dear friend healed of cancer after given 2 months to live. The doctors at the hospital were so shocked they started attending church and still go to this day. I seen another friend who had life threatening asthma healed after an entire night of church prayer for her. I'm not the only one who had seen these things. Billions around the world have. It's why Jesus has such as following. Other gods have come and gone. But the god of the bible has endured. And believe me. I didn't always feel this way. I drank smoked pot and loved to party with my friends. But when you truly cone to God there is a feeling of completion that is unmatched by anything in the world. That's all the proof any of us ever need. I'm sorry many have never experienced that joy. It's the only true joy there is.


That's anecdotal evidence, which only proves what you *"believe"* happened.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Vahomesteaders said:


> Maybe not to you. But *to everyone else* it does. Infact with so many *believers out numbering the non believers*. Atheism could be a mental disorder. Lol


The majority of the world doesn't believe the same things you do, and most of them will insist their way is the only "true" way.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

DEKE01 said:


> Please see my prior message about right and expectation to privacy. You are still getting it wrong so you don't understand why he used expectation in that sense. And you don't seem to understand the plain language of his words why there is a range. As the concept is in law, the judge correctly said *there is a range*, it matters based on place, time, and circumstances.


That's what I said, and that range includes "none", which you want to ignore.
There's no need to keep repeating yourself


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> No, what you said is incorrect. Except for this thread *I have only spoke of them in maybe 3 or 4 other posts,* you say that it is more, prove it, otherwise go on to something else. I "keep track" of what? My posts? Don't be foolish, this is not that important to keep track of.
> 
> Now you want to try to insult me using Gladys K. from Bewitched?


So now you're confirming exactly what I stated, in that you have mentioned them multiple times on multiple threads



> Go away.


"If you want to control the content, buy the forum" is what you once told me.



> I "keep track" of what?


Evidently not much since most of your posts are full of these types of questions signifying you don't understand what was said :shrug:
Go back and read things again if you're confused.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> So now you're confirming exactly what I stated, in that you have mentioned them multiple times on multiple threads
> 
> 
> "If you want to control the content, buy the forum" is what you once told me.
> 
> 
> Evidently not much since most of your posts are full of these types of questions signifying you don't understand what was said :shrug:
> Go back and read things again if you're confused.


You are becoming more and more foolish as this progresses. NEVER did I say that I have NOT posted about Transgendered people. 

You wouldn't have a point to all of this would you?

It is exactly what I said - I mentioned them two or three times - what does that have to do with anything, come on - make a point. Let's move on - this has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand, it is just more of your petty bickering.

...as far as buying the forum, you would not be happy if you bought your own forum, it would only have posts in it that mirror your ideology. You know, kind of dull...

Why don't you put me on ignore if you have such animosity towards me?


----------



## Shine

Here is the stupid post that you are referring to, tell me where I am PRETENDING to have never posted before.

Start Paste:
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Shine*  
_...now that right there is a bunch of assumptions. 

In our particular community, some of what they do is my business. All told, *I've spoke about them for maybe 3 posts*,. Yes, they know that I pay attention to what they are doing. 

How long do you imagine that it would take to type three posts? Is that what you consider a "long time"?

Like I asked before, it seems that by the way you are able to bring up posts that are from some time ago, it is obvious that you "store" bits and pieces of information on certain or maybe all posters, can you share whether or not that you compile information regarding what people post?_

You've spoken of them multiple times in multiple threads over a long period of time. Don't pretend this is the first time you've spoken about them. 
End Paste.

Put up or shut up.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> You are becoming more and more foolish as this progresses. NEVER did I say that I have NOT posted about Transgendered people.
> 
> You wouldn't have a point to all of this would you?
> 
> It is exactly what I said - I mentioned them two or three times - what does that have to do with anything, come on -* make a point.* Let's move on - this has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand, it is just more of your *petty bickering.*
> 
> ...as far as buying the forum, you would not be happy if you bought your own forum, it would only have posts in it that mirror your ideology. You know, kind of dull...
> 
> Why don't you put me on ignore if you have such *animosity towards me*?


And there's the victim card, right on cue.

I clearly made the point already and here you are wanting it repeated yet again.
Go back and read the posts already there and figure it out



> this has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand


I'm pretty sure your *comments about transgenders* have everything to do with this topic:



> Appeals Court Rules on Transgender Bathrooms





> Put up or shut up.


I already did, and you've already confirmed exactly what I said.
You just can't seem to figure it all out


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> This has been popping up on my Facebook feed, yes I know it's anecdotal:
> 
> I shared a bathroom with a transgender woman today. I had my 3 babies, a duffel sized diaper bag, 2 dirty diapers and 0 patience. I also had 0 handguns and my husband, a voting republican, was certainly not there. Do you know what ghastly things happened to me? She handed me my wipes when I dropped them off the table. She had the audacity to smile at me and tell me that my children are beautiful. Then she proceeded to act all nonchalant and walk in a stall to do her business. Crazy right! You know what didn't happen? I didn't get molested! I wasn't grabbed inappropriately, and I actually didn't feel scared! Using a bathroom at a gas station with no door makes me feel scared. Using a bathroom at a drive in movie theatre puts me in a compromising situation. Using the bathroom with a transgender woman (who has been victimized the better part of her life I am sure!) who APOLOGIZED TO ME FOR POTENTIALLY MAKING ME UNCOMFORTABLE didn't scare me at all, though? I have cried for her, to her, and about her all afternoon. People! Your wives and daughters aren't safe in a public restroom as it is! If you believe that criminals obey the law, then I am certain you're voting to abolish guns for the protection of your
> family, too? Right? Wait.... Use your common sense, stay alert, and be so cautious of your surroundings, but especially of your words. If you put your hate out into the world, it might just turn around and be your little boy who decides that he is a woman one day. Stop the hate!



That's a neat story and I happen to agree that this is really an overblown issue, public bathrooms about as safe or unsafe as they've always been.

The shower/locker room situation might need some minor attention, but this too shall pass.

And I don't mind at all that it's "anecdotal"............. 



> That's anecdotal evidence, which only proves what you *"believe"* happened.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're still confusing "sex" with "gender".
> Unless you can see through walls, you won't know what's in their pants.
> 
> Why not show some examples of all the assaults on kids by transgenders
> If they are that dangerous, it shouldn't be hard to find lots of them.


Not cufused in the least bit.
I know what a boy and girl are and the difference.
Everybody does.
Same wordsmith b.s. that gets injected into abortion discussions.
Can call sex..gender..anything anybody wants. 
Still false at the end of the day.
Having a difficult time actually believing adults...much less children over the age of 6..don't know this.
Agenda driven lives lead to blindness.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Vahomesteaders said:


> Native Americans wared all the time. And they had an entire country to share amongst maybe a few million Indians. And they couldn't all get along. Interesting enough they had a story of the great flood and a great spirit creating the earth. Very spiritual people they were.


Oh, and while we're at, it looks like someone bit the "the Indians were crazy savages and the Christians had to purify them" bait line.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> I already did, and you've already confirmed exactly what I said.
> You just can't seem to figure it all out



Again you dissemble. What's Trump calling that other politician??? Maybe we could use some of that here...


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> I clearly made the point already and here you are wanting it repeated yet again. No, I'd just like to hear it for the FIRST TIME
> 
> 
> Go back and read the posts already there and figure it out Don't need to - you haven't even done what you said that you've done unless you edited a post and want people to think that you are an honest person.


You are really something... never seen anything like the way you operate.

Oh wait... you're not a politician are you?


----------



## Shine

Really, who are the confused people here? Those that look at a person with male genitalia and then want to disregard what they SEE and call that person a female?

Yup, that's gonna be a doctor's visit for sure.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Really, *who are the confused people here?* Those that look at a person with male genitalia and then want to disregard what they SEE and call that person a female?
> 
> Yup, that's gonna be a doctor's visit for sure.


You seem to be the one asking the most questions, even when the answers have already been given.



> Don't need to - *you haven't even done what you said that you've done* unless you edited a post and want people to think that you are an honest person.


More evidence of confusion.

I don't need to edit anything since you are the only one who seems to have so much trouble understanding what I said

Go back and read it slowly, and pay attention to the exact words.
It really shouldn't be confusing


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> You've spoken of them multiple times in multiple threads over a long period of time. Don't pretend this is the first time you've spoken about them.





Shine said:


> You are becoming more and more foolish as this progresses. NEVER did I say that I have NOT posted about Transgendered people.
> 
> You wouldn't have a point to all of this would you?
> 
> It is exactly what I said - I mentioned them two or three times - what does that have to do with anything, come on - make a point. Let's move on - this has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand, it is just more of your petty bickering.
> 
> ...as far as buying the forum, you would not be happy if you bought your own forum, it would only have posts in it that mirror your ideology. You know, kind of dull...
> 
> Why don't you put me on ignore if you have such animosity towards me?



Unfortunately Shine, he's right again..........
Webster's defines "multiple" as more than one.

And you've referenced the ones you know twice, in two threads........including this one.

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/ge...-males-female-shower-areas-6.html#post7583481


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> You've spoken of them multiple times in multiple threads over a long period of time. Don't pretend this is the first time you've spoken about them.





Shine said:


> You are becoming more and more foolish as this progresses. NEVER did I say that I have NOT posted about Transgendered people.
> 
> You wouldn't have a point to all of this would you?
> 
> It is exactly what I said - I mentioned them two or three times - what does that have to do with anything, come on - make a point. Let's move on - this has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand, it is just more of your petty bickering.
> 
> ...as far as buying the forum, you would not be happy if you bought your own forum, it would only have posts in it that mirror your ideology. You know, kind of dull...
> 
> Why don't you put me on ignore if you have such animosity towards me?



Unfortunately Shine, he's right again..........
Webster's defines "multiple" as more than one.

And you've referenced the ones you know twice, in two threads........including this one.

This is the other one.


http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/ge...-males-female-shower-areas-6.html#post7583481


(I didn't check the definition of "long time", we'll have to take his word it means 5 months.)


----------



## Shine

I really do not see where this is going. I said I mentioned them a few times before and he blows up on me as if I am pretending something. Anyone got any idea what his purpose is???


----------



## coolrunnin

Shine said:


> I really do not see where this is going. I said I mentioned them a few times before and he blows up on me as if I am pretending something. Anyone got any idea what his purpose is???


Its his version of entertainment and you dive right in every time.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Shine said:


> I really do not see where this is going. I said I mentioned them a few times before and he blows up on me as if I am pretending something. Anyone got any idea what his purpose is???


To draw out the argument as long as possible.


----------



## farmrbrown

Yep, you nailed it.
It's not much better when you agree with a post, quoting it will still elicit a criticism of some kind.:shrug:


----------



## Heritagefarm

farmrbrown said:


> Yep, you nailed it.
> It's not much better when you agree with a post, quoting it will still elicit a criticism of some kind.:shrug:


It's like trying to pet a porcupine.


----------



## DEKE01

Shine said:


> I really do not see where this is going. I said I mentioned them a few times before and he blows up on me as if I am pretending something. Anyone got any idea what his purpose is???


Just to be argumentative. That why they introduce distractions like attacks on religion in general, misrepresent a judges words, change the debate to discussions of gender and acceptance of transsexuals, When all this is about is the safety of children. 

More off topic comments to follow.


----------



## Shine

OK... I give up then. He wins. I'll go get the Gold Star to stick on my monitor when I read his posts...


----------



## mmoetc

DEKE01 said:


> Just to be argumentative. That why they introduce distractions like attacks on religion in general, misrepresent a judges words, change the debate to discussions of gender and acceptance of transsexuals, When all this is about is the safety of children.
> 
> More off topic agreements to follow.


If it was about safety you could prove transgender people pose a danger. I haven't seen one story outlining the abuse they commit on youths. I can show you many stories of coaches and and other adults abusing athletes and students. 
http://www.abuseandassault.com/Abuse_Youth_Sports. If you're truly worried you should keep your kids away from coaches. 

You started your argument by saying the reason for not allowing a transgender youth in the locker room was because it made your daughter uncomfortable to undress in front of such a person. I asked who else should be banned because of your daughters discomfort. Rather than answering , you're not alone in that, you shifted to some vague danger of which you have not offered proof. So again because you feel there is a danger laws must be written. Laws should govern actions, not feelings.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> *I really do not see where this is going*. I said I mentioned them a few times before and he blows up on me as if I am pretending something. Anyone got any idea what his purpose is???


That's what I said too



> OK... I give up then. He wins. I'll go get the Gold Star to stick on my monitor when I read his posts...


No one is forcing you to read anything.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

DEKE01 said:


> *Just to be argumentative.* That why they introduce distractions like attacks on religion in general, misrepresent a judges words, change the debate to discussions of gender and acceptance of transsexuals, When all this is about is the safety of children.
> 
> More off topic agreements to follow.


And no one else ever does that, huh? 

Everyone needs to get real and stop whining over every little thing.
Stick to the topic instead of playing martyr all the time, and don't hide bigotry behind religious quotes


----------



## Shine

mmoetc said:


> If it was about safety you could prove transgender people pose a danger.


The danger is cited in the first post where the transgendered people are a danger unto themselves. Suicide at a 20% greater risk than the norm.

Or should that be ignored?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> The danger is cited in the first post where the *transgendered people are a danger* unto themselves. Suicide at a 20% greater risk than the norm.
> 
> Or should that be ignored?


Catholic priests are more dangerous to others than transgenders

I posted a study that suggested suicide rates are higher due to persecution from people like you who won't mind their own business


----------



## mmoetc

Shine said:


> The danger is cited in the first post where the transgendered people are a danger unto themselves. Suicide at a 20% greater risk than the norm.
> 
> Or should that be ignored?


That's some interesting logic and your supposed concern is touching but it doesn't appear that that is what the poster in question is worried about. He has repeatedly expressed the worry that men bent on doing some harm will flood female lockerrooms in the guise of being transsexuals posing a threat to his daughter and others. A threat that only seems to exist in his and others minds as no one has, as of yet , brought forth one citation of any such thing happening.

I am concerned about the suicide rate. Part of that concern had to do with what laws and attitudes painting all transexuals as some sort of threat might have on those going through such treatments.


----------



## Heritagefarm

mmoetc said:


> That's some interesting logic and your supposed concern is touching but it doesn't appear that that is what the poster in question is worried about. He has repeatedly expressed the worry that men bent on doing some harm will flood female lockerrooms in the guise of being transsexuals posing a threat to his daughter and others. A threat that only seems to exist in his and others minds as no one has, as of yet , brought forth one citation of any such thing happening.


Absence of evidence of risk is not evidence of absence of risk.


----------



## mmoetc

Heritagefarm said:


> Absence of evidence of risk is not evidence of absence of risk.


Thats a wonderful thought in the abstract but really quite useless in the real world. If you're going to make rules and write laws to prohibit an activity based on the idea that such an activity is risky it is incumbent that you show the activity is in fact risky, not that you just think it might be. I can show the actual risk of allowing adult male coaches to interact with underage females. Should such interactions be banned by law? I can speculate that almost any human interaction comes with some danger. Which others should be banned without evidence that they pose a real, significant risk.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

The bigger picture of all of this nonsense leads to acceptance. And little by little it will lead to the acceptance of Beastyality and Pediafilia because THAT isn't a choice either, they were born that way so we should give them special slack :facepalm:


----------



## Heritagefarm

mmoetc said:


> Thats a wonderful thought in the abstract but really quite useless in the real world. If you're going to make rules and write laws to prohibit an activity based on the idea that such an activity is risky it is incumbent that you show the activity is in fact risky, not that you just think it might be. I can show the actual risk of allowing adult male coaches to interact with underage females. Should such interactions be banned by law? I can speculate that almost any human interaction comes with some danger. Which others should be banned without evidence that they pose a real, significant risk.


You have a point. I'm not advocating any laws, just pointing out that's there isn't necessarily no harm. Personally, I think a unisex restroom is in order.


----------



## oth47

I'm personally surprised at the number of women who claim they don't mind a man sharing the bathroom with them..not necessarily a transgender,but a man claiming to be one.


----------



## Shine

The single-occupancy uni-sex bathroom/shower seems to answer the questions posed by this dilemma where these style bathrooms/showers are all that are offered to those who need to use them. 

The only thing that is manageable in this current situation is to find some way to convince those that have not yet "become" the other sex is that the single-occupancy bathroom/shower is the "short term" answer. 

If they refuse and the Feds push the requirement then I would suggest that ALL schools stop Physical Education and all Sports which require disrobing/changing clothes/showering. 

There now, everyone benefits. <sarc off>

You cannot cause harm to one person to alleviate a perceived harm that another complains of.


----------



## DEKE01

mmoetc said:


> If it was about safety you could prove transgender people pose a danger. I haven't seen one story outlining the abuse they commit on youths. I can show you many stories of coaches and and other adults abusing athletes and students.
> http://www.abuseandassault.com/Abuse_Youth_Sports. If you're truly worried you should keep your kids away from coaches.
> 
> You started your argument by saying the reason for not allowing a transgender youth in the locker room was because it made your daughter uncomfortable to undress in front of such a person. I asked who else should be banned because of your daughters discomfort. Rather than answering , you're not alone in that, you shifted to some vague danger of which you have not offered proof. So again because you feel there is a danger laws must be written. Laws should govern actions, not feelings.


It doesn't matter that it is transgender, it matters that it is a man in a girls locker room.


----------



## DEKE01

Bearfootfarm said:


> Catholic priests are more dangerous to others than transgenders
> 
> /QUOTE]
> 
> Which is why I don't want priests in the girls locker room either. He is still a man.


----------



## Irish Pixie

oth47 said:


> I'm personally surprised at the number of women who claim they don't mind a man sharing the bathroom with them..not necessarily a transgender,but a man claiming to be one.


Women's bathrooms have stalls, it's not like standing at a urinal. If a cis man wants to dress like a woman to see women washing their hands and putting on makeup, it's just not a big deal to me.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> The bigger picture of all of this nonsense leads to acceptance. And little by little it will lead to the acceptance of *Beastyality and Pediafilia* because THAT isn't a choice either, they were born that way so we should give them special slack :facepalm:


Bestiality and Pedophilia are already illegal in most places due to the inability of one party to give consent. 

That's not likely to change, and really has little to do with transgenders being able to choose the facilities they use.

Many want to overlook the reality that they are now and long have been doing it in most restrooms anyway

There's also the fact there are so few of them the odds of being in a room with one are almost non-existent.

How many did everyone see anywhere today, this week, this month....?

I'm guessing for most the answer is none, going back as far as you can remember. (not counting pictures on the internet)


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> *You cannot cause harm to one person to alleviate a perceived harm that another complains of.*


That's exactly what you want to do


----------



## Heritagefarm

And what about "trans" boys in the girl's locker room? Sorry, but this may be where I draw my line.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

Bearfootfarm said:


> Bestiality and Pedophilia are already illegal in most places due to the inability of one party to give consent.
> 
> That's not likely to change, and really has little to do with transgenders being able to choose the facilities they use.


So was Homosexuality...perceptions about it changed over time too.
If you will recall, homosexuals started demanding their rights and being open
with parades, and and the like and the left leaning powers that be started and still today do things to manipulate acceptance.


----------



## mmoetc

DEKE01 said:


> It doesn't matter that it is transgender, it matters that it is a man in a girls locker room.


Aren't words wonderful tools to paint a picture? It matters greatly that the person involved is transgender. In the case the court ruled on we also aren't talking about a man. We're talking about a transgender adolescent the exact same age as the girls you worry about. Yet you refer to that person with the adult discriptive and the other students involved with the juvenile. Paints a slightly more threatening picture, no? Rather than dealing with facts it plucks emotional strings. I notice you say nothing of women in boys locker rooms. Not quite so threatening and the fuel of many an adolescent fantasy so no quite such an emotionally charged atmosphere.

Maybe you should take a look at the picture of the young person involved in this court case. If you passed her on the street you wouldn't say she was a man. If you saw her walking into the men's room you'd likely question if she misread the sign. She's been going to school dressed as a girl , has been addressed and treated as a girl by family, friends , teachers and administrators, and has undergone hormone treatments that have softened her features and started the transition to manifesting female secondary sexual characteristics. This is the girl you would call a man and force to enter a men's locker room. (See what I did there?). No real concern about that scenario?

Again your response answered no questions about who else you might fear or provided any proof of the danger you cite as the neccessity for laws. But again, you're not alone in that.


----------



## Irish Pixie

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> The bigger picture of all of this nonsense leads to acceptance. And little by little it will lead to the acceptance of Beastyality and Pediafilia because THAT isn't a choice either, they were born that way so we should give them special slack :facepalm:


You do realize that based research the majority pedophiles and beastophiles are heterosexual white men, right? Neither will ever be legal because children and animals can't consent. 

The research shows that serial killers and sadists are born with the predilection. Do you also think murder and assault will become acceptable? 

Would you ever find any of the referenced acts acceptable? I know I won't.


----------



## Irish Pixie

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> So was Homosexuality...perceptions about it changed over time too.
> If you will recall, homosexuals started demanding their rights and being open
> with parades, and and the like and the left leaning powers that be started and still today do things to manipulate acceptance.


Yes, LGBT demanded that they be able to sit at the lunch counter, use all drinking fountains, the same bathrooms, and go to the better schools. This is no different, discrimination is discrimination. LGBT fought for equal standing.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mmoetc said:


> Aren't words wonderful tools to paint a picture? It matters greatly that the person involved is transgender. In the case the court ruled on we also aren't talking about a man. We're talking about a transgender adolescent the exact same age as the girls you worry about. Yet you refer to that person with the adult discriptive and the other students involved with the juvenile. Paints a slightly more threatening picture, no? Rather than dealing with facts it plucks emotional strings. I notice you say nothing of women in boys locker rooms. Not quite so threatening and the fuel of many an adolescent fantasy so no quite such an emotionally charged atmosphere.
> 
> Maybe you should take a look at the picture of the young person involved in this court case. If you passed her on the street you wouldn't say she was a man. If you saw her walking into the men's room you'd likely question if she misread the sign. She's been going to school dressed as a girl , has been addressed and treated as a girl by family, friends , teachers and administrators, and has undergone hormone treatments that have softened her features and started the transition to manifesting female secondary sexual characteristics. This is the girl you would call a man and force to enter a men's locker room. (See what I did there?). No real concern about that scenario?
> 
> Again your response answered no questions about who else you might fear or provided any proof of the danger you cite as the neccessity for laws. But again, you're not alone in that.


The truth is not nearly inflammatory as needed, and the part about the transgender teen dressing as their real (for lack of a better word) gender isn't nearly alarming enough. Not to mention that hormone treatment is a very good indicator that the young person is dedicated to the transition.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

Irish Pixie said:


> You do realize that based research the majority pedophiles and beastophiles are heterosexual white men, right? Neither will ever be legal because children and animals can't consent.
> 
> The research shows that serial killers and sadists are born with the predilection. Do you also think murder and assault will become acceptable?
> 
> Would you ever find any of the referenced acts acceptable? I know I won't.


Yes,but is still deviant behavior. Research NAMBLA
To an extent it is..Justifiable Homicide, as a whole no.
No, but that doesn't mean there aren't powerful groups that want to push the "Harmony in a world of difference" mantra. on the rest of us.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

Irish Pixie said:


> Yes, LGBT demanded that they be able to sit at the lunch counter, use all drinking fountains, the same bathrooms, and go to the better schools. This is no different, discrimination is discrimination. LGBT fought for equal standing.


I disagree. There shouldn't be discrimination for what you mentioned. But what is happening is a push of a minority, liberal, point of view upon the majority populace that doesn't see it that way.


----------



## Irish Pixie

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> Yes,but is still deviant behavior. Research NAMBLA
> To an extent it is..Justifiable Homicide, as a whole no.
> No, but that doesn't mean there aren't powerful groups that want to push the "Harmony in a world of difference" mantra. on the rest of us.


NAMBLA is a "powerful" pedophile group, it was founded in the 70s, so how is being accepted working out for them? 

Did you know that oral sex is classified as sodomy, and considered (by some) to be deviant behavior?

Lumping LGBT in with bestiality and pedophilia is simply wrong. The majority of LGBT are _just people_ that happen to find the same sex attractive.


----------



## Irish Pixie

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> I disagree. There shouldn't be discrimination for what you mentioned. But what is happening is a push of a minority, liberal, point of view upon the majority populace that doesn't see it that way.


C'mon. The same thing happened in the 50s and 60s with blacks, didn't it? My example is perfectly on point. You may not want to see it that way but it doesn't make it less true.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

Irish Pixie said:


> NAMBLA is a "powerful" pedophile group, it was founded in the 70s, so how is being accepted working out for them?
> 
> Did you know that oral sex is classified as sodomy, and considered (by some) to be deviant behavior?
> 
> Lumping LGBT in with bestiality and pedophilia is simply wrong. The majority of LGBT are _just people_ that happen to find the same sex attractive.


Over 30 yrs. and they are still around. Their values are present with a lot of Politicians and Celeb's both here and the UK and are just now being outed by the MSM.

I do..and the gradual liberalization of American sexual morals has led to the elimination of sodomy laws in most states.

The same could be said about men who prefer sex with children, look at the Subway Fogel guy.(not sure of his name and too lazy to look it up)He was a great guy until he was found out.
Same could be said about people who love animals just a tad too much until they are found out.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

Irish Pixie said:


> C'mon. The same thing happened in the 50s and 60s with blacks, didn't it? My example is perfectly on point. You may not want to see it that way but it doesn't make it less true.


Point taken, but did change happen because over time individuals changed their views on their own?

Or was it because it was pushed through by Liberal Activists and Judges?
Same thing is happening now, is it not?


----------



## Irish Pixie

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> Over 30 yrs. and they are still around. Their values are present with a lot of Politicians and Celeb's both here and the UK and are just now being outed by the MSM.
> 
> I do..and the gradual liberalization of American sexual morals has led to the elimination of sodomy laws in most states.
> 
> The same could be said about men who prefer sex with children, look at the Subway Fogel guy.(not sure of his name and too lazy to look it up)He was a great guy until he was found out.
> Same could be said about people who love animals just a tad too much until they are found out.


Sodomy (including oral sex) was a felony for years- until it was realized that is none of anyone's business what two consenting adults to in private. Do you think you should have a say in what my husband and I can do in the privacy of our home? No? Why is that?

Exactly right, pedophilia is still illegal despite a "powerful" pedophile group. What does that tell you? Yep, people (mostly men) are still being arrested and jailed for pedophilia despite your assertion doom and gloom "liberalization" of American "morals" because pedophilia is not acceptable and never will be. Neither is bestiality.


----------



## mmoetc

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> Point taken, but did change happen because over time individuals changed their views on their own?
> 
> Or was it because it was pushed through by Liberal Activists and Judges?
> Same thing is happening now, is it not?


Blacks weren't allowed at the white drinking fountain or at the white lunch counter because all the good old boys woke up one day and said come on over. Read a bit of history. There were court rulings and laws that allowed things like that to happen and many fought hard against them and disagree with them to this day. It wasn't acceptance that got those black kids into Little Rock High School. It was a court order and presidential action. Abolitionism, women's sufferance, integration and almost every advancement towards equality has been driven by minority opinion and government intervention. And even today there are those who don't accept these things as good and true. And it is their right not to. It is not their right not to follow the laws governing such things. You dont have to like or accept the LGBT community. But the government does have to treat them equally under the law.


----------



## Irish Pixie

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> Point taken, but did change happen because over time individuals changed their views on their own?
> 
> Or was it because it was pushed through by Liberal Activists and Judges?
> Same thing is happening now, is it not?


Definitely not. The same type of people that are now discriminating against LGBT are the same type that had to have federal legislation in place to _force_ them from discriminating against blacks, women, the disabled etc. the "protected classes" in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Those people definitely did not just change their point of view, they were vehemently fighting against change, some still are. 

It was "pushed through", actually it was legislated into being, because many _Americans_ refused to accept that blacks, women, the disabled, etc. were actually other _Americans_ that had the same rights as every other _American_. Equality for all, it's just sad that some people had to forced to into being decent human beings.


----------



## DEKE01

mmoetc said:


> Aren't words wonderful tools to paint a picture? It matters greatly that the person involved is transgender. In the case the court ruled on we also aren't talking about a man. We're talking about a transgender adolescent the exact same age as the girls you worry about. Yet you refer to that person with the adult discriptive and the other students involved with the juvenile. Paints a slightly more threatening picture, no? Rather than dealing with facts it plucks emotional strings. I notice you say nothing of women in boys locker rooms. Not quite so threatening and the fuel of many an adolescent fantasy so no quite such an emotionally charged atmosphere.
> 
> Maybe you should take a look at the picture of the young person involved in this court case. If you passed her on the street you wouldn't say she was a man. If you saw her walking into the men's room you'd likely question if she misread the sign. She's been going to school dressed as a girl , has been addressed and treated as a girl by family, friends , teachers and administrators, and has undergone hormone treatments that have softened her features and started the transition to manifesting female secondary sexual characteristics. This is the girl you would call a man and force to enter a men's locker room. (See what I did there?). No real concern about that scenario?
> 
> Again your response answered no questions about who else you might fear or provided any proof of the danger you cite as the neccessity for laws. But again, you're not alone in that.


You still aren't getting it. Your side is using words to make it sound as safe a possible. I'm not talking about the specific case, I'm talking about the general problem you will create. Once men can felt go in a girl's locker room, it won't be the little boy you find so attractive, it can be any perv. Someone mentioned coaches. That is correct, they can be a problem. Male coach in a girls locker room should not be allowed. I say no males in female locker room and make (edit) *NO* exceptions based on mental illnesses


Edit...I really shouldn't type on my phone, I always mess up the response some how. I make NO exceptions for mental illnesses. :hammer: to myself.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

Irish Pixie said:


> Sodomy (including oral sex) was a felony for years- until it was realized that is none of anyone's business what two consenting adults to in private. Do you think you should have a say in what my husband and I can do in the privacy of our home? No? Why is that?
> 
> Exactly right, pedophilia is still illegal despite a "powerful" pedophile group. What does that tell you? Yep, people (mostly men) are still being arrested and jailed for pedophilia despite your assertion doom and gloom "liberalization" of American "morals" because pedophilia is not acceptable and never will be. Neither is bestiality.


Of course not, what two consenting adults do in privacy isn't any of my concern.

Give it 5 or 10 years, we will be hearing we should be sympathetic and accepting to those groups too because they were born that way,some Psychologists are already reclassifying diagnosis to support this.

Thanks for the exchange of viewpoints.


----------



## greg273

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> Of course not, what two consenting adults do in privacy isn't any of my concern.
> 
> Give it 5 or 10 years, we will be hearing we should be sympathetic and accepting to those groups too because they were born that way,some Psychologists are already reclassifying diagnosis to support this.
> 
> Thanks for the exchange of viewpoints.


 What you apparently fail to recognize is that someone being gay hurts no one else, hence it is not a crime. Pedophilia DOES hurt someone else, and so will remain a crime. 
And if youre so worried about who is using the stall next to you, my advice would be to keep your eyes focused on your own business. You're not supposed to be checking out anyone elses privates in the bathroom.


----------



## mmoetc

DEKE01 said:


> You still aren't getting it. Your side is using words to make it sound as safe a possible. I'm not talking about the specific case, I'm talking about the general problem you will create. Once men can felt go in a girl's locker room, it won't be the little boy you find so attractive, it can be any perv. Someone mentioned coaches. That is correct, they can be a problem. Male coach in a girls locker room should not be allowed. I say no males in female locker room and make exceptions based on mental illnesses[/QUOTE
> 
> No, I get it. You can't prove an actual danger so you must invent the bogey man. Male coaches haven't been allowed in locker rooms yet almost innumerable cases of sexual abuse have occurred. Many in your own swimming community. Yet, you or no one else says the solution is to completely separate male coaches from female athletes. Thats the standard you're trying to apply to the transgendered student even though you can't show anything but a hypothetical danger from someone else, not the student in question. I'll ask you more directly since you won't address my broader questions. Should the lesbian student be barred from the female locker room? After all, her looks and desires aimed at your daughter would seem to be a much more direct threat. What of the lesbian coach? I'll bet I can find stories of such abuse. You won't come out and address these real threats but you will some vague, unproven ones. Yeah, I get it.


----------



## mmoetc

Deke- I should probably explain what it is I think I get. I think I get that you are loving parent who worries about the health, well being and safety of his children. I don't fault or criticize you for that. I get that this transgender youth's parents likely feel the exact same way about their kid. I don't blame you for wanting to protect her. But making up imaginary dangers isn't protection. Warn her of the bad things that anyone can do and teach her how to protect herself from them. Teaching her to fear only one type of person blinds her to the danger of others. I don't get that you're a bad person, just that your fears are misplaced and overblown.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

It matters what I think only to a certain extent.
What this thread is dealing with is not an issue of what happens in someone's home, but in a public place. The only point I am trying to make, good or bad, is there is a Culture War going on in this Country on many different levels. It isn't going to end well for either side or the Country as a whole for those who know their History.


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> Bestiality and Pedophilia are already illegal in most places due to the inability of one party to give consent.
> 
> That's not likely to change, and really has little to do with transgenders being able to choose the facilities they use.
> 
> Many want to overlook the reality that they are now and long have been doing it in most restrooms anyway
> 
> There's also the fact there are so few of them the odds of being in a room with one are almost non-existent.
> 
> How many did everyone see anywhere today, this week, this month....?
> 
> I'm guessing for most the answer is none, going back as far as you can remember. (not counting pictures on the internet)





Irish Pixie said:


> You do realize that based research the majority pedophiles and beastophiles are heterosexual white men, right? Neither will ever be legal because children and animals can't consent.
> 
> The research shows that serial killers and sadists are born with the predilection. Do you also think murder and assault will become acceptable?
> 
> Would you ever find any of the referenced acts acceptable? I know I won't.





Irish Pixie said:


> Exactly right, pedophilia is still illegal despite a "powerful" pedophile group. What does that tell you? Yep, people (mostly men) are still being arrested and jailed for pedophilia despite your assertion doom and gloom "liberalization" of American "morals" because pedophilia is not acceptable and never will be. Neither is bestiality.



Of course it's illegal NOW. 
But laws don't stay the same do they?
(see posts below)

The danger is believing in the sincerity of the posters who say, "It's unacceptable and will never happen."
They will be the first to to tell you, :nana: "Too bad, they changed the law and that's just tough for you now. There's nothing you can do about it."




Irish Pixie said:


> C'mon. The same thing happened in the 50s and 60s with blacks, didn't it? My example is perfectly on point. You may not want to see it that way but it doesn't make it less true.





WolfWalksSoftly said:


> Point taken, but did change happen because over time individuals changed their views on their own?
> 
> Or was it because it was pushed through by Liberal Activists and Judges?
> Same thing is happening now, is it not?






mmoetc said:


> Blacks weren't allowed at the white drinking fountain or at the white lunch counter because all the good old boys woke up one day and said come on over. Read a bit of history. There were court rulings and laws that allowed things like that to happen and many fought hard against them and disagree with them to this day. It wasn't acceptance that got those black kids into Little Rock High School. It was a court order and presidential action. Abolitionism, women's sufferance, integration and almost every advancement towards equality has been driven by minority opinion and government intervention. And even today there are those who don't accept these things as good and true. And it is their right not to. It is not their right not to follow the laws governing such things. You dont have to like or accept the LGBT community. But the government does have to treat them equally under the law.


----------



## Irish Pixie

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> It matters what I think only to a certain extent.
> What this thread is dealing with is not an issue of what happens in someone's home, but in a public place. The only point I am trying to make, good or bad, is there is a Culture War going on in this Country on many different levels. It isn't going to end well for either side or the Country as a whole for those who know their History.


History has proven that discrimination is wrong, hasn't it?


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

Irish Pixie said:


> History has proven that discrimination is wrong, hasn't it?


It has,and as well, history has also shown time and time again what happens when the road we are following takes place. Ancient Greece comes to mind.


----------



## arabian knight

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> It matters what I think only to a certain extent.
> What this thread is dealing with is not an issue of what happens in someone's home, but in a public place. The only point I am trying to make, good or bad, is there is a Culture War going on in this Country on many different levels. It isn't going to end well for either side or the Country as a whole for those who know their History.


 And yet these that go for this kind of thing like to keep saying it is discriminatory not to let everyone do the same, whether it be in a bathroom or in the shower. Well they are WRONG it is not being discriminatory. But that is how these very few on this has made this into something it is not. Privacy while using the restroom i just as important as privacy behind closed doors, after all WHY do they have DOORS in bathroom toilets for PRIVACY~!!!!
And this is all about Privacy and Safety while in a compromising situation, while sitting on the John or taking a whiz. 
There is a difference a HUGE difference between something that is discriminatory and Privacy. They are not the same at all.
And those liberals that think they are,,, are Wrong wrong wrong.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

It is almost like a contest to see who can come up with the most off the wall stuff..I had read where a male college student wanted to be treated as exceptional because he felt he :facepalm:was really a 7 year old girl on the inside.


----------



## DEKE01

mmoetc said:


> No, I get it. You can't prove an actual danger so you must invent the bogey man. Male coaches haven't been allowed in locker rooms yet almost innumerable cases of sexual abuse have occurred. Many in your own swimming community. Yet, you or no one else says the solution is to completely separate male coaches from female athletes. Thats the standard you're trying to apply to the transgendered student even though you can't show anything but a hypothetical danger from someone else, not the student in question. I'll ask you more directly since you won't address my broader questions. Should the lesbian student be barred from the female locker room? After all, her looks and desires aimed at your daughter would seem to be a much more direct threat. What of the lesbian coach? I'll bet I can find stories of such abuse. You won't come out and address these real threats but you will some vague, unproven ones. Yeah, I get it.


In one post you cite something as a real danger and then in another you say it is imaginary. 

I'm not taking your bait about lesbians because it is irrelevant and unlike some of you who just want to argue, I prefer to stay focused on the main topic, preventing men, as defined by science, out of women's locker rooms. I don't have to wait for some kid to be raped in that exact setting to know it is a bad idea. 

I've looked into foster care and adoption. The social services have rules to limit the kids and adults getting into situations where it is too easy for a predator to have his way. It is just common sense, something sorely lacking today. I know most men, transgender or not, are not going to rape kids no matter what access they have. I'm not worried about most men. I'm worried about the individuals that will take advantage of rules that have been thoughtlessly put into place by people who do not prioritize child safety.


----------



## no really

DEKE01 said:


> In one post you cite something as a real danger and then in another you say it is imaginary.
> 
> I'm not taking your bait about lesbians because it is irrelevant and unlike some of you who just want to argue, I prefer to stay focused on the main topic, preventing men, as defined by science, out of women's locker rooms. I don't have to wait for some kid to be raped in that exact setting to know it is a bad idea.
> 
> I've looked into foster care and adoption. The social services have rules to limit the kids and adults getting into situations where it is too easy for a predator to have his way. It is just common sense, something sorely lacking today. I know most men, transgender or not, are not going to rape kids no matter what access they have. I'm not worried about most men. I'm worried about the individuals that will take advantage of rules that have been thoughtlessly put into place by people who do not prioritize child safety.


You have touched on a concern some friends of mine have, they have two children girl 9 and boy 11. They are both very active in volunteering at school, the plans for bathroom access is in their words beyond stupid. Basically anyone can use any bathroom, no questions asked. The stalls don't have full doors. Their daughter has stated she wants to continue school there but will not use the facilities if they institute the new regs. The school allowed the kids to vote on this since there was a huge uproar. It was voted down by the children. The school decided not to honor the kids feelings.

The thing my friends really loved about this school was it's progressive attitude and inclusive programs. My friends are gay, married and very good, involved parents. At this point they are still trying to help the school with ideas on compromises.

They both love to read through this forum and wanted to offer some of their thoughts.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Irish Pixie said:


> You do realize that based research the majority pedophiles and beastophiles are heterosexual white men, right? Neither will ever be legal because children and animals can't consent.
> 
> The research shows that serial killers and sadists are born with the predilection. Do you also think murder and assault will become acceptable?
> 
> Would you ever find any of the referenced acts acceptable? I know I won't.


Assault is found acceptable in self defense. People find murder is acceptable if the murdered is considered morally inferior or deserved it, for whatever reason. We can justify anything - criminals are obviously very good at it.


----------



## Heritagefarm

What do we think discrimination is? If I go into a fancy restaurant, I'm going to discriminate: I do not want waiters, waitresses, or waiter-esses, who look like they're going to steal me blind. If I eat at McDonalds, It's a different story. 



WolfWalksSoftly said:


> It is almost like a contest to see who can come up with the most off the wall stuff..I had read where a male college student wanted to be treated as exceptional because he felt he :facepalm:was really a 7 year old girl on the inside.


I'll find him exceptional if he gets perfect grades. 



WolfWalksSoftly said:


> It has,and as well, history has also shown time and time again what happens when the road we are following takes place. Ancient Greece comes to mind.


Don't forget Rome. However, what most likely killed both civilizations what affluence and apathy. Americans are more worried about which bathroom to use, when our climate may render entire sections of the planet inhospitable. :facepalm:


----------



## oneraddad




----------



## Elevenpoint

The entire issue is rooted in selfishness. Offered another bathroom and still not good enough.
This is exactly what selfish people do..got to be all about them..their way.
Narcissists come to mind.
A healthy mind asks if this is going to have a positive impact on others..or negative.
Sick people go into a situation with a win at all cost and everybody else lose.
They have zero respect for others and just the common decency to use the correct bathroom.
And it this case the parents have to be sick also to pursue the case.


----------



## arabian knight

No NOT everyone. And it is NOT discriminating. Oh you would LIKE it to be but it is not. And more of these will be a popping up.. LOL


----------



## Shine

Yup... fairly soon, there will be no public facilities...


----------



## Irish Pixie

If there is another bathroom offered why don't the people that don't want to see a transgender wash his or her hands use it? Easy peasy.


----------



## Nevada

elevenpoint said:


> The entire issue is rooted in selfishness. Offered another bathroom and still not good enough.
> This is exactly what selfish people do..got to be all about them..their way.
> Narcissists come to mind.
> A healthy mind asks if this is going to have a positive impact on others..or negative.
> Sick people go into a situation with a win at all cost and everybody else lose.
> They have zero respect for others and just the common decency to use the correct bathroom.
> And it this case the parents have to be sick also to pursue the case.


No, politicians win and everyone else loses. This is purely a wedge issue. It's a solution that's looking for a problem to solve.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> If there is another bathroom offered why don't the people that don't want to see a transgender wash his or her hands use it? Easy peasy.


Because 99 % of the population don't have to cater to a few selfish disrespecful individuals.
Those that have devoted their life to being a feverish selfish clot of ailments and grievances...complaining that the world will not devote itself to making them happy.


----------



## arabian knight

Shine said:


> Yup... fairly soon, there will be no public facilities...


 Just line up a few Porta Potties.
Then there you have it ONE for ONLY ONE at a time only.
That way No two can be in the same one at the same time for Whatever you THINK your sex is, or What you THINK you are, or one of them.. LOL


----------



## no really

Nevada said:


> No, politicians win and everyone else loses. This is purely a wedge issue. It's a solution that's looking for a problem to solve.


I see it also as that shiny object used to distract.


----------



## Irish Pixie

no really said:


> I see it also as that shiny object used to distract.


Unless you're transgender and need to pee...


----------



## no really

Irish Pixie said:


> Unless you're transgender and need to pee...



Ya mean they have been holding it all this time :yuck:


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> If there is another bathroom offered why don't the people that don't want to see a transgender wash his or her hands use it? Easy peasy.





Irish Pixie said:


> Unless you're transgender and need to pee...


Yep, that's what people are asking, "Why can't you just go pee and stop making it a big issue?"




arabian knight said:


> Just line up a few Porta Potties.
> Then there you have it ONE for ONLY ONE at a time only.
> That way No two can be in the same one at the same time for Whatever you THINK your sex is, or What you THINK you are, or one of them.. LOL





Nevada said:


> No, politicians win and everyone else loses. This is purely a wedge issue. It's a solution that's looking for a problem to solve.



Exactly.

It's really trivial in the grand scheme of things.
It doesn't need a new law and it doesn't need a new civil rights protest.

1) Men's restroom.

Transgeneder pre-op comes in. "She" won't have any success at the urinal next to me, due to incomplete plumbing problems. "She" goes into the stall, sits down, and I'll never see anything, cuz I'm not a peeping perv.
If the plumbing WAS successful, I'll still never know because men have a simple rule at the urinals.
"EYES FORWARD - NO EXCEPTIONS!"

LOL


2) Women's restroom.

Transgender pre-op comes in. "He" will find NO urinals and has to go in a stall like everyone else. If "he" decides to out himself by standing up, with feet facing the wrong way and making a "big splash" while tinkling, he will bear the brunt of a woman's scorn soon enough and learn how to act like a lady.

Nuff said.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> *So was Homosexuality*...perceptions about it changed over time too.
> If you will recall, homosexuals started demanding their rights and being open
> with parades, and and the like and the left leaning powers that be started and still today do things to manipulate acceptance.


The difference is the ability to give *consent*
Animals and children can't


----------



## Bearfootfarm

DEKE01 said:


> You still aren't getting it. Your side is using words to make it sound as safe a possible. *I'm not talking about the specific case, I'm talking about the general problem you will create. * Once men can felt go in a girl's locker room, it won't be the little boy you find so attractive, it can be any perv. Someone mentioned coaches. That is correct, they can be a problem. Male coach in a girls locker room should not be allowed. I say no males in female locker room and make (edit) *NO* exceptions based on mental illnesses
> 
> 
> Edit...I really shouldn't type on my phone, I always mess up the response some how. I make NO exceptions for mental illnesses. :hammer: to myself.


You're talking about the fantasies you've imagined rather than the realities.
All the hard evidence shows kids are more at risk in church than in a public restroom


----------



## Heritagefarm

Hmm.... How long till thread locked now?


----------



## farmrbrown

I don't know, but I'm tired of his foolishness.


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> Ruh Roh.


Yeah, that's what I say.


----------



## arabian knight

farmrbrown said:


> I don't know, but I'm tired of his foolishness.


 You got that right. This from those liberals is ALL about Control. And nothing more then THAT. See how many they can get under their control and go along wit this stupid agenda that everything no matter WHAT just Has to be about Oh You discriminating against us. Bull Feathers. They are trying to make what is right or Correct is Now Wrong. What is now wrong in THEIR MINDS ONLY, THEY want it to be corrected when all the time what THEY WANT was Wrong form the beginning and is Still wrong TODAY.


----------



## painterswife

How about those conservatives that want to control where people pee and decide how others live their lives.


----------



## Shine

painterswife said:


> How about those conservatives that want to control where people pee and decide how others live their lives.


So... in the current control set of where people pee now is not really "control"? If it is then here we have a group that wants to change those rules to the point that what they want to happen would violate the old rules. 

This fits into the bigger picture where certain groups want to "control" others in a new way that conforms to their beliefs. 

Kind of hypocritical if you ask me...


----------



## painterswife

Shine said:


> So... in the current control set of where people pee now is not really "control"? If it is then here we have a group that wants to change those rules to the point that what they want to happen would violate the old rules.
> 
> This fits into the bigger picture where certain groups want to "control" others in a new way that conforms to their beliefs.
> 
> Kind of hypocritical if you ask me...


That post does not make much sense.

If something is controlled and people want to change that control it is more control. No wonder some are confused. Lack of control is not control.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

A minority changing the accepted norms of the majority without choice or vote is Control.


----------



## painterswife

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> A minority changing the accepted norms of the majority without choice or vote is Control.


First you would have to prove it is the majority who believe that it should stay the norm. However we don't make laws that discriminate because the majority want them.


----------



## Irish Pixie

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> A minority changing the accepted norms of the majority without choice or vote is Control.


Nope, it is discrimination- you can't tell an American that he or she can't use the bathroom (or lunch counter or water fountain...) because they are different. Blacks and the disabled were minorities too. 

Do you think there should be separate bathrooms for blacks and the disabled?


----------



## Shine

It is truly interesting where people find these new discriminatory practices. New mental diagnosis's are somehow given a pass and deemed acceptable by people that identify something that they "think" is normal thereby forcing others to have to accept their understanding of "normal".

There is no test available to verify that this is a biological/genetic condition, it's just on the say-so of shrinks who understand the nuances of the mind, or at least have convinced others that they understand it.

The insane, are in fact, running the asylum...


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope, it is discrimination- you can't tell an American that he or she can't use the bathroom (or lunch counter or water fountain...) because they are different. Blacks and the disabled were minorities too.
> 
> Do you think there should be separate bathrooms for blacks and the disabled?


No but, you can tell a woman that she cannot use the men's bathroom though and have the police back you up on it. You want to break the laws?

Your last question seeks to establish a strawman argument and thereby needs no answer.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> It is truly interesting where people find these new discriminatory practices. New mental diagnosis's are somehow given a pass and deemed acceptable by people that identify something that they "think" is normal thereby forcing others to have to accept their understanding of "normal".
> 
> *There is no test available to verify that this is a biological/genetic condition, it's just on the say-so of shrinks who understand the nuances of the mind, or at least have convinced others that they understand it.*
> 
> The insane, are in fact, ruling the asylum...


There's no test available to verify imaginary figures, aka god, either. Careful who you call mentally ill.


----------



## Shine

painterswife said:


> First you would have to prove it is the majority who believe that it should stay the norm. However we don't make laws that discriminate because the majority want them.


Wrong, you are suggesting that the OP prove a negative, also you are backing a play where we will not know the feelings of the majority due to it being decided by a court. 

The object of discrimination is a newly sanctioned behavior, soon, it would appear, we are going to have to accept and not discriminate against the people with other mental maladies so as to not hurt their feelings either. Soon kook will be an outlawed term. Right - that's discriminatory too I guess.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> No but, you can tell a woman that she cannot use the men's bathroom though and have the police back you up on it. You want to break the laws?
> 
> Your last question seeks to establish a strawman argument and thereby needs no answer.


You mean you can't answer the question without looking like either a hypocrite or a bigot. :hysterical:


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> There's no test available to verify imaginary figures, aka god, either. Careful who you call mentally ill.



...at least, none that you have experienced. 

I'll stand on the street corner and hand out flyers that say that people that have male genitalia and try to tell people that they are females should, IMO, seek help. That right there is proof that this person cannot accept reality.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> You mean you can't answer the question without looking like either a hypocrite or a bigot. :hysterical:


No, it just means that I am sticking to the topic and not playing your simple games.

I did however, notice your attempting at adding your own pet labels to those that will not play your game.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> ...at least, none that you have experienced.
> 
> I'll stand on the street corner and hand out flyers that say that people that have male genitalia and try to tell people that they are females should, IMO, seek help. That right there is proof that this person cannot accept reality.


Nope. There is no test to prove god's existence. None. Careful who you call mentally ill.

ETA: People that stand on a street corner and tell people about an imaginary figure, in my opinion, should seek help.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> No, it just means that I am sticking to the topic and not playing your simple games.
> 
> I did however, notice your attempting at adding your own pet labels to those that will not play your game.


Sorry, pet labels? 

It's obvious why you won't answer the question.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope, it is discrimination- you can't tell an American that he or she can't use the bathroom (or lunch counter or water fountain...) because they are different. Blacks and the disabled were minorities too.
> 
> Do you think there should be separate bathrooms for blacks and the disabled?


Very very disrespectful and insulting to blacks and disabled.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> I don't know, but I'm tired of his foolishness.


You've been repeating that for about a year now.
That's why I doubt your sincerity

Put me on ignore if you mean it, or continue as you have been if you don't


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> No, it just means that I am sticking to the topic and not playing your simple games.
> 
> I did however, notice your attempting at *adding your own pet labels to those that will not play your game*.


Like you when you call them "sick, perverts, mentally ill"?
As I've often pointed out, you complain loudest about the things you do yourself


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Interesting story here in my neck of the woods. 

Man Dressed as Woman Arrested for Spying in Mall Bathrooms
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...Mall-Bathroom-Stall-Police-Say-351232041.html


----------



## Nevada

Vahomesteaders said:


> Interesting story here in my neck of the woods.
> 
> Man Dressed as Woman Arrested for Spying in Mall Bathrooms
> http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...Mall-Bathroom-Stall-Police-Say-351232041.html


You're suggesting that anti-discrimination laws are playing into the hands of bathroom perverts? Honestly, I don't see bathroom perversion catching on as a trend.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Vahomesteaders said:


> Interesting story here in my neck of the woods.
> 
> Man Dressed as Woman Arrested for Spying in Mall Bathrooms
> http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...Mall-Bathroom-Stall-Police-Say-351232041.html


I missed where they said he is transgender? Can you point it out? 

You do realize that voyeurism has been around since the dawn of time, right?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Police then determined that he matches the description of a man who is accused of *using a mirror to see into a women's restroom stall *on May 15 at a nearby Walmart and also at the Potomac Mills Mall on Oct. 11.
> 
> Rodriguez, of Fredericksburg, was charged with three counts of *unlawful filming of a non-consenting person and three counts of peeping*.


That would be illegal if a woman had done it too.
It's obvious he's not a transgender, and the proposed changes to current laws wouldn't make what he did legal

I didn't see any charges related to simply using the wrong restroom for it's intended purpose


----------



## Heritagefarm

farmrbrown said:


> I don't know, but I'm tired of his foolishness.


Then stop responding to him! 



Irish Pixie said:


> Nope, it is discrimination- you can't tell an American that he or she can't use the bathroom (or lunch counter or water fountain...) because they are different. Blacks and the disabled were minorities too.
> 
> Do you think there should be separate bathrooms for blacks and the disabled?


Good point, but should we make normal people use their own restrooms and relegate trans to their own restroom? Then it's actually discrimination against heterosexuals.



Irish Pixie said:


> Nope. There is no test to prove god's existence. None. Careful who you call mentally ill.
> 
> ETA: People that stand on a street corner and tell people about an imaginary figure, in my opinion, should seek help.


Not to mention they're annoying. But I don't have a problem with people telling others about their religion.



Bearfootfarm said:


> You've been repeating that for about a year now.
> That's why I doubt your sincerity
> 
> Put me on ignore if you mean it, or continue as you have been if you don't


I had you on ignore for years. Now I think you're entertaining.



Irish Pixie said:


> I missed where they said he is transgender? Can you point it out?
> 
> You do realize that voyeurism has been around since the dawn of time, right?


Well, you have to admit, having it socially acceptable for men to wear a dress into the women's restroom would make it a heck of a lot easier. If I wanted to be a voyeur, I'd be skippy about these new trans rules!


----------



## Irish Pixie

Heritagefarm said:


> Well, you have to admit, having it socially acceptable for men to wear a dress into the women's restroom would make it a heck of a lot easier. If I wanted to be a voyeur, I'd be skippy about these new trans rules!


You're blaming transgenders for a guy that gets off on secretly filming women? I'll betcha this isn't the first time a voyeur dressed as a women to get into a bathroom. It's only news now because because of uproar on transgender bathroom issue. 

Don't you think this was done 10-20-30 years ago? I remember reading years ago about a teenage boy at a mall that had a spy camera mounted on his shoe so he could look up women's skirts- was that the transgendered's fault too?


----------



## logbuilder

Heritagefarm said:


> Good point, but should we make *normal people* use their own restrooms and relegate trans to their own restroom? Then it's actually discrimination against heterosexuals.


I'm not sure I know any "normal" people. As far as I can tell, everyone is different. What percent normal does one need to be be able to join the "normal" club? Are you a card carrying member? I've never been invited so I guess nobody considers me normal.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> You mean you can't answer the question without looking like either a hypocrite or a bigot. :hysterical:


You are not making sense. You are trying to compare Black persons and disabled people to transgendered persons, not a viable comparison.


----------



## arabian knight

Lets see if Target will reverse this idiocy of trans gender stuff.
340,000 Pledge to Boycott Target over Transgender Bathroom Policy

After all they are not doing well the last few years anyway and NOW THIS Crap brought on by the tiny few in this country that wants every dern thing they are against to be discriminating. When in fact it is ONLY IN THEIR HEADS that this is discriminating. PRIVACY has to be on Top. Not this bs.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Like you when you call them "sick, perverts, mentally ill"?
> As I've often pointed out, you complain loudest about the things you do yourself


No Gold Stars - sorry - cannot read yer post.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> You are not making sense. You are trying to compare Black persons and disabled people to transgendered persons, not a viable comparison.


Sorry, apparently I wasn't clear, I'm talking about discrimination. It's discriminatory to tell a black or disabled person that they can't use a bathroom, lunch counter, water foundation, etc. so why do you think it's OK to tell a transgender person they can't? 

Did that help?


----------



## Irish Pixie

logbuilder said:


> I'm not sure I know any "normal" people. As far as I can tell, everyone is different. What percent normal does one need to be be able to join the "normal" club? Are you a card carrying member? I've never been invited so I guess nobody considers me normal.


I missed the "normal" reference, and that's an excellent point.

To the OP- are gays abnormal too or just transgender?


----------



## Elevenpoint

arabian knight said:


> Lets see if Target will reverse this idiocy of trans gender stuff.
> 340,000 Pledge to Boycott Target over Transgender Bathroom Policy
> 
> After all they are not doing well the last few years anyway and NOW THIS Crap brought on by the tiny few in this country that wants every dern thing they are against to be discriminating. When in fact it is ONLY IN THEIR HEADS that this is discriminating. PRIVACY has to be on Top. Not this bs.


This one is pretty good. Lets see...business not good...just hanging on...
Lets alienate over 90 % of our customer base...especially the women who do most of the shopping here. 
How's that for stupid. Bet those shareholders are real excited about this company.
Better yet will be the strong lesson in business of what not to do.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> Sorry, apparently I wasn't clear, I'm talking about discrimination. It's discriminatory to tell a black or disabled person that they can't use a bathroom, lunch counter, water foundation, etc. so why do you think it's OK to tell a transgender person they can't?
> 
> Did that help?


Doesn't help at all. I have never suggested that Transgendered people could not use the restroom. They are more than welcome to use the one that fits their hardware. So, what is your point?


----------



## greg273

This insane fear mongering is just another salvo fired from the desperate homophobes. There is no widespread raping epidemic occuring in restrooms. Trans people have been using the bathroom of their choice since indoor plumbing was invented. 
 For those so worked up about this, and so inclined to peek into the stall and check the 'plumbing' of those in there, perhaps YOU are the problem.


----------



## greg273

Shine said:


> Doesn't help at all. I have never suggested that Transgendered people could not use the restroom. They are more than welcome to use the one that fits their hardware. So, what is your point?


 And you propose to enforce this how?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

arabian knight said:


> Lets see if Target will reverse this idiocy of trans gender stuff.
> 340,000 Pledge to Boycott Target over Transgender Bathroom Policy
> 
> After all they are not doing well the last few years anyway and NOW THIS Crap brought on by the tiny few in this country that wants every dern thing they are against to be discriminating. When in fact it is ONLY IN THEIR HEADS that this is discriminating. PRIVACY has to be on Top. Not this bs.


I suspect most of the folks who voted on the poll never shop there anyway.

I also bet Target won't change anything, and I bet some who voted will still shop there



> PRIVACY has to be on Top


Close the door to the stall and you have privacy


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> I have trouble believing the "sincerity" of a self described "con-man" who advises it's OK to lie if it's for good reasons.



I am NOT a self described con man.
Con men decieve people to steal money from them.
I am NOT a thief.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> No Gold Stars - sorry - *cannot read yer post*.


That's obviously a lie, since you quoted it.
You often don't seem to put much thought into your posts


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> This one is pretty good. Lets see...business not good...just hanging on...
> Lets alienate over 90 % of our customer base...especially the women who do most of the shopping here.
> How's that for stupid. Bet those shareholders are real excited about this company.
> Better yet will be the strong lesson in business of what not to do.


So if they don't reverse the policy, and they don't go broke, this will be proof you're simply wrong about all that.

Time will tell


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's obviously a lie, since you quoted it.
> You often don't seem to put much thought into your posts


No Gold Stars - sorry - *cannot read yer post*.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Irish Pixie said:


> You're blaming transgenders for a guy that gets off on secretly filming women? I'll betcha this isn't the first time a voyeur dressed as a women to get into a bathroom. It's only news now because because of uproar on transgender bathroom issue.
> 
> Don't you think this was done 10-20-30 years ago? I remember reading years ago about a teenage boy at a mall that had a spy camera mounted on his shoe so he could look up women's skirts- was that the transgendered's fault too?


Oh, pants offer more anti-peeping protection! Maybe that's why women have been forced to wear skirts so long.

Well, I'm not blaming anyone. And no, it was not trans fault for the teens behavior; that's goalpost shifting. But I am saying it's a lot less of a hurdle if a perverted male wants to dress up for the lady's bathroom, when it's legal, for peeping purposes. 



logbuilder said:


> I'm not sure I know any "normal" people. As far as I can tell, everyone is different. What percent normal does one need to be be able to join the "normal" club? Are you a card carrying member? I've never been invited so I guess nobody considers me normal.


I wouldn't call myself normal, being an environmentalist and a left-leaning farmer. 



Irish Pixie said:


> I missed the "normal" reference, and that's an excellent point.
> 
> To the OP- are gays abnormal too or just transgender?


They are statically anamolous.



greg273 said:


> This insane fear mongering is just another salvo fired from the desperate homophobes. There is no widespread raping epidemic occuring in restrooms. Trans people have been using the bathroom of their choice since indoor plumbing was invented.
> For those so worked up about this, and so inclined to peek into the stall and check the 'plumbing' of those in there, perhaps YOU are the problem.


I don't care what they do, but I'm inclined to note that trans haven't had much freedom when indoor plumbing was invented. Further, they can now swap organs.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Shine said:


> No Gold Stars - sorry - *cannot read yer post*.


...childish....


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> I am NOT a self described con man.
> *Con men decieve people *to steal money from them.
> *I am NOT a thief*.


You're just nit picking now

They deceive for multiple reasons
You advocated telling lies when it suited your purpose.

You called it "private eye" but it's still all about telling lies to get what you want

No one threw a hissy fit when you called them "insincere" but you pitched one immediately when the same thing was said about you.

Let's not get another thread locked over your melodrama


----------



## Shine

Heritagefarm said:


> ...childish....


Wait, I said he won the gambit posed earlier... If I lost then I said that I would stick a gold star on my monitor whenever I read one of his posts. Now that he knows that I do not have gold stars, maybe he will quit trying to raise my ire. I do want him to know that I did see that he wrote something, just cain't respond to what he wrote, that's all.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Shine said:


> Wait, I said he won the gambit posed earlier... If I lost then I said that I would stick a gold star on my monitor whenever I read one of his posts. Now that he knows that I do not have gold stars, maybe he will quit trying to raise my ire. I do want him to know that I did see that he wrote something, just cain't respond to what he wrote, that's all.


OK. But isn't skimming past a better option?:nerd:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Wait, I said he won the gambit posed earlier... If I lost then I said that I would stick a gold star on my monitor whenever I read one of his posts. Now that he knows that I do not have gold stars, maybe he will quit trying to raise my ire. I do want him to know that I did see that he wrote something, just *cain't respond to what he wrote*, that's all.


You're still responding with every post, and lying when you say you can't read my posts.

As usual, saying one thing and doing another


----------



## Shine

Heritagefarm said:


> OK. But isn't skimming past a better option?:nerd:



Skimming past it is then.....


:bored:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Skimming past it is then.....
> :bored:


Time will tell


----------



## Heritagefarm

Just keep skimming, skimming, skimming... Extra points if you know what movie I'm "quoting."


----------



## Tobster

Maybe an Appeals Court should rule on allowing US Congressman to use public restrooms. The only misbehaving in a public restroom I can recall was Sen. Larry Craig from Idaho.


----------



## logbuilder

greg273 said:


> And you propose to enforce this how?


The image that comes to mind is a door greeter like in Wal-Mart. Their job is to check your 'package' and direct you to the right door.

Yea, right. That will work.


----------



## DEKE01

Bearfootfarm said:


> The difference is the ability to give *consent*
> Animals and children can't


Yet you demand children consent to participating in the selfish fantasies of the mentally ill.


----------



## Shine

I say cut the carp and keep it the way it is, people with male hardware - men's room, people with female hardware - female's room. People that can't figure it out? Unisex bathroom. 

There... Next problem?


----------



## logbuilder

Shine said:


> I say cut the carp and keep it the way it is, people with male hardware - men's room, people with female hardware - female's room. People that can't figure it out? Unisex bathroom.
> 
> There... Next problem?


Two comments.

Unisex (or family as they are sometimes known) are useful to all. When my daughter was too young to go into the bathroom by herself, we used the unisex/family bathrooms.

Second, to address your 'next problem' comment, who is going to build/pay for all these unisex bathrooms in every public place that are now required for your solution to work?


----------



## Shine

logbuilder said:


> Two comments.
> 
> Unisex (or family as they are sometimes known) are useful to all. When my daughter was too young to go into the bathroom by herself, we used the unisex/family bathrooms.
> 
> Second, to address your 'next problem' comment, who is going to build/pay for all these unisex bathrooms in every public place that are now required for your solution to work?


That's going to require at least two study groups to determine the proper placement with regards to school size and demographics, then we'll have to increase taxes to pay for this, I would recommend that parents and grandparents with school aged children step up to the plate, if they don't want to pay, let the feds drive their world.

Or... we could print some more money to cover the new bathrooms. 

Jest sayin'

ETA... we could start co-locating schools next to Walmarts, all of those have family bathrooms/uni-sex bathrooms


----------



## Elevenpoint

Shine said:


> I say cut the carp and keep it the way it is, people with male hardware - men's room, people with female hardware - female's room. People that can't figure it out? Unisex bathroom.
> 
> There... Next problem?


Can't solve the problem that way.
Remember...when the man puts on makeup..a wig...women's clothing...their brain tells them they are a woman.
Now women's bathroom.
Unisex is insulting and discrimination.


----------



## logbuilder

Shine said:


> That's going to require at least two study groups to determine the proper placement with regards to school size and demographics, then we'll have to increase taxes to pay for this, I would recommend that parents and grandparents with school aged children step up to the plate, if they don't want to pay, let the feds drive their world.
> 
> Or... we could print some more money to cover the new bathrooms.
> 
> Jest sayin'
> 
> ETA... we could start co-locating schools next to Walmarts, all of those have family bathrooms/uni-sex bathrooms


The issue is not just schools. It is every place that has public restrooms. Schools, govt building, retail locations, highway rest stops.... The list goes on and on.

I totally agree that existing unisex/family bathrooms is a good choice. But where they don't exist, that's a problem.

Then there is still the issue of by requiring some people to go here and others to go there, is that equal protection under the law? You might want to look at the 14th amendment for reference before answering. The old 'separate but equal' issue rears its head. As example, in restrooms designed for men, you sometimes have machines in there for cologne or other 'items' that might be of use on a night out. In the women's, I imagine there are machines that tailor to their needs/wants. Does that mean that a unisex bathroom needs to have both types of machines? While trivial on the surface, that is a good example of what would be required to satisfy 'separate but equal'.


----------



## Shine

logbuilder said:


> The issue is not just schools. It is every place that has public restrooms. Schools, govt building, retail locations, highway rest stops.... The list goes on and on.
> 
> I totally agree that existing unisex/family bathrooms is a good choice. But where they don't exist, that's a problem.
> 
> Then there is still the issue of by requiring some people to go here and others to go there, is that equal protection under the law? You might want to look at the 14th amendment for reference before answering. The old 'separate but equal' issue rears its head. As example, in restrooms designed for men, you sometimes have machines in there for cologne or other 'items' that might be of use on a night out. In the women's, I imagine there are machines that tailor to their needs/wants. Does that mean that a unisex bathroom needs to have both types of machines? While trivial on the surface, that is a good example of what would be required to satisfy 'separate but equal'.


All good points. Let's just say that it would be a work in progress that would require funds devoted towards their accomplishment. 

Sincerely? I don't think that this country has it left within itself to move forward and satisfy the whole of the people adequately. Those that have worked division into this country have succeeded quite well. 

All in all, I feel for those that are gender confused, I would hope that there is a solution to this issue that is not irreversible. I would hope that those counseling them would be totally aware that guiding them in the path that they think they want to follow does in fact increase the possibility that they might even be less happy than they are now. That breaks my heart. 

I would hope that this country could insure that its people do not go hungry. However, I do not see that happening. The Church that I used to go to worked diligently to provide people with food to eat until the influx became too great, now they do just what they can.

The homeless took over what was the Church that I attended, it was not pretty. 

The pastor got me to teach the two books of Thessalonians. I looked at both books, they were less than a dozen pages. I took the assignment religiously - it changed all that I think about helping others. 

We were helping those that had no desire to make the Church better. Thessalonians is the Books that carry the verse that [taken out of context] state: Those that will not work, will not eat. - This was Paul addressing the young Churches in Thessaloniki and the people who came to the Churches, piled up and waited for the Churches to attend to them.

This was what was happening to the Church that I was Baptized in. I could not continue as when I suggested the teachings of those books was important, it was all glossed over, they were receiving state and federal funds for serving these people.

I walked away.

This is what is happening to this country. People demanding that they be served. People demanding this without making this country better.

If I had the funds to walk away, I would. 

I would take my family and become invisible, help those that I could and let the world go it's way.


----------



## Heritagefarm

logbuilder said:


> Two comments.
> 
> Unisex (or family as they are sometimes known) are useful to all. When my daughter was too young to go into the bathroom by herself, we used the unisex/family bathrooms.
> 
> Second, to address your 'next problem' comment, who is going to build/pay for all these unisex bathrooms in every public place that are now required for your solution to work?


Abolish all gender restrooms. All bathrooms will now have urinals, stalls, and a unicorn on the door.


----------



## logbuilder

Shine said:


> All good points. Let's just say that it would be a work in progress that would require funds devoted towards their accomplishment.
> 
> 
> All in all, I feel for those that are gender confused, I would hope that there is a solution to this issue that is not irreversible. I would hope that those counseling them would be totally aware that guiding them in the path that they think they want to follow does in fact increase the possibility that they might even be less happy than they are now. That breaks my heart.


Seems to me that the thing that would most likely cause the 'gender confused' to be unhappy would be the continued pressure of those that disagree and want to impose their beliefs on others.


----------



## logbuilder

Heritagefarm said:


> Abolish all gender restrooms. All bathrooms will now have urinals, stalls, and a unicorn on the door.


Interesting idea. Really constructive. Thanks for your well thought out response.

Have you thought it thru enough to think about the financial implications of your idea?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

DEKE01 said:


> Yet you demand children consent to participating in the selfish fantasies of the mentally ill.


I've not made any such demands.
You seem to be confused


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're just nit picking now
> 
> They deceive for multiple reasons
> You advocated telling lies when it suited your purpose.
> 
> You called it "private eye" but it's still all about telling lies to get what you want
> 
> No one threw a hissy fit when you called them "insincere" but you pitched one immediately when the same thing was said about you.
> 
> Let's not get another thread locked over your melodrama



There is only one definition that I am aware of throughout history.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/con man

Apparently it is also ok to call the 84% that believe in a Deity "mentally ill" as well.

Is it any wonder that some of us believe that what was once unacceptable in this country will soon be welcomed as normal?




Irish Pixie said:


> I missed the "normal" reference, and that's an excellent point.
> 
> To the OP- are gays abnormal too or just transgender?





Irish Pixie said:


> There's no test available to verify imaginary figures, aka god, either. Careful who you call mentally ill.





Irish Pixie said:


> Nope. There is no test to prove god's existence. None. Careful who you call mentally ill.
> 
> ETA: People that stand on a street corner and tell people about an imaginary figure, in my opinion, should seek help.


----------



## mmoetc

Shine said:


> Wrong, you are suggesting that the OP prove a negative, also you are backing a play where we will not know the feelings of the majority due to it being decided by a court.
> 
> The object of discrimination is a newly sanctioned behavior, soon, it would appear, we are going to have to accept and not discriminate against the people with other mental maladies so as to not hurt their feelings either. Soon kook will be an outlawed term. Right - that's discriminatory too I guess.


This does bring up the question I asked long ago that you and others have left unanswered. What other "mental disorders" would you have disqualify others from being in your presesence in public places. Should the person who hears and responds to voices be banned from your bathroom because you cannot concentrate on your business when he is present? What others offend you so much you shouldn't have to endure their presence?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> There is only *one definition* that I am aware of throughout history.
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/con man


They all involve telling lies to get what they want.



> Apparently it is also ok to call the 84% that believe in a Deity "mentally ill" as well.


It should be as "OK" as calling people "perverts", "sinners" and "sick".
There's lots of data to support the theory
http://www.bing.com/search?q=religi...=-1&sk=&cvid=6904D05AB9BB4658B489FC0962D71B02


----------



## mmoetc

DEKE01 said:


> In one post you cite something as a real danger and then in another you say it is imaginary.
> 
> I'm not taking your bait about lesbians because it is irrelevant and unlike some of you who just want to argue, I prefer to stay focused on the main topic, preventing men, as defined by science, out of women's locker rooms. I don't have to wait for some kid to be raped in that exact setting to know it is a bad idea.
> 
> I've looked into foster care and adoption. The social services have rules to limit the kids and adults getting into situations where it is too easy for a predator to have his way. It is just common sense, something sorely lacking today. I know most men, transgender or not, are not going to rape kids no matter what access they have. I'm not worried about most men. I'm worried about the individuals that will take advantage of rules that have been thoughtlessly put into place by people who do not prioritize child safety.


You'll have to be a bit more clear about what you say I changed my mind on. I don't see where my position has changed. You ignore actual dangers and concentrate on the hypothetical.

Your fear men rushing into girls locker rooms for nefarious reasons. You ignore the facts that these men would be of the same ages as the girls you wish to protect and in order to be there would have had to have already gone through diagnosis and treatment, both of which will be continuous. Medical professionals have a moral and legal obligation to not only protect their charges but to ensure that those same charges aren't a danger to others. I know facts like this aren't enough to allay your fears of the transgender boogeyman.

But no such mental health analysis of coaches or administrators is required or done prior to them interacting with those same girls. Sometimes men even put their hands on young girls to show proper form and technique. No danger there. I've shown you a link showing the actual consequences of letting adult makes interact with girls in a coaching environment yet you say such talk is irrelevant. You ignore other questions because, in my opinion, if you answered truthfully you would show the fallacy of your "it's all about protection" argument.

I can't argue against hypotheticals and proove them false. I can only say that we have laws in place prohibiting the actions you fear and they already cover everyone. They also don't prevent every harm from happening. That you think another law that only prevents interactions by a group that you cannot prove has posed any danger will make anyone safer is seriously flawed logic. You'll continue to believe such no matter what I say. Enjoy your beliefs.


----------



## mmoetc

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope. There is no test to prove god's existence. None. Careful who you call mentally ill.
> 
> ETA: People that stand on a street corner and tell people about an imaginary figure, in my opinion, should seek help.


Does that include street corner preachers? Isn't that how Jesus started out?


----------



## Irish Pixie

mmoetc said:


> Does that include street corner preachers? Isn't that how Jesus started out?


The comparison is simply due to certain posters stating that the transgender are mentally ill because their belief cannot be proven with some type of test. There is no test or proof of the existence of god either. I'm just pointing that out to certain posters. 

I really don't care, and it's none of my business, if someone believes in god, it's the hypocrisy of saying that a group is mentally ill because of a set of beliefs when another group is fine and dandy with the exact same set of beliefs.


----------



## Irish Pixie

greg273 said:


> And you propose to enforce this how?


We'd have to have bathroom genital checkers, of course. Cuz you never know what may be lurking in someone's underwear. 

ETA: Or perhaps a Dr prescribed large yellow letter with either M or W worn pinned to the clothes would suffice? Ugly, but people could be forced into the bathroom designated for their private parts. :facepalm:


----------



## Irish Pixie

Heritagefarm said:


> They are statically anamolous.


I see, so "normal" is what _you_ are? Sigh.


----------



## mmoetc

Irish Pixie said:


> The comparison is simply due to certain posters stating that the transgender are mentally ill because their belief cannot be proven with some type of test. There is no test or proof of the existence of god either. I'm just pointing that out to certain posters.
> 
> I really don't care, and it's none of my business, if someone believes in god, it's the hypocrisy of saying that a group is mentally ill because of a set of beliefs when another group is fine and dandy with the exact same set of beliefs.


I knew the likely answer. It's just nice to have a question directly answered now and again.


----------



## dixiegal62

Hold the phone. Why are some assuming all transgender females are only interested in males? I only have true life experience with one but he liked females, my daughter was his prime target. They used to be friends until he started acting interested in her. She had to break off the friendship because he was getting way too inappropriate for her liking. After that she put up with about a year of his internet bullying and rumor spreading about her and our family. Before anyone tells me he's not transgender he goes by the name Jenna and hasn't dressed as a male for years now.


----------



## mmoetc

dixiegal62 said:


> Hold the phone. Why are some assuming all transgender females are only interested in males? I only have true life experience with one but he liked females, my daughter was his prime target. They used to be friends until he started acting interested in her. She had to break off the friendship because he was getting way too inappropriate for her liking. After that she put up with about a year of his internet bullying and rumor spreading about her and our family. Before anyone tells me he's not transgender he goes by the name Jenna and hasn't dressed as a male for years now.


I never made any such assumption. It's why I brought up the lesbian in women's locker room question that has been ignored and I was told was irrelevant. The assumption, by some, seems to be that all transgenders transitioning to female are attracted to females and are thus a threat and should be banned. I know this not to be true but it is the basis some use. I do know that all lesbians are attracted to females( it's the definition after all) yet no one is calling for their ban or separate locker rooms for them. Is it really just a desire to protect that drives some?

ETA- I'm sorry about what happened to your daughter. But the facts and the wrongdoing don't change if the stalker was male to female, female to male, straight male or lesbian. Any should be punished equally under the law for their actions, not just because of who they are or what dangly bits they possess or don't.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mmoetc said:


> I never made any such assumption. It's why I brought up the lesbian in women's locker room question that has been ignored and I was told was irrelevant. The assumption, by some, seems to be that all transgenders transitioning to female are attracted to females and are thus a threat and should be banned. I know this not to be true but it is the basis some use. I do know that all lesbians are attracted to females( it's the definition after all) yet no one is calling for their ban or separate locker rooms for them. Is it really just a desire to protect that drives some?


I never assumed that all female transgender are interested in men either. 

The rest of your post is spot on as well.


----------



## Shine

mmoetc said:


> This does bring up the question I asked long ago that you and others have left unanswered. What other "mental disorders" would you have disqualify others from being in your presesence in public places. Should the person who hears and responds to voices be banned from your bathroom because you cannot concentrate on your business when he is present? What others offend you so much you shouldn't have to endure their presence?


Fairly much, we all suffer from mental deficiencies, myself included. The only persons that I would do something about if they were in my presence is those that are a danger to others or themselves or are breaking the law. Those that merely annoy me do not rise to any such "disqualification". 

There, at least your question has been answered.


----------



## AmericanStand

Bearfootfarm said:


> So you think males have no self control?
> 
> Does Chastity Bono make you lose yours?



Yes some do. I seem to remember a thread here where someone threatened great bodily harm to somebody who may have accidentally been in the wrong bathroom.


----------



## AmericanStand

dixiegal62 said:


> Before anyone tells me he's not transgender he goes by the name Jenna and hasn't dressed as a male for years now.



Um Dixie that doesn't have anything to do with transgender. 
I suppose it's a technical detail but that simply cross dressing.


----------



## dixiegal62

AmericanStand said:


> Um Dixie that doesn't have anything to do with transgender.
> I suppose it's a technical detail but that simply cross dressing.


I think it does. He goes by the woman's name, wants a sex change, says he's a lesbian. Honestly I admit I don't know much about the labels, it's all very confusing to me.


----------



## mmoetc

Shine said:


> Fairly much, we all suffer from mental deficiencies, myself included. The only persons that I would do something about if they were in my presence is those that are a danger to others or themselves or are breaking the law. Those that merely annoy me do not rise to any such "disqualification".
> 
> There, at least your question has been answered.


But we're not just talking about what you would do. We're talking about writing laws so that certain people would have to break the law to enter a bathroom to which their gender identification is appropriate. So were talking about your support of laws which will make criminals of people not because they are any threat to you but because you disapprove of their presence. How would you handle the person who to all outward appearances is a woman walking into the men's room behind you? It's your law. How do you enforce it and live with it? 

So no, as usual you answered the question you wanted to, not the one asked.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Some of you may know, I support the LBGT community. I'm not in favor of imposing my beliefs or morality on others. However, the restroom issue takes things to far. It's not really about equal rights for trans people at this point. This is the point where they start demanding to be seen as elevated people, somehow morally better and deserving of their own restroom of choice. So, one person wants to make everyone else uncomfortable in the restroom, sorry no, that is where I draw the line. 



Irish Pixie said:


> We'd have to have bathroom genital checkers, of course. Cuz you never know what may be lurking in someone's underwear.
> 
> ETA: Or perhaps a Dr prescribed large yellow letter with either M or W worn pinned to the clothes would suffice? Ugly, but people could be forced into the bathroom designated for their private parts. :facepalm:


Isn't that the crux of the issue? If anyone can use either bathroom under the guise of being "transgender" or even transvestite, gender-specific restrooms would become meaningless.



Irish Pixie said:


> I see, so "normal" is what _you_ are? Sigh.


I wouldn't go that far.



dixiegal62 said:


> Hold the phone. Why are some assuming all transgender females are only interested in males? I only have true life experience with one but he liked females, my daughter was his prime target. They used to be friends until he started acting interested in her. She had to break off the friendship because he was getting way too inappropriate for her liking. After that she put up with about a year of his internet bullying and rumor spreading about her and our family. Before anyone tells me he's not transgender he goes by the name Jenna and hasn't dressed as a male for years now.


I wouldn't bother with transgender; "pervert" would obviously be a better match for him/her. 




AmericanStand said:


> Yes some do. I seem to remember a thread here where someone threatened great bodily harm to somebody who may have accidentally been in the wrong bathroom.


People tend to get angry when the wrong gender comes into their restroom.


----------



## Heritagefarm

dixiegal62 said:


> I think it does. He goes by the woman's name, wants a sex change, says he's a lesbian. Honestly I admit I don't know much about the labels, it's all very confusing to me.





logbuilder said:


> Interesting idea. Really constructive. Thanks for your well thought out response.
> 
> Have you thought it thru enough to think about the financial implications of your idea?


You're welcome - it required at least 3 seconds of serious thought, during which I also snacked on sunflower seeds. Almost pulled a brain muscle.:hammer:

And, it would certainly be cheaper than making unisex bathrooms. However, the women would be forced to walk past urinals constantly, and you know they'd complain about that. (*I* complain about that.) And, and the sign companies would love printing out new unicorn bathroom signs.


----------



## mmoetc

Heritagefarm said:


> Some of you may know, I support the LBGT community. I'm not in favor of imposing my beliefs or morality on others. However, the restroom issue takes things to far. It's not really about equal rights for trans people at this point. This is the point where they start demanding to be seen as elevated people, somehow morally better and deserving of their own restroom of choice. So, one person wants to make everyone else uncomfortable in the restroom, sorry no, that is where I draw the line.
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that the crux of the issue? If anyone can use either bathroom under the guise of being "transgender" or even transvestite, gender-specific restrooms would become meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't go that far.
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't bother with transgender; "pervert" would obviously be a better match for him/her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People tend to get angry when the wrong gender comes into their restroom.


Which bathroom would you force this person to use?https://www.yahoo.com/news/transgender-womans-selfie-north-carolina-190200654.html. If you saw her walking to the ladies room would you give it a second thought? If she walked into the bathroom the North Carolina mandates she must do you think there would be less outrage? This is who some seek to criminalize. For what gain?


----------



## AmericanStand

See how much simpler it was hen all this stuff was against the law ?
That's really what don't ask don't tell means.


----------



## Farmerga

We are forgetting the real issue here. Some have said that "what are we going to have genital checkers?", That is a silly question that I will respond with another silly question. Are we going to have an interview for those, who are anatomically male, yet want to use the women's bathroom, to insure that they are, indeed, transgender, and not some run of the mill pervert who wants to ogle at girls/women? 

Most laws don't stop behavior, they simply give the justice system recourse to punish lawbreakers.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Heritagefarm said:


> Some of you may know, I support the LBGT community. I'm not in favor of imposing my beliefs or morality on others. However, the restroom issue takes things to far. It's not really about equal rights for trans people at this point. This is the point where they start demanding to be seen as elevated people, somehow morally better and deserving of their own restroom of choice. So, one person wants to make everyone else uncomfortable in the restroom, sorry no, that is where I draw the line.


I don't see it that way, all transgender people want to do is use the bathroom that matches their gender. There is no special treatment, just equal to everyone else. I'm not uncomfortable in a restroom with a transgender woman and I'll bet there are many many other women like me. So what is the "tipping point", if one person is uncomfortable it shouldn't be allowed? That doesn't make sense, there are many things that make me uncomfortable but that doesn't give me the right to disallow any of them. 

So when blacks demanded equal rights they were elevating themselves above people of other races? When disabled people demanded to be able to access all buildings they were elevating themselves above other people? When women demanded equal pay, oh wait, that still hasn't happened. Or did they just want equality?


----------



## arabian knight

And sure do it that way..One bathroom marked Women And marked Men. Just like it has been for Eons. Those that associated with whatever they THINK they are go in to THAT ONE. Period. Just like has been done for as long as bathrooms have been marked that way, and quit bellyaching that you want to be treated SPECIAL. And let the world go by just as it has for all these years Shut your traps and use what you are regardless. Men room, Women bathroom End of story, end of making this such a bug deal.~!
The libs have been doing this for so long it is about time to shut up and just go in and do your business and get the heck out. PC correctness RUN AMOCK by this lib real thinking these days. This pc stuff needs to be CorrectLESS.


----------



## Shine

mmoetc said:


> But we're not just talking about what you would do. We're talking about writing laws so that certain people would have to break the law to enter a bathroom to which their gender identification is appropriate. So were talking about your support of laws which will make criminals of people not because they are any threat to you but because you disapprove of their presence. How would you handle the person who to all outward appearances is a woman walking into the men's room behind you? It's your law. How do you enforce it and live with it?
> 
> So no, as usual you answered the question you wanted to, not the one asked.


I'm trying to answer what I understand you to have asked. It seems that it is difficult for me to get just exactly what you want but I will honestly try again. To do so I will parse your quote above.

1. We're talking about writing laws so that certain people would have to break the law to enter a bathroom to which their gender identification is appropriate. 

A. OK, writing laws that would allow people to break the laws? Or are you speaking about the laws that are in place now that make it illegal for a male to enter the female's restrooms? I am not trying to be insulting here, just not getting your exact meaning.

2. So were talking about your support of laws which will make criminals of people not because they are any threat to you but because you disapprove of their presence.

A. My support of laws such as mentioned above is bolstered by 57 years of seeing that they work as intended. For me, this does not need to be a law, I will not enter a female bathroom unless there is a clear and current emergency going on. As far as me disapproving of their presence, currently I disapprove of their presence because that presence is against the law.

3. How would you handle the person who to all outward appearances is a woman walking into the men's room behind you?

A. I would stop for a moment, gain the person's attention, suggest that they might be in the wrong location and then operate as I see fit depending upon that reply. BUT, being as I am a man, if the person chose to continue on and did no more than use the facilities then I would take no further action. This paradigm is totally different when the situation is reversed IMHO. I cannot speak to that solution. 

4. It's your law. How do you enforce it and live with it?

Need some help with this one, -> My Law? Which law specifically? Help out here and I will try to share my understanding...


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> We are forgetting the real issue here. Some have said that "what are we going to have genital checkers?", That is a silly question that I will respond with another silly question. Are we going to have an interview for those, who are anatomically male, yet want to use the women's bathroom, to insure that they are, indeed, transgender, and not some run of the mill pervert who wants to ogle at girls/women?
> 
> Most laws don't stop behavior, they simply give the justice system recourse to punish lawbreakers.


If someone does their business in the privacy of a stall how will the law be enforced? I've pointed out and so has at least one other that this is the likeliest scenario. If you don't peek how do you know who broke the law? There are already ample statutes and policies aimed at detering such behavior and allowing for punishment. Why don't you worry about the gay man standing in the bathroom ogling men and boys? Why not the bull **** lesbian loitering to look at your wives and daughters? Why not laws banning them? They are, after all, more numerous and therefor a much greater threat.

Once again those who often cry loudest about the need for smaller, less intrusive government advocate for more laws.


----------



## Shine

An interesting observation: Will Transgendered people who have not yet had their surgery be able to sue the government soon for discriminating against them because there aren't urinals it the ladies bathrooms?


----------



## Shine

mmoetc said:


> If someone does their business in the privacy of a stall how will the law be enforced?


This has never really been my concern. I am absolutely certain that this is how transgendered people operate currently. So far I haven't heard a squeak about it. I really do not think that this is the issue that needs to be discussed. 

When we inject children into this equation then I start getting severely uncomfortable with government dismissing the privacy rights of those children. 

I really do not care to have bathroom monitors everywhere, I do not want to see every location that has a men's and woman's room have to pay good money to install a uni-sex bathroom. People are allowed to be whomever they want to be as long as they behave. Before someone replies about who's rules do you use regarding "behave" - I offer that which is considered being civil today.


----------



## mmoetc

Shine said:


> I'm trying to answer what I understand you to have asked. It seems that it is difficult for me to get just exactly what you want but I will honestly try again. To do so I will parse your quote above.
> 
> 1. We're talking about writing laws so that certain people would have to break the law to enter a bathroom to which their gender identification is appropriate.
> 
> A. OK, writing laws that would allow people to break the laws? Or are you speaking about the laws that are in place now that make it illegal for a male to enter the female's restrooms? I am not trying to be insulting here, just not getting your exact meaning.
> 
> 2. So were talking about your support of laws which will make criminals of people not because they are any threat to you but because you disapprove of their presence.
> 
> A. My support of laws such as mentioned above is bolstered by 57 years of seeing that they work as intended. For me, this does not need to be a law, I will not enter a female bathroom unless there is a clear and current emergency going on. As far as me disapproving of their presence, currently I disapprove of their presence because that presence is against the law.
> 
> 3. How would you handle the person who to all outward appearances is a woman walking into the men's room behind you?
> 
> A. I would stop for a moment, gain the person's attention, suggest that they might be in the wrong location and then operate as I see fit depending upon that reply. BUT, being as I am a man, if the person chose to continue on and did no more than use the facilities then I would take no further action. This paradigm is totally different when the situation is reversed IMHO. I cannot speak to that solution.
> 
> 4. It's your law. How do you enforce it and live with it?
> 
> Need some help with this one, -> My Law? Which law specifically? Help out here and I will try to share my understanding...


I am referring specifically to the North Carolina law.
If there is no law requiring one to use only the restroom of the sex listed on their birth certificate there is nothing to enforce. Five states currently have laws stating that transgenders can use the bathroom of the sex they identify with. No one has yet shown the problems this had caused in those states. In fact, no one had shown the problems with this issue in North Carolina that necessitated the state passing such a law. What was inadequate about all the laws you cite, without citation, that should have prevented and punished such actions in the days prior to this new law? 

As to enforcement- I would punish innappropriate or dangerous behavior. Using a bathroom stall to take care of ones business is hardly either.

I hope that clears some things up for you.
Laws allowing things are far different than laws banning things. Laws allowing things give everyone equal choice. Laws denying things by definition limit the choice of some.


----------



## Shine

mmoetc said:


> I am referring specifically to the North Carolina law.
> If there is no law requiring one to use only the restroom of the sex listed on their birth certificate there is nothing to enforce. Five states currently have laws stating that transgenders can use the bathroom of the sex they identify with. No one has yet shown the problems this had caused in those states. In fact, no one had shown the problems with this issue in North Carolina that necessitated the state passing such a law. What was inadequate about all the laws you cite, without citation, that should have prevented and punished such actions in the days prior to this new law?
> 
> As to enforcement- I would punish innappropriate or dangerous behavior. Using a bathroom stall to take care of ones business is hardly either.
> 
> I hope that clears some things up for you.
> Laws allowing things are far different than laws banning things. Laws allowing things give everyone equal choice. Laws denying things by definition limit the choice of some.


...not sure where I have quoted North Carolina laws but here is the statute for NC indecent exposure. [P.S. - I live in Florida]

Â§ 14-190.9. Indecent exposure.
(a) Unless the conduct is punishable under subsection (a1) of this section, any person who shall willfully expose the private parts of his or her person in any public place and in the presence of any other person or persons, except for those places designated for a public purpose where the same sex exposure is incidental to a permitted activity, or aids or abets in any such act, or who procures another to perform such act; or any person, who as owner, manager, lessee, director, promoter or agent, or in any other capacity knowingly hires, leases or permits the land, building, or premises of which he is owner, lessee or tenant, or over which he has control, to be used for purposes of any such act, shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.


This makes it illegal for one person to expose themselves to another of a different sex.


----------



## mmoetc

Shine said:


> ...not sure where I have quoted North Carolina laws but here is the statute for NC indecent exposure. [P.S. - I live in Florida]
> 
> Â§ 14-190.9. Indecent exposure.
> (a) Unless the conduct is punishable under subsection (a1) of this section, any person who shall willfully expose the private parts of his or her person in any public place and in the presence of any other person or persons, except for those places designated for a public purpose where the same sex exposure is incidental to a permitted activity, or aids or abets in any such act, or who procures another to perform such act; or any person, who as owner, manager, lessee, director, promoter or agent, or in any other capacity knowingly hires, leases or permits the land, building, or premises of which he is owner, lessee or tenant, or over which he has control, to be used for purposes of any such act, shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.
> 
> 
> This makes it illegal for one person to expose themselves to another of a different sex.


And how does someone urinating behind the closed doors of a bathroom stall expose themself to another and thus violate this law?


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

This is about lot more than being able to go to the bathroom. Now isn't it ? 
If there isn't a physical issue, then it has to be a psychological issue.


----------



## mmoetc

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> This is about lot more than being able to go to the bathroom. Now isn't it ?
> If there isn't a physical issue, then it has to be a psychological issue.


For some I'm sure it is about a lot more. For most it's likely just about going to bathroom.


----------



## JeffreyD

mmoetc said:


> For some I'm sure it is about a lot more. For most it's likely just about going to bathroom.


Do you have any daughters?


----------



## Irish Pixie

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> This is about lot more than being able to go to the bathroom. Now isn't it ?
> If there isn't a physical issue, then it has to be a psychological issue.


And what psychological issue would that be?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> Hold the phone. Why are some assuming all transgender females are only interested in males? I only have true life experience with one but he liked females, my daughter was his prime target. They used to be friends until he started acting interested in her. She had to break off the friendship because he was getting way too inappropriate for her liking. After that she put up with about a year of his internet bullying and rumor spreading about her and our family. *Before anyone tells me he's not transgender *he goes by the name Jenna and hasn't dressed as a male for years now.


Is he doing the hormone treatments or is he really just a *transvestite*?


----------



## mmoetc

JeffreyD said:


> Do you have any daughters?


Yes I do. I taught her to stand up for herself and to be able to protect herself. She's taught me a lot about judging others for who they are, not what they are. She was raised before the advent of family bathrooms and was taken into more than one men's room when she was young. No incidents, no lasting psychological trauma, no drama. No arrests. Your point was?


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

All the people I deal with on a daily basis aren't confused with whether they are male or female. Or to toss in for error 99% know what and who they are.


----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> Is he doing the hormone treatments or is he really just a *transvestite*?


I don't have access to his medical history. I asked you this once and I'll ask again, how would anyone tell the difference if they where in the ladies room with him? I would not go into the bathroom with him, he is a predator.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> An interesting observation: Will Transgendered people who have not yet had their surgery be able to sue the government soon for discriminating against them because there aren't urinals it the ladies bathrooms?


Lots of restrooms don't have urinals.

They aren't needed, and your question suggests you really aren't interested in a serious discussion


----------



## mmoetc

dixiegal62 said:


> I don't have access to his medical history. I asked you this once and I'll ask again, how would anyone tell the difference if they where in the ladies room with him? I would not go into the bathroom with him, he is a predator.


What do know about any stranger in a public restroom. From what you've said it wouldn't seem prudent for you to be anywhere near this person. But that has nothing to do with how he dresses or identifies and everything with the type of person he is.


----------



## JeffreyD

mmoetc said:


> Yes I do. I taught her to stand up for herself and to be able to protect herself. She's taught me a lot about judging others for who they are, not what they are. She was raised before the advent of family bathrooms and was taken into more than one men's room when she was young. No incidents, no lasting psychological trauma, no drama. No arrests. Your point was?


I just wanted to know how much your protective instincts went into effect if you did. You said she was "taken" so an adult was present, good. We're men sharing the same bathroom with you at the same time? I highly doubt you would have let that happen.

I have a 7 year old daughter, having a man share a restroom with her is not acceptable under any circumstances. EVER! You got lucky.


----------



## dixiegal62

mmoetc said:


> And how does someone urinating behind the closed doors of a bathroom stall expose themself to another and thus violate this law?


I've been in plenty of ladies rooms that had cracks in the doors. If you're sitting on the toilet and you can see out the doors then somebody could see in them. Plus there not completely closed in all bathrooms there's openings on top of most of them. While stopping at a rest stop in LA we found boot prints on several toilet seats. We ended up taking turns as look out after making sure nobody was lurking in the adjoining stalls for a peek.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> ...not sure where I have quoted North Carolina laws but here is the statute for NC indecent exposure. [P.S. - I live in Florida]
> 
> Â§ 14-190.9. Indecent exposure.
> (a) Unless the conduct is punishable under subsection (a1) of this section, any person who shall willfully expose the private parts of his or her person in any public place and in the presence of any other person or persons, except for those places designated for a public purpose where the same sex exposure is incidental to a permitted activity, or aids or abets in any such act, or who procures another to perform such act; or any person, who as owner, manager, lessee, director, promoter or agent, or in any other capacity knowingly hires, leases or permits the land, building, or premises of which he is owner, lessee or tenant, or over which he has control, to be used for purposes of any such act, shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.
> 
> 
> This makes it illegal for one person to expose themselves to another of a different sex.


That law has nothing to do with this topic
Why not show one that makes it illegal to enter the "wrong" bathroom.
You keep saying that's against the law, but have offered no proof


----------



## Bearfootfarm

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> All the people I deal with on a daily basis aren't confused with whether they are male or female. Or to toss in for error 99% know what and who they are.


So like the vast majority of folks, you never have any direct contact with obvious transgenders or transvestites at all.

Some seem to think that with a change in the laws they will suddenly be everywhere, just waiting to pounce


----------



## mmoetc

JeffreyD said:


> I just wanted to know how much your protective instincts went into effect if you did. You said she was "taken" so an adult was present, good. We're men sharing the same bathroom with you at the same time? I highly doubt you would have let that happen.
> 
> I have a 7 year old daughter, having a man share a restroom with her is not acceptable under any circumstances. EVER! You got lucky.


More than once other men were present. We walked past them into a stall, took care of business, walked back out to the sink and washed and left. It's amazing how considerate people are if you give them a chance.

There's no need your daughter ever find out what someone has or hasn't hanging between their legs in a public restroom. Everything should happen in a private stall. Remember, the North Carolina law requires that a female transitioning to male must use the same restroom as your daughter. The law will require her to enter with the bearded person in the three piece suit. And legally you can't stop it. Teach her to be aware of her surroundings and object loudly to any dangerous or threatening situations. That will keep her safer than just being lucky.


----------



## mmoetc

dixiegal62 said:


> I've been in plenty of ladies rooms that had cracks in the doors. If you're sitting on the toilet and you can see out the doors then somebody could see in them. Plus there not completely closed in all bathrooms there's openings on top of most of them. While stopping at a rest stop in LA we found boot prints on several toilet seats. We ended up taking turns as look out after making sure nobody was lurking in the adjoining stalls for a peek.


Again, laws govern such behaviors and they should be punished no matter who's peeking.


----------



## Shine

mmoetc said:


> And how does someone urinating behind the closed doors of a bathroom stall expose themself to another and thus violate this law?


OK, let's take this law apart and find a thousand things that do not matter.

I really do not see what you are driving at. 

Please forgive me.


----------



## dixiegal62

mmoetc said:


> Again, laws govern such behaviors and they should be punished no matter who's peeking.


I agree. I also think if even one female ends up hurt by changing the law that's one too many.


----------



## mmoetc

dixiegal62 said:


> I agree. I also think if even one female ends up hurt by changing the law that's one too many.


How about the guy who's ten days pre-op, looks like the person in the link I posted earlier and is forced to go into the men's room where some Neanderthal takes offense and assaults him? Or the pre op woman with the full beard wearing jeans, flannel shirt and boots who gets beaten up by the boyfriend of the young lady in the restroom who doesn't think it appropriate attire for the ladies room? Concerned about them too? Imagination is fun. Current laws aren't what makes restrooms safer. Laws banning transexuals won't make them one iota safer, either.


----------



## Shine

A man simply entering a woman's bathroom and being confronted therein can be charged with Trespass and/or Criminal Trespass and depending upon what happens thereafter, Indecent Exposure.


----------



## Shine

mmoetc said:


> How about the guy who's ten days pre-op, looks like the person in the link I posted earlier and is forced to go into the men's room where some Neanderthal takes offense and assaults him? Or the pre op woman with the full beard wearing jeans, flannel shirt and boots who gets beaten up by the boyfriend of the young lady in the restroom who doesn't think it appropriate attire for the ladies room? Concerned about them too? Imagination is fun. Current laws aren't what makes restrooms safer. Laws banning transexuals won't make them one iota safer, either.


There are several people on here that ridicule others for trying to play the "What if" game. We can sit here all day long and make up situations that postulate both sides of the story and get absolutely nowhere.


----------



## mmoetc

Shine said:


> OK, let's take this law apart and find a thousand things that do not matter.
> 
> I really do not see what you are driving at.
> 
> Please forgive me.


You posted the law. Maybe you can exp&#322;ain it's relevance. It says nothing about what sex is allowed in what restroom which is the topic of this discussion. You kept repeating that current law in your state prohibits men from women's restrooms and seemed to try to use this statute as proof of such. I didn't have to find a thousand things that don't matter. I couldn't find one in the law you posted that does. It says nothing about men or women but does regulate certain behaviors. It's a law I understand and approve of. What equipment someone uses to fill a toilet bowl behind a closed toilet stall door is no business of mine. Nor should it be of the government.


No forgiveness neccessary but I tire of your games. I don't think for a moment you lack understanding. I do think you don't have a leg to stand on and wil try to obfuscate your way out.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mmoetc said:


> How about the guy who's ten days pre-op, looks like the person in the link I posted earlier and is forced to go into the men's room where some Neanderthal takes offense and assaults him? Or the pre op woman with the full beard wearing jeans, flannel shirt and boots who gets beaten up by the boyfriend of the young lady in the restroom who doesn't think it appropriate attire for the ladies room? Concerned about them too? Imagination is fun. Current laws aren't what makes restrooms safer. Laws banning transexuals won't make them one iota safer, either.


Is is the issue condensed to it's essence. And I don't think that many that have embraced the irrational fear aspect of the issue care if a transgender person is hurt.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> There are several people on here that ridicule others for trying to play the "What if" game. We can sit here all day long and make up situations that postulate both sides of the story and get absolutely nowhere.


I'm one of them- *I* don't like playing the "what if" game but I don't try to control what other people do.


----------



## mmoetc

Shine said:


> There are several people on here that ridicule others for trying to play the "What if" game. We can sit here all day long and make up situations that postulate both sides of the story and get absolutely nowhere.


But the whole argument against allowing transexuals the ability to choose their restroom has been one of what if. That includes the post I replied to which intimated that allowing such action would lead to a woman being harmed. At least I acknowledge that my scenarios are imaginary. I've repeatedly asked you and others for proof of this danger and have been met with only silence or speculation about how hoards of men masquerading as women are just waiting to rush women's rooms across the land a wreak havoc. I've shown evidence of actual harm done by predators yet I'm told its irrelevant and no one calls for laws banning every one who meets that description from access to their prey.

Forgive me for responding in kind. I'd much rather debate facts but those seem to be lacking from the other side.


----------



## Bubba1358

mmoetc said:


> How about the guy who's ten days pre-op, looks like the person in the link I posted earlier and is forced to go into the men's room where some Neanderthal takes offense and assaults him? Or the pre op woman with the full beard wearing jeans, flannel shirt and boots who gets beaten up by the boyfriend of the young lady in the restroom who doesn't think it appropriate attire for the ladies room? Concerned about them too? Imagination is fun. Current laws aren't what makes restrooms safer. Laws banning transexuals won't make them one iota safer, either.


How bout this guy who claims he's a trans, gets unlimited access to women, and assaults them?Concerned about them? Since he's now legally allowed to be there simply on his word, how do those in support of the open policies propose to stop or prevent it?

There's also this guy. And this one, who even filmed a 5-year-old child. 

How were those women supposed to know what these creeps really were? After all, transgender is the new hip thing, and nobody wants to appear to be insensitive or uncaring.

THAT is the essence of this discussion, and why I will always disagree with this "gender identity" thing - it is opening a Pandora's Box of confusion. It is legally enshrining yet another loophole so yet another sicko can harm yet another innocent woman.

This will end up making it infinitely easier for predators (as in some cases, it already has!). All they have to do is SAY they're a trans to get in, and who's going to question that?!

Now, nobody - until they hurt someone.


----------



## Bubba1358

mmoetc said:


> But the whole argument against allowing transexuals the ability to choose their restroom has been one of what if.


False. It's about when these laws get exploited and real people (including children) are hurt.


----------



## logbuilder

Lets just for a moment assume that the proposed law is good and it gets passed. If everyone followed that law, you now have people who _look_ like a female going into the male restroom and people who _look_ like male going into the female restroom. That's the law. 

How will people react? Will they question the person? Hassle them? Should they say nothing?

I suspect people will not let this go without reacting. I can see how the trans person following the law will be far more uncomfortable by going to the 'proper' restroom.

Shouldn't this law also contain some type of protection from harassment? Maybe it should be a crime to interfere in any way with someone who is not dressed in the gender of the bathroom. The punishment should be equal to what would be imposed if the trans person when into the illegal restroom.

I can see it resulting in many more non-trans people getting in trouble than the trans people.

Plus, now anybody can go into any restroom. If questioned, they just need to say they are trans.

For those in favor of the law, is this the way you want this to turn out?


----------



## dixiegal62

mmoetc said:


> I'll get to the solution but much of this argument is built in two fallacies that try to equate the two sides. The first is that both sides are acting out of the same emotion, discomfort. It's not discomfort that drives most transgenders to use the bathroom they do. It is a neccessity in their life. They are undergoing a therapy that includes them having to live their lives as their chosen gender. Without doing so for some length of time how do the proceed to the surgery that some say cures all ills and makes them eligible to enter that room? There is also legitimate fear of the reaction a person in a dress will get walking into a men's room or one with a beard in a three piece suit walking into a woman's room will engender. This is what laws will require and will force people to accept. To put discomfort, even discomfort by many, on the same level as these concerns is at best disingenuous and there lies part of the bias you claim to see.
> 
> The second fallacy is that both sides are acting equally. Requesting the ability to do something isn't the same as legally banning it. I'll ask you the same question that no one else has answered. If discomfort of others is enough justification to ban them from restrooms who else could be banned because they make enough people uncomfortable? We all deal every day with a great many things about others that make us uncomfortable without advocating for laws that would ban them.
> 
> My solution. *Both sides need to get over themselves a little bit. The transgendered need to lighten up their stridency in many cases and realize that the other sides feelings are legitimate and important to them. They need to realize that because you can do something doesn't always mean you should. They need to realize and act on the fact that using the unisex or family bathroom is often the best course of action for all. There will always be those that push boundaries and there are always those who will judge all by those boundary pushers. Both are wrong headed. * The save our bathrooms crowd needs to realize that laws banning others are a step too far. Five states currently have laws allowing what they would ban and the world hasn't crashed down around them. They need to realize that proposing and passing laws to an an action often only leads to people digging their heels in deeper. Especially laws that are largely unenforcable without violating the very privacy many claim to hold so dear. Both sides need to lighten up and learn to live with one another just as we do every day with so many others.
> 
> Private bathrooms and family restrooms are a good solution and more if the social trend is leading that way without laws mandating them. Or laws mandating who must use which.





mmoetc said:


> How about the guy who's ten days pre-op, looks like the person in the link I posted earlier and is forced to go into the men's room where some Neanderthal takes offense and assaults him? Or the pre op woman with the full beard wearing jeans, flannel shirt and boots who gets beaten up by the boyfriend of the young lady in the restroom who doesn't think it appropriate attire for the ladies room? Concerned about them too? Imagination is fun. Current laws aren't what makes restrooms safer. Laws banning transexuals won't make them one iota safer, either.


Make private bathrooms another option where public bathrooms are. They have a place they can feel safe and others do too.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Bubba1358 said:


> How bout this guy who claims he's a trans, gets unlimited access to women, and assaults them?Concerned about them? Since he's now legally allowed to be there simply on his word, how do those in support of the open policies propose to stop or prevent it?
> 
> There's also this guy. And this one, who even filmed a 5-year-old child.
> 
> How were those women supposed to know what these creeps really were? After all, transgender is the new hip thing, and nobody wants to appear to be insensitive or uncaring.
> 
> THAT is the essence of this discussion, and why I will always disagree with this "gender identity" thing - it is opening a Pandora's Box of confusion. It is legally enshrining yet another loophole so yet another sicko can harm yet another innocent woman.
> 
> This will end up making it infinitely easier for predators (as in some cases, it already has!). All they have to do is SAY they're a trans to get in, and who's going to question that?!
> 
> Now, nobody - until they hurt someone.


That's what my argument is. I'm all for trans having equals rights, but it allows too slippery of a slope for perverts to enter the wrong restroom. We already have a strong enough rape culture - we don't need to make it easier for them.


----------



## Shine

mmoetc said:


> I couldn't find one in the law you posted that does. It says nothing about men or women but does regulate certain behaviors. It's a law I understand and approve of. What equipment someone uses to fill a toilet bowl behind a closed toilet stall door is no business of mine. Nor should it be of the government.
> 
> 
> No forgiveness neccessary but I tire of your games. I don't think for a moment you lack understanding.


The Trespass and Criminal Trespass laws are sufficient to remove a male from a female's bathroom. Of course, not if they are cross dressing and have done so for quite some time. It would appear that this and a well told lie would allow most any man into the ladies room. Is this what you are angling for?


----------



## Shine

mmoetc said:


> Forgive me for responding in kind. I'd much rather debate facts but those seem to be lacking from the other side.


As there is little background to argue the point I will have to submit to your contention that there is little to worry about from transgendered people committing crimes of a sexual nature.

I have been towards the middle on the bathroom issue already but I guess you missed that part, and I have not shook the NC laws in front of anyone's face but I guess that I am convenient person to vent upon, so be it.

My dog in this fight is the premise where the inclusion of these policies within the school system will steal any premise of modesty from the children that it will be imposed upon. If you can cast that by the wayside in your attempts to make this world better then you and I do not see eye to eye.


----------



## Heritagefarm

mmoetc said:


> How about the guy who's ten days pre-op, looks like the person in the link I posted earlier and is forced to go into the men's room where some Neanderthal takes offense and assaults him? Or the pre op woman with the full beard wearing jeans, flannel shirt and boots who gets beaten up by the boyfriend of the young lady in the restroom who doesn't think it appropriate attire for the ladies room? Concerned about them too? Imagination is fun. Current laws aren't what makes restrooms safer. Laws banning transexuals won't make them one iota safer, either.


I Don't have a problem with a trans person using their bathroom of choice, provided they look like who goes into their bathroom. So, I guess my main argument is against transvestites. 

Also, trans can't be compared to black emancipation. Blacks occur naturally, whereas trans have to make a conceited effort to become the opposite gender.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

Tolerance In A World Of Difference.


----------



## greg273

Bubba1358 said:


> After all, transgender is the new hip thing, .


 Simply based on that one statement, its clear your entire argument is based on false assumptions. Are you one of those unfortunate souls who believes being gay is a 'lifestyle choice' people make? 
Given the suicide rate among gays is far higher than straights, it would seem to be a curse more than anything. And some still want to pile on MORE stigma, more isolation, more discrimination. Now we can add fearmongering to that list.


----------



## thericeguy

I will settle this debate within my own family with our wallet. Stores which have public bathrooms (meaning multiple stalls) which suppory policies that allow opposite sex inside will simply have to bare the financial burden of having a bathroom attendant present, or our dollars go elsewhere. My children will not be in a bathroom with opposite sex unsupervised, and since it is the store's policy, it will be up to them to make a reasonable effort to insure proper behaviour for all. 

In doing so, I remove myself from the debate, do not care the outcome, and do what I feel best for my family. In a world where stores ask us to ring up our own goods and bag them, unlikely many will be willing to put their money where their policy is.


----------



## Irish Pixie

greg273 said:


> Simply based on that one statement, its clear your entire argument is based on false assumptions. Are you one of those unfortunate souls who believes being gay is a 'lifestyle choice' people make?
> Given the suicide rate among gays is far higher than straights, it would seem to be a curse more than anything. And some still want to pile on MORE stigma, more isolation, more discrimination. Now we can add fearmongering to that list.


Exactly. Excellent post.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Heritagefarm said:


> I Don't have a problem with a trans person using their bathroom of choice, provided they look like who goes into their bathroom. So, I guess my main argument is against transvestites.
> 
> Also, trans can't be compared to black emancipation. Blacks occur naturally, whereas trans have to make a conceited effort to become the opposite gender.


Skin color and transgenderism are present from birth, as is homosexuality. Some people are born that way, just as I was born with red hair and blue eyes. 

You may not like the discrimination comparison but it's valid. Discrimination of any type is ugly.


----------



## oneraddad

Is there a lot of bathroom perversion going where you guys live, because it's not happening here. If it was going on I wouldn't expect the pervert to tell me his true intentions anyway. That Duggar guy is a fine example.


----------



## DEKE01

Bearfootfarm said:


> I've not made any such demands.
> You seem to be confused


Of course you have, you just don't want to face up to the consequences of your position.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> I don't have access to his medical history. I asked you this once and I'll ask again, how would anyone tell the difference if they where in the ladies room with him? I would not go into the bathroom with him, he is a predator.


If you can't tell any difference why is it such a big deal?
Predatory behavior is illegal regardless of sex or location


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> A man simply entering a woman's bathroom and being confronted therein c*an be charged with Trespass and/or Criminal Trespass *and depending upon what happens thereafter, Indecent Exposure.


You keep repeating that.
How about showing these statutes


----------



## Bearfootfarm

DEKE01 said:


> Of course you have, you just don't want to face up to the consequences of your position.


Repeating the fallacy isn't going to change my answer.
Thinking it will is the definition of insanity


----------



## Heritagefarm

Irish Pixie said:


> Skin color and transgenderism are present from birth, as is homosexuality. Some people are born that way, just as I was born with red hair and blue eyes.
> 
> You may not like the discrimination comparison but it's valid. Discrimination of any type is ugly.


Of course it is. Hopefully you're not accusing me of discrimination.

However, it's perfectly valid, I think to examine sexual orientation as an environmental factor. Maybe some are born liking their gender more than others. Reasonable. But nature has us wired to like the opposite sex in order to reproduce. If you disagree, please argue with a biology textbook. One would suspect homosexuality to be selected against, but it consistently appears.

http://www.advocate.com/health/2012...ntation-determined-brain-hemisphere-dominance

This person thinks it's right-brain left-brain dominance. However, recent studies have thrown the brain-dominance theory out the window, but portions of the theory may be valid.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/...t_on_genes_chromosomes_and_environmental.html

This article is more comprehensive and supports your from birth theory, but it also points out the condition may be caused by environmental factors as well, contributing to epigenetic factors. 

I was unable to find evidence supporting the orientation of someone who is, say, male, and wants to become a lesbian. I've got no clue what causes that.


----------



## logbuilder

For those that support the law (birth gender dictates bathroom), I wonder about their motivations. Protecting kids from predators, I get that. When it is just adults, I'm not so sure I understand. Maybe it would make some adults uncomfortable to have someone trans in their restroom (how would you know?) but I can't see how having someone in the restroom obviously dressed as the other gender would make them more comfortable.

One thought is that for those that dislike the lifestyle, they now have a much easier way to identify who to target with harassment.


----------



## Bubba1358

Bearfootfarm said:


> If you can't tell any difference why is it such a big deal?


Exactly. Which is why this entire discussion is so insane.


----------



## Elevenpoint

AmericanStand said:


> Um Dixie that doesn't have anything to do with transgender.
> I suppose it's a technical detail but that simply cross dressing.


Unless they have had complete surgery...they are the sex their genitals are.
Otherwise crossdresser only. 
Call it anything you want to make it sound good.


----------



## logbuilder

elevenpoint said:


> Unless they have had complete surgery...they are the sex their genitals are.
> Otherwise crossdresser only.
> Call it anything you want to make it sound good.


Somethings in this world things are not as binary as you might think.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> Skin color and transgenderism are present from birth, as is homosexuality. Some people are born that way, just as I was born with red hair and blue eyes.
> 
> You may not like the discrimination comparison but it's valid. Discrimination of any type is ugly.


That is false.
Homosexuality and trans are a clear and simple choice.


----------



## dixiegal62

logbuilder said:


> For those that support the law (birth gender dictates bathroom), I wonder about their motivations. Protecting kids from predators, I get that. When it is just adults, I'm not so sure I understand. Maybe it would make some adults uncomfortable to have someone trans in their restroom (how would you know?) but I can't see how having someone in the restroom obviously dressed as the other gender would make them more comfortable.
> 
> One thought, and I admit most would not outwardly admit to, is that for those that dislike the lifestyle, they now have a much easier way to identify who to target with harassment.


At one time or another anybody could find themselves not liking another person's lifestyle. In most cases that doesn't mean they go around harassing those people. Disagreeing does not equal harassment. Do you actively search down people you disagree with to harass them?


----------



## logbuilder

elevenpoint said:


> Homosexuality and trans are a clear and simple choice.


I've heard well respected preachers say that but I don't recall a well respected psychologist saying it.

Here is a link to the American Psychological Association about transgender.

http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.aspx

Here is a snippet about the 'Why'.

"There is no single explanation for why some people are transgender. The diversity of transgender expression and experiences argues against any simple or unitary explanation. Many experts believe that biological factors such as genetic influences and prenatal hormone levels, early experiences, and experiences later in adolescence or adulthood may all contribute to the development of transgender identities."


----------



## logbuilder

dixiegal62 said:


> At one time or another anybody could find themselves not liking another person's lifestyle. In most cases that doesn't mean they go around harassing those people. Disagreeing does not equal harassment. Do you actively search down people you disagree with to harass them?


I grew up in the south. I've seen plenty of it.


----------



## dixiegal62

logbuilder said:


> I grew up in the south. I've seen plenty of it.


Of course because all southerners are like that, right?


----------



## logbuilder

dixiegal62 said:


> Of course because all southerners are like that, right?


Not a all. I consider myself a southerner. Grew up mostly in MS until I was 30. I was in 8th grade during desegregation. It wasn't pretty and unfortunately some still exists. My family all lives there so I still see it when I'm back.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> You keep repeating that.
> How about showing these statutes



Go find the statutes yourself - they are practically the same for all states, Trespass, Criminal Trespass and Indecent Exposure. If you are incapable of that then I might consider doing so if you ask nicely.


----------



## dixiegal62

logbuilder said:


> Not a all. I consider myself a southerner. Grew up mostly in MS until I was 30. I was in 8th grade during desegregation. It wasn't pretty and unfortunately some still exists. My family all lives there so I still see it when I'm back.


I'm sorry, I misunderstood your meaning. I didn't come to the south until the early eighties.


----------



## Elevenpoint

logbuilder said:


> I've heard well respected preachers say that but I don't recall a well respected psychologist saying it.
> 
> Here is a link to the American Psychological Association about transgender.
> 
> http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.aspx
> 
> Here is a snippet about the 'Why'.
> 
> "There is no single explanation for why some people are transgender. The diversity of transgender expression and experiences argues against any simple or unitary explanation. Many experts believe that biological factors such as genetic influences and prenatal hormone levels, early experiences, and experiences later in adolescence or adulthood may all contribute to the development of transgender identities."


Nothing personal...never been into links.
Ever heard that saying...they said?
Who is they?
Nobody.


----------



## DryHeat

I'm going to mention a definitely "out there" factor that I've personally come to take seriously as possibly involved in transgender situations. In a word, reincarnation (gone awry.) There are *extremely* well-documented reports of small children insisting, with eerie facts about memories of earlier family lives elsewhere, that they're sure they "were" someone else prior to their recent births. See "Life Before Life" ( http://www.amazon.com/Life-Before-S...ife&qid=1461635323&ref_=sr_1_1&s=books&sr=1-1 ). Now, I haven't personally bought into the full Buddhist-Hindu version of 1:1 sequential cycling of souls, but I do think there are components or modules involved in our consciousness, at the least, that *sometimes* do something pretty close to the common concept of what reincarnation consists of. In any case, I find I can sort of comprehend what I've heard of the total confusion and frustration and pain of transgender individuals if I imagine taking a chunk of the "being" of someone of one sex and inserting it into an infant of the opposite sex, then considering how things would develop from there...


----------



## Elevenpoint

We're still stuck at a small group of people that want their way.
They have no decency or respect for others.
This is rooted in selfishness...all about them..no matter what.
The hell with everybody else.


----------



## Heritagefarm

elevenpoint said:


> That is false.
> Homosexuality and trans are a clear and simple choice.


I just posted an article that said homosexuality may be caused by genetics and epigenetics. Not sure about trans - may be further brain chemical imbalances.


----------



## greg273

elevenpoint said:


> We're still stuck at a small group of people that want their way.
> They have no decency or respect for others.
> This is rooted in selfishness...all about them..no matter what.
> .


 Yes, apparently you're talking about those people who feel the need to peek at other peoples genitals in the restroom. WIthout this uproar, the trans people would be still using the bathrooms of thier choice, just as they've been doing.


----------



## logbuilder

elevenpoint said:


> We're still stuck at a small group of people that want their way.
> They have no decency or respect for others.
> This is rooted in selfishness...all about them..no matter what.
> The hell with everybody else.


Interestingly, as I read your comment it seems to me that it could apply to both sides of this argument. Think about it.


----------



## arabian knight

elevenpoint said:


> We're still stuck at a small group of people that want their way.
> They have no decency or respect for others.
> This is rooted in selfishness...all about them..no matter what.
> The hell with everybody else.


 Yes it IS all about THEM, they want to be special. When are the straights going to rise up and Say Enough IS Enough? You few ain't no better then anybody else, Use what you have used in the past and shut the heck up, and get it off the front pages, you have had your 15 minutes of so called fame, now stop.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> That is false.
> Homosexuality and trans are a *clear and simple choice*.


No, they are none of those things .


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> Nothing personal...never been into links.
> Ever heard that saying...they said?
> Who is they?
> Nobody.


Is that what you say?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Go find the statutes yourself - they are practically the same for all states, Trespass, Criminal Trespass and Indecent Exposure. If you are incapable of that then I might consider doing so *if you ask nicely*.


It's not my job to prove your claims. 

If they are so numerous, why didn't you post one instead of the irrelevant one you did?

I asked "nicely" the first time. 

The only statute you posted so far had nothing at all to do with the actual topic.


----------



## Shine

To those that cannot find their information by themselves, I am not going to provide it so that you can poo-poo it - suffer. It is what it is and it remains to have the power that I said it has. 

Find some other way to entertain yourselves.


----------



## painterswife

Shine said:


> To those that cannot find their information by themselves, I am not going to provide it so that you can poo-poo it - suffer. It is what it is and it remains to have the power that I said it has.
> 
> Find some other way to entertain yourselves.


I believe you can't prove your claims. If you could you would eagerly post links.


----------



## logbuilder

From a limited amount of research, it seems that in most states, a private business can control access to all of their property. If someone does something that the business thinks is wrong, they can tell the customer to leave. If they don't, they are trespassing and are subject to arrest.

That's as close as I can get to anything that supports Shine's position.

I found nothing to indicate, in publicly owned places, the existence of a law that says it is trespassing to go into a restroom different than your birth gender. I don't doubt that it exists somewhere. I just couldn't find it.

Here is a link about someone charged with trespass in a private business. I didn't find the final disposition of the case so I don't know if it stuck. 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/theuniblogger/transgender-shopper-served-trespassing-papers-for-bhd


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> To those that cannot find *their information* by themselves, *I am not going to provide it* so that you can poo-poo it - suffer. It is what it is and it remains to have the power that I said it has.
> 
> Find some other way to entertain yourselves.


I suspected exactly that sort of reply
It's *your* information that you've kept repeating.
Why should anyone else have to look it up?



> *It is what it is* and it remains to have the power that I said it has.


On this we totally agree...
It's an unsubstantiated claim so far, and has as much "power" as any other words without proof.
The only thing that will "suffer" is your credibility


----------



## DEKE01

Bearfootfarm said:


> Repeating the fallacy isn't going to change my answer.
> Thinking it will is the definition of insanity


Denying the truth doesn't make it false.


----------



## Irish Pixie

> We're still stuck at a small group of people that want their way.
> They have no decency or respect for others.
> This is rooted in selfishness...all about them..no matter what.
> The hell with everybody else.


We're still stuck at a group of people that want their way. They have no decency or respect for anyone different than they then are. This is rooted in fear and ignorance. To hell with everyone else.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Heritagefarm said:


> Of course it is. Hopefully you're not accusing me of discrimination.
> 
> However, it's perfectly valid, I think to examine sexual orientation as an environmental factor. Maybe some are born liking their gender more than others. Reasonable. But nature has us wired to like the opposite sex in order to reproduce. If you disagree, please argue with a biology textbook. One would suspect homosexuality to be selected against, but it consistently appears.
> 
> http://www.advocate.com/health/2012...ntation-determined-brain-hemisphere-dominance
> 
> This person thinks it's right-brain left-brain dominance. However, recent studies have thrown the brain-dominance theory out the window, but portions of the theory may be valid.
> 
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/...t_on_genes_chromosomes_and_environmental.html
> 
> This article is more comprehensive and supports your from birth theory, but it also points out the condition may be caused by environmental factors as well, contributing to epigenetic factors.
> 
> I was unable to find evidence supporting the orientation of someone who is, say, male, and wants to become a lesbian. I've got no clue what causes that.


I agree, the latest theory on homosexuality and transgenderism is that they are genetic with an environmental trigger. No matter if it takes 12 triggers it's still genetic, yes?

Liken it to being born without a hand, adding a prosthetic hand makes the person whole.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

I want to be Batman, triggered by the 60's series. But that doesn't mean I'm going to dress like him on a daily basis, why? I know I'm not Batman and don't want to be labeled as a mental defective. But you all can sympathize for me just the same.


----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> If you can't tell any difference why is it such a big deal?


Evidently it is a big deal. That little transgender girl couldn't tell the difference between herself and other girls in the girls room but she was still uncomfortable with it.


----------



## Irish Pixie

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> I want to be Batman, triggered by the 60's series. But that doesn't mean I'm going to dress like him on a daily basis, why? I know I'm not Batman and don't want to be labeled as a mental defective. But you all can sympathize for me just the same.


Yet your mental condition allows you to believe in an imaginary person...I do sympathize with the need to have an imaginary higher power demand decency or the believer will be punished. I'm glad I don't need threats to be decent. 

Were you born with the genes to become Batman? Nope. So no trigger in the world will compel you to become Batman. Do you understand now?


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

Just because said Batman genes haven't been clinically discovered yet doesn't mean they aren't there.


----------



## Irish Pixie

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> Just because said Batman genes haven't been clinically discovered yet doesn't mean they aren't there.


Do you really believe that a fictional character will enter the human genome? Have we already dropped the discussion to the ridiculous? It's early yet. :facepalm:


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

You just want to be a hater and rain on my sunshine, but I won't let you, because deep down inside I know who I am and gosh darn it I'm special. Can't just show me love that compassion deserving of all the Batman's of the world?


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

Now I'm upset and can't type right.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Nope. Nope. Nope.


----------



## DEKE01

Irish Pixie said:


> Do you really believe that a fictional character will enter the human genome? Have we already dropped the discussion to the ridiculous? It's early yet. :facepalm:


The discussion started with the ridiculous, that children should be exposed to the mentally ill and child predators while the child is naked, just to make a few mentally ill people not feel bad.


----------



## Heritagefarm

What about adolescents who are born one gender and then actually, physically switch? It been known to happen. They get treated as their sex for years, then suddenly the develop into the opposite sex. I'm sure that's their fault, right?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Heritagefarm said:


> What about adolescents who are born one gender and then actually, physically switch? It been known to happen. They get treated as their sex for years, then suddenly the develop into the opposite sex. I'm sure that's their fault, right?


Teenage boy's penis suddenly turns into a vagina? Do you have a link? I've got errands to run but I'd love to read the science on this. 

Genetics are no one's fault, do you think I chose to red hair and blue eyes and poof it happened? Or is it a combination of recessive genes from my ancestors?


----------



## Heritagefarm

http://www.livescience.com/52247-guevedoces-girls-boys.html



> Some children with a rare genetic condition appear female at birth but later develop a penis and testes around the time puberty begins. But what causes this to happen?
> 
> A new article in BBC Magazine tells the story of some children in the Dominican Republic with this condition, who are known in the country as Guevedoces, which roughly translates to "penis at 12." One child named Johnny was raised as a girl, but when he matured and neared puberty, he grew a penis and his testicles descended, according to the BBC.


Technically, though, they're not transgender unless they choose to remain female.

@IP: Other way around, as it happens. I don't know if it can occur from penis-to-vagina.


----------



## painterswife

They don't actually physically switch. They are born with both sex organs.


----------



## Shine

For those who lack the ability to do a simple google search:

Florida's Trespass Statutes:
[SIZE=-1]810.08&#8195;Trespass in structure or conveyance.â(1)&#8195;Whoever, without being authorized, licensed, or invited, willfully enters or remains in any structure or conveyance, or, having been authorized, licensed, or invited, is warned by the owner or lessee of the premises, or by a person authorized by the owner or lessee, to depart and refuses to do so, commits the offense of trespass in a structure or conveyance.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...ing=&URL=0800-0899/0810/Sections/0810.08.html

Indecent Exposure

LEWDNESS; INDECENT EXPOSURE 
 [SIZE=-1]800.03&#8195;Exposure of sexual organs.âIt is unlawful to expose or exhibit oneâs sexual organs in public or on the private premises of another, or so near thereto as to be seen from such private premises, in a vulgar or indecent manner, or to be naked in public except in any place provided or set apart for that purpose. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. A motherâs breastfeeding of her baby does not under any circumstance violate this section.
[/SIZE]



[/SIZE]OK, let the shrill yelling begin. I am sure that this does not cover every example but for a private business *anyone* can be told to leave for whatever reason. If that person does not leave then this is the utility to force that action to occur.

This is the remedy that I provided earlier, this has the power to do what I said it does. 

It is a shame that others do not already know this or operate as if they do not know this. Now you have been informed.

This covers Government controlled locations also.


----------



## Heritagefarm

painterswife said:


> They don't actually physically switch. They are born with both sex organs.


WHich one is that? They one I just posted is 5-alpha-deductase deficiency, which does result in physical change. It is very rare, though. Still, it contributes to trans being a valid condition.
ETA: Hermaphrodite?


----------



## painterswife

Heritagefarm said:


> WHich one is that? They one I just posted is 5-alpha-deductase deficiency, which does result in physical change. It is very rare, though. Still, it contributes to trans being a valid condition.
> ETA: Hermaphrodite?


Those children still had the sex organs they were born with. They did not changed they just developed.They were always born male.


----------



## Heritagefarm

painterswife said:


> Those children still had the sex organs they were born with. They did not changed they just developed.They were always born male.


True, but the point is they were born and raised as females before becoming males. We're assuming transgendered people are born with this condition, and that it's not some strange attempt for attention. I've read a few scientific articles about trans; it was mostly some weak excuses blaming hormones, chemicals, and genetics. WTH could wire someone to think they need to have a sex-change operation and then keep liking the same sex? I'm sorry, but that person is obviously screwed up. I feel sorry for them, and I want them to live a normal life, but failing to realize they have a valid condition isn't helpful.


----------



## painterswife

Heritagefarm said:


> True, but the point is they were born and raised as females before becoming males. We're assuming transgendered people are born with this condition, and that it's not some strange attempt for attention. I've read a few scientific articles about trans; it was mostly some weak excuses blaming hormones, chemicals, and genetics. WTH could wire someone to think they need to have a sex-change operation and then keep liking the same sex? I'm sorry, but that person is obviously screwed up. I feel sorry for them, and I want them to live a normal life, but failing to realize they have a valid condition isn't helpful.


Who you are attracted to and what gender your brain tells you are two different things. Your statement about someone being screwed up because you believe they are connected is really crappy.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

painterswife said:


> Who you are attracted to and what gender your brain tells you are two different things. Your statement about someone being screwed up because you believe they are connected is really crappy.


Your brain is a like a muscle. Like any other muscle you control it. Everyone says you can't control it. Wrong. Your brain does and thinks what you tell it too. Once you refocus your brains thought process you can think anything you want. Positive or negative. True or false. They convince themselves this is who they are. But that thought process can be changed


----------



## painterswife

Vahomesteaders said:


> Your brain is a like a muscle. Like any other muscle you control it. Everyone says you can't control it. Wrong. Your brain does and thinks what you tell it too. Once you refocus your brains thought process you can think anything you want. Positive or negative. True or false. They convince themselves this is who they are. But that thought process can be changed


So did you train your brain so that you were attracted to women? Sorry not everything is under your control in that way.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

painterswife said:


> So did you train your brain so that you were attracted to women? Sorry not everything is under your control in that way.


Sure I did. At one time in my very young life I hated girls. They had cooties. Then as I grew I said you better like these girls or your going to be pretty lonely. So I trained by brain to learn to love them. Best decision I ever made.


----------



## Bubba1358

Bear in mind, everyone, that this discussion is about 0.3% of the population. 3 out of every 1,000 people in the US identify as trans. Even if this number is only HALF reported, that's still 0.6% - 3 in every 500.

At an average football game, for example, you can expect 202 out of the 67,509 attendees to be this way.

To put these numbers in perspective***:
810 of those in attendance would be schizophrenic...
over 2,500 would be anorexic...
2,430 suffer from PTSD...
675 have Type 1 bi-polar disorder (the severe kind)...
and between 675 and 1350 have panic disorder.

Look folks, I don't doubt that the pain and the suffering that a transsexual endures is absolutely real. I can't even begin to imagine how difficult life must be for them.

But let's all take a step back here. I've listed five MAJOR mental disorders that all have a HIGHER incidence than transsexualism. Yet, society insists the trans is perfectly normal and healthy, despite evidence to the contrary:



> Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population. Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism, and should inspire improved psychiatric and somatic care after sex reassignment for this patient group.


(from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043071/)

I just can't accept something as normal that (A) increases the risk of suicide, (B) occurs less often than five major mental disorders, (C) remains largely unexplained as to its cause, and (D) contradicts every chromosome in their bodies. How is this NOT a mental condition?

Collectively, we need to be getting these people help, rather than encouraging choices and lifestyles that will lead to increased risks of suicide and early death. Everyone who disagrees with the lifestyle is nevertheless called to be compassionate. We have no idea how much mental anguish and torment these folks experience, and I think most of us never really want to know, if we're honest with ourselves. They need compassion, understanding, and healing - NOT mind-and-body-altering drugs and risky surgeries.

My own personal stance on transsexuality is that it is a rare mental condition that needs to be compassionately treated instead of aggressively encouraged. FWIW, I have never known anybody (and I know a LOT of VERY religious people) who is 'afraid' or 'fears' people who are different. I know, for myself and those close to me, that while I believe their actions are self-destructive, there is never an inkling of "hate" or "discrimination." These words are so often thrown at those who don't blindly praise the lifestyle, but for the majority of people (read: everyone I've ever know who's spoken on the topic), this completely misses the mark. What it is is a deep sense of sadness for the sufferers of these afflictions, and especially for those who have inflicted harm upon their bodies. I do pray for them, and for their pain. Before y'all atheists scoff at prayer, please stop for a second and realize that praying for someone is like sending good vibes and wanting the best, deep down, for that person.


I still think these open bathroom laws are a horrible idea, for reasons I've already cited. 


***These rates all come from Googling these conditions, selecting the rate given on page 1 (i.e., 3.6% of US adults for PTSD), and extrapolating that out of 67,509 attendees. I also rounded a little.)


----------



## Heritagefarm

painterswife said:


> Who you are attracted to and what gender your brain tells you are two different things. Your statement about someone being screwed up because you believe they are connected is really crappy.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexualism



> The etiology of transsexuality, meaning the cause or causes of transsexuality, is an area of interest for many people, including transgender and transsexual people, physicians, psychologists, other mental health professionals, and family members and friends of transgender people. Transsexuality usually presents with an expression of gender identity different from those associated with the biological sex determined at birth, behaviors considered norms for the associated gender, and discomfort called gender dysphoria.[1] Currently, there are numerous possible explanations of the cause of transsexuality, including genetics, brain structure, brain function, and prenatal androgen exposure. Other theories have proposed linking the cause to psychological and behavioral reasons. These theories are not necessarily mutually exclusive.


Trans sexuality can be viewed as a "condition." I'm not saying there's anything we can do about it. I just think instead of the fuzzy-feely "just be who you are" stuff, we should help people who have this condition. Clearly, biology wants people to be heterosexual. Transsexual doesn't even come into the biological discussion; it's only possible with recent tech. Before that, you just wondered around in the clothing of the opposite gender.



Vahomesteaders said:


> Your brain is a like a muscle. Like any other muscle you control it. Everyone says you can't control it. Wrong. Your brain does and thinks what you tell it too. Once you refocus your brains thought process you can think anything you want. Positive or negative. True or false. They convince themselves this is who they are. But that thought process can be changed


To an extent. Hear about the man who, long ago, got a railroad spike through his brain? He lived, but where he used to be a nice guy, he become evil. Vindictive, spiteful, full of hate and rage. We're not always in control.


----------



## painterswife

Heritagefarm said:


> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexualism
> 
> 
> 
> Trans sexuality can be viewed as a "condition." I'm not saying there's anything we can do about it. *I just think instead of the fuzzy-feely "just be who you are" stuff, we should help people who have this condition.* Clearly, biology wants people to be heterosexual. Transsexual doesn't even come into the biological discussion; it's only possible with recent tech. Before that, you just wondered around in the clothing of the opposite gender.
> 
> How is telling people they are screwed up helping?


----------



## dixiegal62

Heritagefarm said:


> True, but the point is they were born and raised as females before becoming males. We're assuming transgendered people are born with this condition, and that it's not some strange attempt for attention. I've read a few scientific articles about trans; it was mostly some weak excuses blaming hormones, chemicals, and genetics. WTH could wire someone to think they need to have a sex-change operation and then keep liking the same sex? I'm sorry, but that person is obviously screwed up. I feel sorry for them, and I want them to live a normal life, but failing to realize they have a valid condition isn't helpful.


I don't know if we'll ever know the true cause. I think of it as self mutilation, similar to people who want to have limbs amputated or to be blind. Are those people born to crave the loss of limbs? I think they are but just because your born that way doesn't mean it's not a mental illness.


----------



## Heritagefarm

painterswife said:


> Heritagefarm said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexualism
> 
> 
> 
> Trans sexuality can be viewed as a "condition." I'm not saying there's anything we can do about it. *I just think instead of the fuzzy-feely "just be who you are" stuff, we should help people who have this condition.* Clearly, biology wants people to be heterosexual. Transsexual doesn't even come into the biological discussion; it's only possible with recent tech. Before that, you just wondered around in the clothing of the opposite gender.
> 
> 
> 
> How is telling people they are screwed up helping?
Click to expand...

Telling someone they have post-traumatic stress disorder is helpful. Diagnosing people is always helpful; it can allow them to make a decision about how to move forward. 



dixiegal62 said:


> I don't know if we'll ever know the true cause. I think of it as self mutilation, similar to people how want to have limbs amputated or to be blind. Are those people born to crave the loss of limbs? I think they are but just because your born that way doesn't mean it's not a mental illness.


:clap:


----------



## painterswife

Heritagefarm said:


> Telling someone they have post-traumatic stress disorder is helpful. Diagnosing people is always helpful; it can allow them to make a decision about how to move forward.
> 
> 
> 
> :clap:


Diagnosing is left to doctors not people on a forum. Screwed up is not a diagnosis.


----------



## haypoint

I don't want to walk across the parking lot, so I have a handicap tag for my mirror so I can park close. I don't want to leave my dog home, so I put Fido in the grocery cart and take him shopping. I can't be stopped because I have an internet companion dog certificate. I might not be a suitable prison guard in a women's prison, but I refuse to be denied employment based on my sex. While I have more education and experience than my Black co-worker, I accept that he gets the promotion because of generations of racism. He expects this. I want to be accepted and treated with great respect, even if I combine my 5 o'clock shadow and blue eye shadow with 4 inch spike heels and beer gut. If I act more feminine than any woman I've ever seen, I demand that you go out of your way to wait on me and treat me as if I were an actual female.
When I want to switch genders, I get to set society's standards and impose my will on everyone else. When society has accepted that I have sexual relations with other men and remove all doubt by playing kissy face in public at every opportunity, then I'll create other sexual divisions. The limits are only my imagination. Man attracted to other men. Man, surgically altered to resemble a woman. Man attracted to altered men. Do we have a name for a woman that is sexually attracted to a man that has been surgically altered to resemble a woman? Could that be a pseudo-lesbian? 
I identify as a woman, but was born a man, so I want to use the woman's restroom. But I don't want to go into a restroom that might have a man in there. I wouldn't feel safe. So, I want a women's restroom where I'm the only one with male genitals. 
No matter how you cut it, (no pun intended) people will feel uncomfortable. Life is full of such moments. 
If you can use the urinal, you use the men's room. If you can't legally go to the beach without a top, use the women's room.
When you are naked and you look like a woman, use the women's shower. If your junk identifies you as male, use the men's shower.
If you want to identify as neither man nor woman, too bad. Look in your drawers and use that information to guide you to the appropriate rest room.

Life is full of obstacles, for everyone. If your sexual orientation is an obstacle for you, perhaps that is your obstacle. If your interest in same sex sex is offensive to others, keep your tongue out of your lover's ear in the grocery store. Tone it down. 

If I were a racist, seeking a job in a mostly Black company, I won't expect them to accept my core beliefs. I'll keep my beliefs, but I don't need to speak my mind or tattoo the N word on my forehead. Life isn't about everyone else changing their beliefs to suit you.


----------



## dixiegal62

Its my understanding from this thread that a transgender and a cross dresser are not the same. Which of these two are allowed the bathroom of their choice?


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> Its my understanding from this thread that a transgender and a cross dresser are not the same. Which of these two are allowed the bathroom of their choice?


How do you get to figure out which one is which?


----------



## logbuilder

dixiegal62 said:


> Its my understanding from this thread that a transgender and a cross dresser are not the same. Which of these two are allowed the bathroom of their choice?


Depends on which state you are in and what their choice is.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> How do you get to figure out which one is which?


Well, its been said in here allowing access to any bathroom is for the comfort of those going through the transition are you now saying any Tom, Frank or Mary can do whatever they want just because they feel like it?

I'll ask again what's wrong with the family bathroom?

It's been said in here that if Mom and daughter are uncomfortable sharing the bathroom with them they can use the family room. Why aren't you saying the same thing about transgenders or cross dressers? The girl in the OP refused a private space. What makes her better than the Mom and daughter? It's been said to tell your daughter to advert her eyes and not look down. Why not the same answer for them?


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> Well, its been said in here allowing access to any bathroom is for the comfort of those going through the transition are you now saying any Tom, Frank or Mary can do whatever they want just because they feel like it?
> 
> I'll ask again what's wrong with the family bathroom?
> 
> It's been said in here that if Mom and daughter are uncomfortable sharing the bathroom with them they can use the family room. Why aren't you saying the same thing about transgenders or cross dressers? The girl in the OP refused a private space. What makes her better than the Mom and daughter? It's been said to tell your daughter to advert her eyes and not look down. Why not the same answer for them?


I am all for private bathrooms for those that prefer them. I just don't think that if you choose to use a group bathroom you have any right to decide who is what sex when you have already decided against a private room.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> I am all for private bathrooms for those that prefer them. I just don't think that if you choose to use a group bathroom you have any right to decide who is what sex when you have already decided against a private room.


So the girl in the OP gave up her right to choice when she refused the private room.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> So the girl in the OP gave up her right to choice when she refused the private room.


No she exercised her right to choose.


----------



## Heritagefarm

painterswife said:


> I am all for private bathrooms for those that prefer them. I just don't think that if you choose to use a group bathroom you have any right to decide who is what sex when you have already decided against a private room.


What if it's the only option? Public restrooms irk me enough; I avoid them whenever possible. 



painterswife said:


> How do you get to figure out which one is which?


A cross dresser obviously looks like a man in women's clothing. A transgender will look just like their gender after surgery; I see no reason why they'd can't use their restroom after that. 



painterswife said:


> Diagnosing is left to doctors not people on a forum. Screwed up is not a diagnosis.


Whoops, forgot I wasn't talking to a bunch of Ph.Ds. Real hard to figure that one out.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> No she exercised her right to choose.


Sounds like she has the right to both refuse the private room and force her will on others but the people around her have no rights to either.


----------



## logbuilder

Does anyone remember the 'potty parity' movement in the 80's and 90's? Here is a link to some history about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potty_parity#History_and_developments

I would think women would be more sympathetic to this issue in light of that movement.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

DEKE01 said:


> Denying the truth doesn't make it false.


Show where I've "demanded" for anyone to do anything then.
You won't, because I haven't, which is why your rambling is pointless


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> Evidently it is a big deal. That little transgender girl couldn't tell the difference between herself and other girls in the girls room but *she was still uncomfortable* with it.


Some kids are "uncomfortable" just being in a crowd.
That really proves very little. 

I think most people are a little "uncomfortable" undressing around a bunch of strangers. That's called "normal" 

Using a restroom isn't really undressing though, and I've never seen one that didn't offer some amount of privacy if one desired to have it


----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> Some kids are "uncomfortable" just being in a crowd.
> That really proves very little.
> 
> I think most people are a little "uncomfortable" undressing around a bunch of strangers. That's called "normal"
> 
> Using a restroom isn't really undressing though, and I've never seen one that didn't offer some amount of privacy if one desired to have it


So what your saying is the girl should have just dealt with her discomfort instead of forcing her will on others?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> For those who lack the ability to do a simple google search:
> 
> Florida's Trespass Statutes:
> [SIZE=-1]810.08&#8195;Trespass *in structure or conveyance*.â(1)&#8195;Whoever, without being authorized, licensed, or invited, willfully enters or remains in any structure or conveyance, or, having been authorized, licensed, or invited, is warned by the owner or lessee of the premises, or by a person authorized by the owner or lessee, to depart and refuses to do so, commits the offense of trespass in a structure or conveyance.
> http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...ing=&URL=0800-0899/0810/Sections/0810.08.html
> 
> Indecent Exposure
> 
> LEWDNESS; INDECENT EXPOSURE
> [SIZE=-1]800.03&#8195;Exposure of sexual organs.âIt is unlawful to expose or exhibit oneâs sexual organs in public or on the private premises of another, or so near thereto as to be seen from such private premises, *in a vulgar or indecent manner*, or to be naked in public *except in any place provided or set apart for that purpose*. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. A motherâs breastfeeding of her baby does not under any circumstance violate this section.
> [/SIZE]
> 
> 
> 
> [/SIZE]OK, let the shrill yelling begin. I am sure that this does not cover every example but for a private business *anyone* can be told to leave for whatever reason. If that person does not leave then this is the utility to force that action to occur.
> 
> This is the remedy that I provided earlier, this has the power to do what I said it does.
> 
> It is a shame that others do not already know this or operate as if they do not know this. Now you have been informed.
> 
> This covers Government controlled locations also.


That doesn't say anything about it *being illegal to enter the wrong restroom*.

That statute applies to the *entire *building or vehicle.
It says nothing specific about "bathrooms" as you keep claiming is the law.

Using a restroom isn't "vulgar or indecent". It's normal. 
"Indecent exposure" is a *willful* display for the purpose of sexual gratification. 

It's *not* the incidental uncovering of certain body parts to perform urination or defecation

Undressing *in a shower* is also normal.

You really don't seem to be able to read and comprehend what these statutes truly say

Now *you* have been informed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> So *what your saying* is the girl should have just dealt with her discomfort instead of forcing her will on others?


If that was what I was saying, you would have seen those actual words.
There are no hidden meanings in what I post if you just read what is there.


----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> If that was what I was saying, you would have seen those actual words.
> There are no hidden meanings in what I post if you just read what is there.


Good to know. It was normal for her to be uncomfortable using the girls room to begin with. 
Nothing should have changed.


----------



## oneraddad

Bearfootfarm said:


> That doesn't say anything about it *being illegal to enter the wrong restroom*.
> 
> That statute applies to the *entire *building or vehicle.
> It says nothing specific about "bathrooms" as you keep claiming is the law.
> 
> Using a restroom isn't "vulgar or indecent". It's normal.
> "Indecent exposure" is a *willful* display for the purpose of sexual gratification.
> 
> It's *not* the incidental uncovering of certain body parts to perform urination or defecation
> 
> Undressing *in a shower* is also normal.
> 
> You really don't seem to be able to read and comprehend what these statutes truly say
> 
> Now *you* have been informed.


Indecent exposure could be some drunk guy peeing in a parking lot just looking to relieve himself and not thinking of sex at all.


----------



## coolrunnin

oneraddad said:


> Indecent exposure could be some drunk guy peeing in a parking lot just looking to relieve himself and not thinking of sex at all.


I know a guy arrested for indecent exposure for peeing on a exit ramp.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> That doesn't say anything about it *being illegal to enter the wrong restroom*.
> 
> Never said that it is illegal to enter the wrong restroom - your bad.
> 
> That statute applies to the *entire *building or vehicle.
> It says nothing specific about "bathrooms" as you keep claiming is the law.
> 
> No, but it covers bathrooms. Your bad.
> 
> Using a restroom isn't "vulgar or indecent". It's normal.
> "Indecent exposure" is a *willful* display for the purpose of sexual gratification.
> 
> Didn't say it was, you asked for the citations - you got them. 1/2 bad
> 
> It's *not* the incidental uncovering of certain body parts to perform urination or defecation
> 
> Didn't say nothing about that - Your bad.
> 
> Undressing *in a shower* is also normal.
> 
> Never suggested that it was not
> 
> You really don't seem to be able to read and comprehend what these statutes truly say
> 
> And you are quite obnoxious in your replies.
> 
> Now *you* have been informed.
> 
> Yup, I have been informed that you will make up a bunch of stuff that was never implied so that you can be "right" lol - have fun...


Please see above answers.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> That law has nothing to do with this topic
> Why not show one that makes it illegal to enter the "wrong" bathroom.
> You keep saying that's against the law, but have offered no proof


You see, it was you that created the strawman argument where you suggested that it is illegal to "enter" the bathroom. Show me where I said that it is illegal to enter the wrong bathroom. 

See how you operate?


----------



## Elevenpoint

logbuilder said:


> Interestingly, as I read your comment it seems to me that it could apply to both sides of this argument. Think about it.


The grandmothers..mothers..wives..daughters..aunt's..don't want men in their bathroom.
Think about that.
None that I know.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Heritagefarm said:


> I just posted an article that said homosexuality may be caused by genetics and epigenetics. Not sure about trans - may be further brain chemical imbalances.


May be...could be...might be.
30 years ago my ex brother in law announced at Sunday dinner he was leaving his wife and children to move in with his gay lover.
After his father recovered from nearly choking to death on his food..he announced he was taking him down to the Stroll...an area of prostitutes...to get him one so he could prove he was not gay.
Born that way?
No...called a decision.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> We're still stuck at a group of people that want their way. They have no decency or respect for anyone different than they then are. This is rooted in fear and ignorance. To hell with everyone else.


Actually...nobody cares.
Until they want to be put on a pedestal and honored for their personal choices.
Then over 99% are not interested in the agenda of the mentally ill person or group.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

oneraddad said:


> Indecent exposure could be some drunk guy *peeing in a parking lot *just looking to relieve himself and not thinking of sex at all.


A parking lot isn't an acceptable place to urinate.
A restroom is

Context matters
Read the statute and pay attention to* all* the words


----------



## Irish Pixie

Heritagefarm said:


> http://www.livescience.com/52247-guevedoces-girls-boys.html
> 
> 
> 
> Technically, though, they're not transgender unless they choose to remain female.
> 
> @IP: Other way around, as it happens. I don't know if it can occur from penis-to-vagina.


They grow a penis at 12, it's not magic and they aren't transgender it is a genetic mutation that is very rare except in one village. 

"The rare genetic disorder occurs because of a missing enzyme which prevents the production of a specific form of the male sex hormone - dihydro-testosterone - in the womb."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...age-where-little-girls-turn-into-boys-aged-1/


----------



## Elevenpoint

dixiegal62 said:


> Its my understanding from this thread that a transgender and a cross dresser are not the same. Which of these two are allowed the bathroom of their choice?





painterswife said:


> How do you get to figure out which one is which?


One and the same.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bearfootfarm said:


> Some kids are "uncomfortable" just being in a crowd.
> That really proves very little.
> 
> I think most people are a little "uncomfortable" undressing around a bunch of strangers. That's called "normal"
> 
> Using a restroom isn't really undressing though, and I've never seen one that didn't offer some amount of privacy if one desired to have it


Yup, every women's bathroom I've ever been in had stalls. If the door didn't work on one you choose another. This isn't rocket science- women just don't get naked in a public bathroom. Go in the stall, shut the door, do whatever, come out and wash your hands. If you wish touch up your eyeliner and lipstick. No private parts are exposed to anyone outside _your_ stall. 

If you are so afraid that someone _might_ see a flash of panty through the door and the jamb you have much bigger issues than the transgender woman that just wants to pee. I suggest you seek help immediately.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Please see above answers.


Please learn how to do quotes without inserting your replies.
You said more than once it was "illegal to go into the wrong bathroom"



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Bearfootfarm View Post
> That doesn't say anything about it being illegal to enter the wrong restroom.
> 
> *Never said that it is illegal to enter the wrong restroom* - your bad.
> 
> That statute applies to the entire building or vehicle.
> It says nothing specific about "bathrooms" as you keep claiming is the law.
> 
> No, but it covers bathrooms. Your bad.
> 
> Using a restroom isn't "vulgar or indecent". It's normal.
> "Indecent exposure" is a willful display for the purpose of sexual gratification.
> 
> Didn't say it was, you asked for the citations - you got them. 1/2 bad
> 
> It's not the incidental uncovering of certain body parts to perform urination or defecation
> 
> Didn't say nothing about that - Your bad.
> 
> Undressing in a shower is also normal.
> 
> Never suggested that it was not
> 
> You really don't seem to be able to read and comprehend what these statutes truly say
> 
> And you are quite obnoxious in your replies.
> 
> Now you have been informed.
> 
> Yup, I have been informed that you will make up a bunch of stuff that was never implied so that you can be "right" lol - have fun...


As always in these long threads, you seem to forget what you've said before, and will deny it when reminded, even when the words are still there for anyone to see:

Post 536:


> A. OK, writing laws that would allow people to break the laws? Or are you speaking about the *laws that are in place now that make it illegal for a male to enter the female's restrooms?* I am not trying to be insulting here, just not getting your exact meaning.


Again in Post 562:



> A man *simply entering a woman's bathroom *and being confronted therein can be charged with Trespass and/or Criminal Trespass and depending upon what happens thereafter, Indecent Exposure.


You should learn to scroll back once in a while to refresh your memory *before* you start with the denials

*Your* bad.....


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> You see, it was you that created the strawman argument where you suggested that it is illegal to "enter" the bathroom. *Show me where I said that it is illegal to enter the wrong bathroom. *
> 
> See how you operate?


See the post above

See how *you* operate?


----------



## Shine

You said: "Please learn how to do quotes without inserting your replies."

Maybe you should have someone help you with the tasks that you find difficult. I find that method to be much more "readable" and concise.

Trespass and Indecent exposure - those laws operate to deny people who do not belong, access. Wow. You do not understand that?

Comprehension difficulties?

Quote:
A man *simply entering a woman's bathroom *and being confronted therein can be charged with Trespass and/or Criminal Trespass and depending upon what happens thereafter, Indecent Exposure. 
"You should learn to scroll back once in a while to refresh your memory *before* you start with the denials

*Your* bad..... "

Just EXACTLY what I said. I can trespass ANYONE off of my property that does not have the authority to be there just because I want to. Now - reread what was written:

A man *simply entering a woman's bathroom *and being confronted therein can be charged with Trespass and/or Criminal Trespass and depending upon what happens thereafter, Indecent Exposure. 

This is what I originally said and you do not seem to get it. 

Back to skimming mode again - there is no point to your logic, you just want to play word games.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> This is what I originally said and you do not seem to get it.


I know it's what you said. 
That was the entire reason I quoted it.
It's also what you *denied* saying later.

More and more I think you really have trouble with comprehension, and when you get confused, you play the victim and go off on some rant.

I know you know the proper way to do quotes, because I've seen you do it.

You claim to have a computer degree and say you've worked in IT, so don't try to tell me you think your way is "more clear."

You way just makes it more difficult for anyone to reply (which is an exercise in futility anyway)


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> I know it's what you said.
> That was the entire reason I quoted it.
> It's also what you *denied* saying later.
> 
> More and more I think you really have trouble with comprehension, and when you get confused, you play the victim and go off on some rant.
> 
> I know you know the proper way to do quotes, because I've seen you do it.
> 
> You claim to have a computer degree and say you've worked in IT, so don't try to tell me you think your way is "more clear."
> 
> You way just makes it more difficult for anyone to reply (which is an exercise in futility anyway)


It is not illegal to enter the wrong bathroom, you can, however, in states that do not have laws allowing it, [that I just became aware of] be arrested for being there. If that's not illegal then I do not know what is. The word dance does not become you. I was speaking in a procedural manner as I have to use this law fairly often.

Now as to the running quotes, all you have to do is to click inside the [ quote ] Quoted Content [ /quote ] and start typing in the reply or edit window. I use a different color to differentiate my text.


----------



## dixiegal62

http://yellowhammernews.com/politic...arrested-peeping-alabama-woman-mall-bathroom/


A Fredericksburg man was arrested Monday at Potomac Mills Mall after, police say, he dressed in womenâs clothes and attempted to film a woman through a bathroom stall â the third such incident since May.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> It is *not illegal to enter the wrong bathroom*, you can, however, in states that do not have laws allowing it, [that I just became aware of] *be arrested for being there.* If that's not illegal then I do not know what is. The word dance does not become you. I was speaking in a procedural manner as I have to use this law fairly often.


And yet you kept* saying* it was, until asked for proof.
You can only be arrested if you refuse to leave after being asked to do so



> I was *speaking in a procedural manner* as I have to use this law fairly often.


No, you were stating a falsehood repeatedly, and continued to do so until asked for proof.

Why not just be honest instead of all the denial?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> http://yellowhammernews.com/politic...arrested-peeping-alabama-woman-mall-bathroom/
> 
> 
> A Fredericksburg man was arrested Monday at Potomac Mills Mall after, police say, he dressed in womenâs clothes and *attempted to film* a woman through a bathroom stall â the third such incident since May.


The filming was the illegal act.

The behavior isn't anything new, and would have not made headlines weeks ago


----------



## Irish Pixie

Gah. I wish people would read links and realize when something has already been brought up and discussed, repeatedly. 

Again, voyeurs have been filming women without their knowledge or consent for decades. I'm sure many of them dressed up as women. The only reason it's in the news now is because of the transgender issue. Filming anyone without their knowledge and consent is illegal. 

It's absolutely silly to have to say this but if someone pushes a bag under the stall toward you-- push it back, it doesn't belong there. Any woman should be aware of her surroundings anyway, if something looks off go report to the mall office or find mall security.


----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> The filming was the illegal act.
> 
> The behavior isn't anything new, and would have not made headlines weeks ago


Isn't this what many fear and you keep dismissing? Some of you keep saying it won't happen and yet here it is. Trying to make light of it doesn't help your cause at all.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Irish Pixie said:


> They grow a penis at 12, it's not magic and they aren't transgender it is a genetic mutation that is very rare except in one village.
> 
> "The rare genetic disorder occurs because of a missing enzyme which prevents the production of a specific form of the male sex hormone - dihydro-testosterone - in the womb."
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...age-where-little-girls-turn-into-boys-aged-1/


Uh huh. Did you read the part that said only half start to think of themselves as male? 
You should realize when my arguments actually support your claims, instead of throwing them out just because we've found one issue we disagree on. This genetic mutation shows that it's possible for transsexuality to be explained through genetic and emotional defects. Only heterosexuality is normal.


----------



## roadless

When I was in Europe, I think it was Belgium, they had what was called Necessary Rooms written on the door. ( More accurate description, don't ya think? ) Anyway the stall doors went from floor to ceiling, tons of privacy. 

I don't remember seeing any men in there, but then again, I was on an urgent mission!


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> That law has nothing to do with this topic
> Why not show one that makes it illegal to enter the "wrong" bathroom.
> You keep saying that's against the law, but have offered no proof




There is at least one, and the notice on the door is considered sufficient to warning of "no trespass".
IOW if one enters with a sign already posted, no further warning is necessary for an arrest.

http://www.charlotteareahotels.org/files/Trespassing.pdf


*Punishment
Class 3 misdemeanor. G.S. 14-159.13(b).
Notes
Generally. With the exception of the notes on Elements (3)(a) and (3)(b), all of the notes to &#8220;First-Degree Trespass,&#8221; above, apply here as well.
Element (3). &#8220;Premises&#8221; include the entire piece of real estate&#8212;not just the building, but the land as well. With this offense, and unlike with first-degree trespass, the premises need not be enclosed so as to demonstrate an intent to keep intruders out. Thus, premises for this offense would include, for example, an unfenced front yard.*



*Element (4)(b). This element may be satisfied by posting &#8220;No trespassing&#8221; or similar signs in a manner reasonably likely to come to an intruder&#8217;s attention. Proof that the intruder actually saw the signs is not required.
A sign reading &#8220;Girl&#8217;s Locker Room&#8221; on a school locker room door was reasonably likely to give the male juvenile respondent notice that he was not authorized to be in the room. In re S.M.S., 196 N.C. App. 170, 172&#8211;73 (2009).
N. Luciano, III, #1556
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Central Division Projects 119-2B East Seventh Street Charlotte, NC 28202 704-336-5729*




mmoetc said:


> I am referring specifically to the North Carolina law.
> If there is no law requiring one to use only the restroom of the sex listed on their birth certificate there is nothing to enforce. Five states currently have laws stating that transgenders can use the bathroom of the sex they identify with. No one has yet shown the problems this had caused in those states. In fact, no one had shown the problems with this issue in North Carolina that necessitated the state passing such a law. What was inadequate about all the laws you cite, without citation, that should have prevented and punished such actions in the days prior to this new law?
> .



As far as specifically citing birth gender, I could find none on the books. If the person looked like they were the same gender as the bathroom indicated, it would be next to impossible to enforce.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> Isn't this what many fear and you keep dismissing? Some of *you keep saying it won't happen and yet here it is*. Trying to make light of it doesn't help your cause at all.


There's nothing about that story that even implies he was transgender, or that his behavior wouldn't have happened regardless of the laws in place.

It's always happened, and always will.

Everyone has said any changes to the law won't change the frequency of the crimes since the criminals ignore laws anyway


----------



## Heritagefarm

roadless said:


> When I was in Europe, I think it was Belgium, they had what was called Necessary Rooms written on the door. ( More accurate description, don't ya think? ) Anyway the stall doors went from floor to ceiling, tons of privacy.
> 
> I don't remember seeing any men in there, but then again, I was on an urgent mission!


There must be a law restricting spending on extra bathrooms stalls. The darn things are always too small; it's like someone said "Let's figure out how to make public restrooms as awkward as possible!"


----------



## Shine

farmrbrown said:


> As far as specifically citing birth gender, I could find none on the books. If the person looked like they were the same gender as the bathroom indicated, it would be next to impossible to enforce.


It would indeed be near to impossible to enforce. 

Thanks for the citation regarding illegal trespass. 

I mean if someone can come up to you and tell you that you have to leave under threat of arrest then it is obvious that you are there under illegal pretenses. 

I guess others do not think that is so. 

Now with the new laws, they might as well take the "Woman's" and "Men's" signs down because they mean nothing. I'll call this period "The Death of Modesty Era". So many people with so little respect for others. This is the path that this country is being forced to follow. Just like Europe and the Refugees.

Dilute the ways of the people, demoralize them, keep them in fear, slowly strip their worth from them, turn 1st world countries into 3rd world countries, have them suffer injustices at the hands of their protectors - legislate immorality among them. 

The New World Order.

Where on this planet is this not happening?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I mean if someone can come up to you and tell you that you have to leave under threat of arrest then it is obvious that you are there under illegal pretenses.
> 
> I guess others do not think that is so.


Anyone can tell you anywhere on their property that you have to leave, and if you refuse you can be charged with "trespassing".

That's not the same as a law stating it's illegal for a man to enter a women's bathroom, as you repeatedly claimed.



> Dilute the ways of the people, demoralize them, keep them in fear, slowly strip their worth from them, turn 1st world countries into 3rd world countries, have them suffer injustices at the hands of their protectors - legislate immorality among them.
> 
> The New World Order.
> 
> Where on this planet is this not happening?


You do love some melodrama don't you? 

Get back to us when there is evidence of any real harm from any "new" regulations
(That aren't really new in a lot of places, as shown by some earlier links)


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Statutes about "posted property" are usually pretty clear about the wording of any signage required.
> 
> That part was in the "notes" and referred to an appeals court decision in one particular case where we don't know all the details.


Got a citation from a credible source that indicates what signs are permissible with regards to Trespass laws?

As far as the notes about one situation and the actual statute, add one to the other and what do you have? A situation where the sign that was posted was sufficient.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> You do love some melodrama don't you?
> 
> Get back to us when there is evidence of any real harm from any "new" regulations
> (That aren't really new in a lot of places, as shown by some earlier links)


It's not just the new regulations, it is seeped through and through in our world, corruption is fairly much the practice of the day. Take for instance the way you treat people that you haven't met. I find your responses to be very caustic and disrespectful, even when someone tries to help you. It's not just you, it is many others in our daily dealings. 

The wealth of America was stolen from us in front of our eyes by very dishonest people and only a few are up at arms. Everyone else just says "ho-hum". 

We shall see. 

Just remember this, I don't have to worry about a thing if everything goes to heck in a hand basket. I have a wonderful insurance policy.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Got a citation from a credible source that indicates *what signs are permissible with regards to Trespass laws*?
> 
> As far as the notes about one situation and the actual statute, add one to the other and what do you have? A situation where the sign that was posted was sufficient.


NC General Statutes on Posted Property.
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/Statutes/StatutesTOC.pl

It's still just a generic trespass law with nothing *specific* regarding bathrooms or gender.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> It's not just the new regulations, *it is seeped through and through in our world*, corruption is fairly much the practice of the day. Take for instance the way you treat people that you haven't met. *I find your responses to be very caustic and disrespectful*, even when someone tries to help you. It's not just you, it is many others in our daily dealings.
> 
> *The wealth of America was stolen from us in front of our eyes* by very dishonest people and only a few are up at arms. Everyone else just says "ho-hum".
> 
> We shall see.
> 
> Just remember this, I don't have to worry about a thing if everything goes to heck in a hand basket. I have a wonderful insurance policy .


You often mistake things for something other than what they are

That's no excuse for all the meaningless rhetoric
It just makes one sound irrational



> *I have a wonderful insurance policy*


One that's all in your mind, and means nothing to those who don't subscribe to your beliefs.

If you don't like my responses, you don't have to read anything I say, nor quote anything I post. 

You do so by your own choice, even while saying you won't.

It's always the same circles


----------



## dixiegal62

https://youtu.be/uzwMJAFWLtQ
Women:decide for yourselves 

An eye opening but long video. Sorry I'm not sure how to put the video in here from my phone.


----------



## haypoint

Heritagefarm said:


> A cross dresser obviously looks like a man in women's clothing. A transgender will look just like their gender after surgery; I see no reason why they'd can't use their restroom after that.


 Not true. Most transgenders do not look like Bruce Jenner after surgery. Many (most?) look like cross dressers.

The gender reassignment is often done in stages. Electrolysis might be an early starting point. Hormone therapy might be next. Breast augmentation is another stage. Adam's apple surgery may come later.

This creates a broad gray area between ugly women, a variety of progressions in surgeries of transgenders and the "could pass for a woman" cross dresser. 

A male that has his scrotum removed and his penis inverted and implanted and looks like a woman would pose no concern to women in a public restroom. We both agree that they could use a women's restroom without causing a stir.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's always the same circles


I'm glad that you enjoy participating...


----------



## Shine

dixiegal62 said:


> https://youtu.be/uzwMJAFWLtQ
> Women:decide for yourselves
> 
> An eye opening but long video. Sorry I'm not sure how to put the video in here from my phone.


I was able to view the video without issue.

I would suggest that those that advocate for this access for men are somewhat accountable for all of the crimes described in the video, one committed on a 7 year old girl.

You want to break down the barriers without bearing the responsibility for the lack of control once the barriers are gone?

Yup, destroying the people in search of misconstrued "equality" and "fairness".


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> I was able to view the video without issue.
> 
> I would suggest that those that advocate for this access for men are somewhat accountable for all of the crimes described in the video, one committed on a 7 year old girl.
> 
> You want to break down the barriers without bearing the responsibility for the lack of control once the barriers are gone?
> 
> Yup, destroying the people in search of misconstrued "equality" and "fairness".


Did that happen because transgender women were allowed in bathrooms or because the person who did it was a pedophile? Can you explain?

Could you tell how long ago these horrendous things happened? I can't and I watched the video twice. Can you, or anyone else, explain why bringing horror stories of things that may have happened decades ago and have nothing to do with transgendered people is anything except fear mongering? The horrible acts that they have inflicted were illegal and they were caught and punished, and many would do it again with or without additional laws.


----------



## Shine

A possible interesting correlation in that, if I remember correctly, a good portion of those that support allowing men access to Women's Bathrooms and Showers are also in favor of the acceptance of refugees from the middle east counties. I wonder just how closely this corresponds on a one to one basis.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> A possible interesting correlation in that, if I remember correctly, a good portion of those that support allowing men access to Women's Bathrooms and Showers are also in favor of the acceptance of refugees from the middle east counties. I wonder just how closely this corresponds on a one to one basis.


Can you explain? I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> Did that happen because transgender women were allowed in bathrooms or because the person who did it was a pedophile? Can you explain?
> 
> Could you tell how long ago these horrendous things happened? I can't and I watched the video twice. Can you, or anyone else, explain why bringing horror stories of things that may have happened decades ago and have nothing to do with transgendered people is anything except fear mongering? The horrible acts that they have inflicted were illegal and they were caught and punished, and many would do it again with or without additional laws.


So, you're not worried about flinging the door wide open and providing no real barrier to those that cannot be vetted as to being a "transgender" or even a woman? 

Those who would do so are removing what in my opinion is an important safe place and has been for time on end for women? 

Some of the dates were provided in the video and yes there were ones that have happened in the past but as you can see the laws have been changing since, from what I can tell, since 1974 so how can you say that the ones from the past are not legitimate to this discussion?


----------



## Nevada

Shine said:


> So, you're not worried about flinging the door wide open and providing no real barrier to those that cannot be vetted as to being a "transgender" or even a woman?
> 
> Those who would do so are removing what in my opinion is an important safe place and has been for time on end for women?


How big of a problem is bathroom perversion in your area?


----------



## Heritagefarm

haypoint said:


> Not true. Most transgenders do not look like Bruce Jenner after surgery. Many (most?) look like cross dressers.
> 
> The gender reassignment is often done in stages. Electrolysis might be an early starting point. Hormone therapy might be next. Breast augmentation is another stage. Adam's apple surgery may come later.
> 
> This creates a broad gray area between ugly women, a variety of progressions in surgeries of transgenders and the "could pass for a woman" cross dresser.
> 
> A male that has his scrotum removed and his penis inverted and implanted and looks like a woman would pose no concern to women in a public restroom. We both agree that they could use a women's restroom without causing a stir.


Right. So we're back to "how do we figure it out, and do we just let cross dressers into the bathroom." I agree with you, and I'm opposed to cross-dressers in their bathroom of choice. Trouble is, which bathroom do they use? They could just change their clothes.


----------



## arabian knight

The question isn't how much of a problem WAS IT in the past. Now the question is how much of a problem WILL IT be under this new and perverted rulings. Why create a problem that was NOT THERE in the first place, but now those liberals with their OWN AGENDA have changed ALL of that.
And this everything HAS to be equal OR it is not, under this perverted thinking that everyone and EVERYTHING has to be equal under ALL CIRCUMSTANCES no matter how the rest of the country feels or is at ease with such things. Just as long as this tiny few in this country are put up on a platter of greater then thee.


----------



## dixiegal62

Shine said:


> So, you're not worried about flinging the door wide open and providing no real barrier to those that cannot be vetted as to being a "transgender" or even a woman?
> 
> Those who would do so are removing what in my opinion is an important safe place and has been for time on end for women?
> 
> Some of the dates were provided in the video and yes there were ones that have happened in the past but as you can see the laws have been changing since, from what I can tell, since 1974 so how can you say that the ones from the past are not legitimate to this discussion?


 I don't see how some people can compare this to blacks not being able to drink from water fountains decades ago but want to argue some of these transgender crimes may have happened decades ago so they are invalid.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> So, you're not worried about flinging the door wide open and providing no real barrier to those that cannot be vetted as to being a "transgender" or even a woman?
> 
> Those who would do so are removing what in my opinion is an important safe place and has been for time on end for women?
> 
> Some of the dates were provided in the video and yes there were ones that have happened in the past but as you can see the laws have been changing since, from what I can tell, since 1974 so how can you say that the ones from the past are not legitimate to this discussion?


No, I'm not worried about anyone flinging the door open and possibly catching sight of my panties. I'm not worried about being sexually assaulted in a public, well used bathroom. I'm not stupid, I'm very aware of my surroundings from a past sexual assault and I wouldn't use a bathroom that I didn't feel was safe. Women need to be aware of their surroundings- if someone moves a bag under the partition simply push it away. If someone is peeking through the door jamb simply yell at them to go away. If you feel someone is watching you throw a hissy fit and make a lot of noise. 

Sigh. The decades old assaults are only being brought up for fear mongering fodder in this fight. They have nothing to do with transgenders and bathroom rights. 

Again, how will additional law make women safer when this has been happening for decades? Can you explain?


----------



## Nevada

arabian knight said:


> The question isn't how much of a problem WAS IT in the past. Now the question is how much of a problem WILL IT be under this new and perverted rulings. Why create a problem that was NOT THERE in the first place, but now those liberals with their OWN AGENDA have changed ALL of that.


I'm of the opinion that it takes a special kind of person to be a bathroom pervert. I find it difficult to believe that people will start acting out in that way because they see a legal opportunity.


----------



## arabian knight

And now because of THIS things will be escalated into something that even these people never dreamt of OR WANT. THEY have created a problem where NO PROBLEM WAS. The only problem there elsa is in their own minds and what they want to control in this country. Life is not fair never has been nor never will be no matter how much SOME want it to be. Utopia does not exist and when tired never last long, and is only in peoples imaginary minds in the first place.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> Can you explain? I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say.


In my opinion, providing access to men to the woman's historically [somewhat] safe zone falls along the same lines of allowing middle eastern people into our country that will do as is being done in Europe. 

Destroying the fabric of society.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> In my opinion, providing access to men to the woman's historically [somewhat] safe zone falls along the same lines of allowing middle eastern people into our country that will do as is being done in Europe.
> 
> Destroying the fabric of society.


Thank you for explaining. The way I see it that is blaming many for the actions of a very, very few. 

Can you answer this question please? Again, how will additional law make women safer when this has been happening for decades? Can you explain?


----------



## Heritagefarm

Shine said:


> In my opinion, providing access to men to the woman's historically [somewhat] safe zone falls along the same lines of allowing middle eastern people into our country that will do as is being done in Europe.
> 
> Destroying the fabric of society.


Ouch. Don't like Arabs very much?


----------



## haypoint

Heritagefarm said:


> Right. So we're back to "how do we figure it out, and do we just let cross dressers into the bathroom." I agree with you, and I'm opposed to cross-dressers in their bathroom of choice. Trouble is, which bathroom do they use? They could just change their clothes.


I think that because of the broad spectrum between cross dressers, various stages of sexual reassignment, fully intact folks that identify as a different sex (some that may want to dress as men, but identify as a woman), those like Jenner that want to be women, but want women and those that do not want to be identified as either sex, we have a plate full.

Then take a society that has drawn their own line in the sand as to how far they'll let the social engineers push them and we get another broad spectrum of solutions that few feel they need to compromise on.

You cannot say that you want to force every university to allow men that identify as women use the women's restroom, while the majority of women would pitch a fit if a man walked into their rest room. 

I have had decades to ponder this day. In 1978, I worked in a factory with Ken. Ken liked guys. Hardly a day would go buy that he had some sexual comment to make towards me. I ignored it and I guess in some ways permitted it. As he earned money for his sexual transformation, he kept me posted and I learned a lot about the process. Ken had grown breasts, taking hormones. Was getting weekly electrolysis for removal of his facial hair. At the factory he dressed like a guy.
One day, he asked if I knew of a Bar that had dim lighting as he felt like going out, but still had some facial hair to deal with. I told him the Driftway was dark. 
That Saturday, my wife and I went there and sat in the upper area, overlooking the band and the bar. Eventually, I saw Ken come in, all decked out as a woman. Actually a bit over the top Hooker-like. Didn't surprise me because the homosexual males I knew were over the top ultra feminine. (just as the lesbian women I knew were either more macho than the average guy or extremely feminine) 
Ken sat down a couple seats away from a guy with a white flat top haircut. Looked like he could be a retired Marine. Didn't take long and the guy was buying Ken drinks and sitting next to Ken. 
When it was time for Ken to use the restroom, this piqued my interest. Knowing how interested he was in my sex parts, I don't want him in the restroom with me. But most women don't want Ken in their restroom. 
Ken used the women's restroom and it didn't seem to raise an eyebrow.
Eventually, Ken left with the guy. I assume it worked out, as he didn't look beat up the following Monday. 
Eventually, weeks later, the Bar staff figured out Ken was a guy and they asked him not to use the ladies room. 

So, as we all do, I bring my personal experiences into my beliefs. I don't doubt your experiences are different and expect they slant your view of what is right.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> Thank you for explaining. The way I see it that is blaming many for the actions of a very, very few.
> 
> Can you answer this question please? Again, how will additional law make women safer when this has been happening for decades? Can you explain?


No, I cannot explain. I was unaware of the length of time that these laws have been in place so I have to recalculate that into what I understand. I do know that men have preyed upon women since before the existence of laws that prohibit it. I do know that men will take every opportunity, both good and bad, and attempt to use it to its fullest. 

The domestic violence laws are something that I rail against because I was unjustly charged while at the same time acknowledging that they are indeed needed. 

Much power is placed into the hands of women after being taken from men. In a number of cases, this power is the only thing that keeps women safe from harm, in other case men are charged and lose their rights unjustly[read: that the women lied to harm the men, power trip]

So, I do not think that "laws" will prevent harm but I do believe that this is not the "safe" answer overall.


----------



## Shine

Heritagefarm said:


> Ouch. Don't like Arabs very much?


No, I am fine with Arab people that do not harm others. What we see happening in Europe right now is the destruction of the social fabric of those countries. It is the people that would leave their country and seek to destroy countries where ever they might find themselves that I find myself not liking.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> No, I cannot explain. I was unaware of the length of time that these laws have been in place so I have to recalculate that into what I understand. I do know that men have preyed upon women since before the existence of laws that prohibit it. I do know that men will take every opportunity, both good and bad, and attempt to use it to its fullest.
> 
> The domestic violence laws are something that I rail against because I was unjustly charged while at the same time acknowledging that they are indeed needed.
> 
> Much power is placed into the hands of women after being taken from men. In a number of cases, this power is the only thing that keeps women safe from harm, in other case men are charged and lose their rights unjustly[read: that the women lied to harm the men, power trip]
> 
> So, I do not think that "laws" will prevent harm but I do believe that this is not the "safe" answer overall.


Thank you for answering the question.


----------



## Heritagefarm

haypoint said:


> I think that because of the broad spectrum between cross dressers, various stages of sexual reassignment, fully intact folks that identify as a different sex (some that may want to dress as men, but identify as a woman), those like Jenner that want to be women, but want women and those that do not want to be identified as either sex, we have a plate full.
> 
> Then take a society that has drawn their own line in the sand as to how far they'll let the social engineers push them and we get another broad spectrum of solutions that few feel they need to compromise on.
> 
> You cannot say that you want to force every university to allow men that identify as women use the women's restroom, while the majority of women would pitch a fit if a man walked into their rest room.
> 
> I have had decades to ponder this day. In 1978, I worked in a factory with Ken. Ken liked guys. Hardly a day would go buy that he had some sexual comment to make towards me. I ignored it and I guess in some ways permitted it. As he earned money for his sexual transformation, he kept me posted and I learned a lot about the process. Ken had grown breasts, taking hormones. Was getting weekly electrolysis for removal of his facial hair. At the factory he dressed like a guy.
> One day, he asked if I knew of a Bar that had dim lighting as he felt like going out, but still had some facial hair to deal with. I told him the Driftway was dark.
> That Saturday, my wife and I went there and sat in the upper area, overlooking the band and the bar. Eventually, I saw Ken come in, all decked out as a woman. Actually a bit over the top Hooker-like. Didn't surprise me because the homosexual males I knew were over the top ultra feminine. (just as the lesbian women I knew were either more macho than the average guy or extremely feminine)
> Ken sat down a couple seats away from a guy with a white flat top haircut. Looked like he could be a retired Marine. Didn't take long and the guy was buying Ken drinks and sitting next to Ken.
> When it was time for Ken to use the restroom, this piqued my interest. Knowing how interested he was in my sex parts, I don't want him in the restroom with me. But most women don't want Ken in their restroom.
> Ken used the women's restroom and it didn't seem to raise an eyebrow.
> Eventually, Ken left with the guy. I assume it worked out, as he didn't look beat up the following Monday.
> Eventually, weeks later, the Bar staff figured out Ken was a guy and they asked him not to use the ladies room.
> 
> So, as we all do, I bring my personal experiences into my beliefs. I don't doubt your experiences are different and expect they slant your view of what is right.


You've always been able to offer some really good insight into a variety of issues, at times making me examine which belief system I actually supported, while displaying some great common sense. Thanks!


----------



## haypoint

Irish Pixie said:


> No, I'm not worried about anyone flinging the door open and possibly catching sight of my panties. I'm not worried about being sexually assaulted in a public, well used bathroom. I'm not stupid, I'm very aware of my surroundings from a past sexual assault and I wouldn't use a bathroom that I didn't feel was safe. Women need to be aware of their surroundings- if someone moves a bag under the partition simply push it away. If someone is peeking through the door jamb simply yell at them to go away. If you feel someone is watching you throw a hissy fit and make a lot of noise.
> 
> Sigh. The decades old assaults are only being brought up for fear mongering fodder in this fight. They have nothing to do with transgenders and bathroom rights.
> 
> Again, how will additional law make women safer when this has been happening for decades? Can you explain?


 Probably not, but I'm going to try anyway. 

First, I want to be clear on what you expect will happen if you throw a hissy fit in the restroom? You think that some dude peaking into your stall will run at the sound of your voice? Is it the sound that causes him to run? Perhaps your yelling will cause a group of women to confront/beat up/citizen's arrest the perv? You surely aren't expecting your "damsel in distress" call to entice a guy to run into the ladies room and rescue you, are you? 

I can stand 2 inches away from a speeding freight train and be perfectly safe, just as you would be in your latched toilet stall. Danger might be close, but it isn't really danger. I think, to be reasonable and cautious, I should stand 10 feet away from a freight train. I also believe that when a lady has her panties around her ankles, she might prefer, for peace of mind, that an unknown man not have his nose against the crack in the toilet stall door. Just makes a bit more piece of mind when the public is alarmed when they see a guy dart into a women's room. Let's try to keep this threat a safer distance.

Seem the guys aren't too concerned about gals that think they are guys, using their restrooms. If she can operate that little funnel thing, without getting any on me, she's welcome to stand at the urinal.

The squawking seems to be coming from the ladies that don't want a brother lurking in their powder room. Plus the guys that were raised with that silly notion that they protect from harm their mother, sister, wife and daughter. I know, really out dated.

Every lesbian I've ever seen (on the Butch side of their relationship), looks like a woman acting like a dude. Every gay guy I've ever met acts like Julia Child with large hands. The transsexual version of these are the same, but on steroids, figuratively and actually.

Check out the movie, "Pat".

If you look like a woman, I mean really look like a woman, use the door with the person in a skirt. If you look like a man, not just walk like one, use the door with the pants person on it.

If you don't want to identify with either sex or are a guy, look like a guy, but are offended to use a men's rest room, you both should just use the restroom in your therapist's office. 

We want this country to grow, families have children, buy a home. So, we have laws that reward having dependent children and deductions for home mortgage. It is a form of social engineering. 

Seems that increasing the convenience for the LGBTQ and increasing the turmoil for the remainder of the population could bolster recruitment efforts of the LGBTQ coalition. Not a direction I'm rooting for.

A decade ago, we were shocked with Brokeback Mountain. We've come quite a ways since then. Most are still sore over the gay marriage nonsense. My plate is full. Let's hold up on dessert for a decade or so, let this meal settle a bit.


----------



## Irish Pixie

haypoint said:


> Probably not, but I'm going to try anyway.
> 
> First, I want to be clear on what you expect will happen if you throw a hissy fit in the restroom? You think that some dude peaking into your stall will run at the sound of your voice? Is it the sound that causes him to run? Perhaps your yelling will cause a group of women to confront/beat up/citizen's arrest the perv? You surely aren't expecting your "damsel in distress" call to entice a guy to run into the ladies room and rescue you, are you?
> 
> I can stand 2 inches away from a speeding freight train and be perfectly safe, just as you would be in your latched toilet stall. Danger might be close, but it isn't really danger. I think, to be reasonable and cautious, I should stand 10 feet away from a freight train. I also believe that when a lady has her panties around her ankles, she might prefer, for peace of mind, that an unknown man not have his nose against the crack in the toilet stall door. Just makes a bit more piece of mind when the public is alarmed when they see a guy dart into a women's room. Let's try to keep this threat a safer distance.
> 
> Seem the guys aren't too concerned about gals that think they are guys, using their restrooms. If she can operate that little funnel thing, without getting any on me, she's welcome to stand at the urinal.
> 
> The squawking seems to be coming from the ladies that don't want a brother lurking in their powder room. Plus the guys that were raised with that silly notion that they protect from harm their mother, sister, wife and daughter. I know, really out dated.
> 
> Every lesbian I've ever seen (on the Butch side of their relationship), looks like a woman acting like a dude. Every gay guy I've ever met acts like Julia Child with large hands. The transsexual version of these are the same, but on steroids, figuratively and actually.
> 
> Check out the movie, "Pat".
> 
> If you look like a woman, I mean really look like a woman, use the door with the person in a skirt. If you look like a man, not just walk like one, use the door with the pants person on it.
> 
> If you don't want to identify with either sex or are a guy, look like a guy, but are offended to use a men's rest room, you both should just use the restroom in your therapist's office.
> 
> We want this country to grow, families have children, buy a home. So, we have laws that reward having dependent children and deductions for home mortgage. It is a form of social engineering.
> 
> Seems that increasing the convenience for the LGBTQ and increasing the turmoil for the remainder of the population could bolster recruitment efforts of the LGBTQ coalition. Not a direction I'm rooting for.
> 
> A decade ago, we were shocked with Brokeback Mountain. We've come quite a ways since then. Most are still sore over the gay marriage nonsense. My plate is full. Let's hold up on dessert for a decade or so, let this meal settle a bit.


Yes, I do think someone will run into a women's bathroom if there was yelling. If a woman was screaming, "Help. Get away from me." My husband would be there like a shot, but he is a decent human being. 

No, my yelling would draw attention to the situation. It would cause a commotion that would bring people, security and other.

The rest of your post is just gratuitous generalization and not worth responding to.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> Yes, I do think someone will run into a women's bathroom if there was yelling. If a woman was screaming, "Help. Get away from me." My husband would be there like a shot, but he is a decent human being.
> 
> No, my yelling would draw attention to the situation. It would cause a commotion that would bring people, security and other.
> 
> The rest of your post is just gratuitous generalization and not worth responding to.


Not to diminish your belief of an instant rescue in an urgent situation, there are, however, hundreds of thousands of restrooms where one would not be able to expect that instant response. What happens then, I am certain that anyone wanting to take advantage of the situation would like to find one of those aforementioned restrooms to lurk around rather than the one at McDonalds or Starbucks... Just saying...


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

This is like who's on first, what's on second. There is no viable way to settle this non sense. It's just hooray for each side. A problem was created, it didn't come along by it's self. It was just ---- the torpedos, full speed ahead. How's that change working now from the folks who brought you the great organiser and uniter of people?

Incompetence, madness, and greed beget more of the same.

Until reason &#8211; or collapse &#8211; prevails.

The moral collapse has already happened.

More to come.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Irish Pixie said:


> *No, I'm not worried about anyone flinging the door open and possibly catching sight of my panties. I'm not worried about being sexually assaulted in a public, well used bathroom. I'm not stupid, I'm very aware of my surroundings from a past sexual assault and I wouldn't use a bathroom that I didn't feel was safe.* Women need to be aware of their surroundings- if someone moves a bag under the partition simply push it away. If someone is peeking through the door jamb simply yell at them to go away. If you feel someone is watching you throw a hissy fit and make a lot of noise.
> 
> Sigh. The decades old assaults are only being brought up for fear mongering fodder in this fight. They have nothing to do with transgenders and bathroom rights.
> 
> Again, how will additional law make women safer when this has been happening for decades? Can you explain?





Shine said:


> Not to diminish your belief of an instant rescue in an urgent situation, there are, however, hundreds of thousands of restrooms where one would not be able to expect that instant response. What happens then, I am certain that anyone wanting to take advantage of the situation would like to find one of those aforementioned restrooms to lurk around rather than the one at McDonalds or Starbucks... Just saying...


Please reread my original post. If the bathroom is not safe, well lit, and well used I wouldn't go in alone and neither should any other woman. That's a no brainer. In a public place with people around any screaming would have people coming to investigate, I know I would. I could no more turn my back on that than I could fly.


----------



## DEKE01

Irish Pixie said:


> No, I'm not worried about anyone flinging the door open and possibly catching sight of my panties. I'm not worried about being sexually assaulted in a public, well used bathroom. I'm not stupid, I'm very aware of my surroundings from a past sexual assault and I wouldn't use a bathroom that I didn't feel was safe. Women need to be aware of their surroundings- if someone moves a bag under the partition simply push it away. If someone is peeking through the door jamb simply yell at them to go away. If you feel someone is watching you throw a hissy fit and make a lot of noise.
> 
> Sigh. The decades old assaults are only being brought up for fear mongering fodder in this fight. They have nothing to do with transgenders and bathroom rights.
> 
> Again, how will additional law make women safer when this has been happening for decades? Can you explain?


There you have it folks. Irish Pixie is not worried about being sexually assaulted. Therefore, it can't happen. Tell your wives and daughters they have nothing to fear. Tell all the pedos and creepers out there, they are forever foiled in their evil desires, because Irish Pixie is not worried. 

Problem solved. 

:bored:


----------



## dixiegal62

haypoint said:


> Probably not, but I'm going to try anyway.
> 
> First, I want to be clear on what you expect will happen if you throw a hissy fit in the restroom? You think that some dude peaking into your stall will run at the sound of your voice? Is it the sound that causes him to run? Perhaps your yelling will cause a group of women to confront/beat up/citizen's arrest the perv? You surely aren't expecting your "damsel in distress" call to entice a guy to run into the ladies room and rescue you, are you?
> 
> I can stand 2 inches away from a speeding freight train and be perfectly safe, just as you would be in your latched toilet stall. Danger might be close, but it isn't really danger. I think, to be reasonable and cautious, I should stand 10 feet away from a freight train. I also believe that when a lady has her panties around her ankles, she might prefer, for peace of mind, that an unknown man not have his nose against the crack in the toilet stall door. Just makes a bit more piece of mind when the public is alarmed when they see a guy dart into a women's room. Let's try to keep this threat a safer distance.
> 
> Seem the guys aren't too concerned about gals that think they are guys, using their restrooms. If she can operate that little funnel thing, without getting any on me, she's welcome to stand at the urinal.
> 
> The squawking seems to be coming from the ladies that don't want a brother lurking in their powder room. Plus the guys that were raised with that silly notion that they protect from harm their mother, sister, wife and daughter. I know, really out dated.
> 
> Every lesbian I've ever seen (on the Butch side of their relationship), looks like a woman acting like a dude. Every gay guy I've ever met acts like Julia Child with large hands. The transsexual version of these are the same, but on steroids, figuratively and actually.
> 
> Check out the movie, "Pat".
> 
> If you look like a woman, I mean really look like a woman, use the door with the person in a skirt. If you look like a man, not just walk like one, use the door with the pants person on it.
> 
> If you don't want to identify with either sex or are a guy, look like a guy, but are offended to use a men's rest room, you both should just use the restroom in your therapist's office.
> 
> We want this country to grow, families have children, buy a home. So, we have laws that reward having dependent children and deductions for home mortgage. It is a form of social engineering.
> 
> Seems that increasing the convenience for the LGBTQ and increasing the turmoil for the remainder of the population could bolster recruitment efforts of the LGBTQ coalition. Not a direction I'm rooting for.
> 
> A decade ago, we were shocked with Brokeback Mountain. We've come quite a ways since then. Most are still sore over the gay marriage nonsense. My plate is full. Let's hold up on dessert for a decade or so, let this meal settle a bit.


Interesting point about yelling for help. We where in Logans Saturday evening. I got up to use the ladies room. When I walked up to the door I heard nothing, as soon as I opened it I heard a lady yelling," help me" at the top of her lungs. I asked her what was wrong thinking she was hurt in some way but she was stuck in the stall, the door wouldn't open for her. While I was trying to open it an employee came in and helped. When we got her out she turned out to be an elderly woman. She was embarrassed and asked if the whole restaurant heard her screaming. We assured her that they didn't. No one heard her from outside. If she was being attacked no one would have heard her either and by the time we walked in it could have been too late to help her.


----------



## DEKE01

Nevada said:


> I'm of the opinion that it takes a special kind of person to be a bathroom pervert. I find it difficult to believe that people will start acting out in that way because they see a legal opportunity.


Again, you folks go out of your way to not see the obvious. Will the transgender bathroom policy create more perverts, probably not. But it will give the perverts easier access to naked children.


----------



## dixiegal62

DEKE01 said:


> There you have it folks. Irish Pixie is not worried about being sexually assaulted. Therefore, it can't happen. Tell your wives and daughters they have nothing to fear. Tell all the pedos and creepers out there, they are forever foiled in their evil desires, because Irish Pixie is not worried.
> 
> Problem solved.
> 
> :bored:


If it where that easy there would never be any sort of attack ever in public bathrooms, and we all know they do happen.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> I was able to view the video without issue.
> 
> I* would suggest* that those that advocate for this access for men are somewhat accountable for all of the crimes described in the video, one committed on a 7 year old girl.
> 
> You want to break down the barriers without bearing the responsibility for the lack of control once the barriers are gone?
> 
> Yup, destroying the people in search of misconstrued "equality" and "fairness".


I would suggest there are far more examples of priests and "pastors" abusing children than transgenders, but you're big on sending them to church.

By your "logic" that makes you responsible for them


----------



## Irish Pixie

DEKE01 said:


> There you have it folks. Irish Pixie is not worried about being sexually assaulted. Therefore, it can't happen. Tell your wives and daughters they have nothing to fear. Tell all the pedos and creepers out there, they are forever foiled in their evil desires, because Irish Pixie is not worried.
> 
> Problem solved.
> 
> :bored:


LOL I was responding to this, which was posted to me. 



Shine said:


> So, you're not worried about flinging the door wide open and providing no real barrier to those that cannot be vetted as to being a "transgender" or even a woman?
> 
> Those who would do so are removing what in my opinion is an important safe place and has been for time on end for women?
> 
> Some of the dates were provided in the video and yes there were ones that have happened in the past but as you can see the laws have been changing since, from what I can tell, since 1974 so how can you say that the ones from the past are not legitimate to this discussion?


I am allowed an opinion even if you don't like it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

DEKE01 said:


> Again, you folks go out of your way to not see the obvious. Will the transgender bathroom policy create more perverts, probably not. But it will give the perverts easier access to naked children.


Yeah, cause the only thing stopping those "perverts" from raping every kid they see is one law


----------



## dixiegal62

Reading this thread has changed my mind. At first the thread seemed to be leading to completed trans genders using any bathroom but as the thread went on it was more clear that even an obvious man would be able to and many are ok with that. It's fine if your ok with it but I'm not. If a business does not have a private family bathroom I'll just skip going and will probably think twice about giving them my money in the future.if I decide not to give them my money I'll be sure to let them know why. If they offer a family room I'll use it because I am not comfortable with the way this looks to be going. I'll just do what transgenders should have done to begin with because I don't feel I'm entitled to make those decisions for the whole world, only myself and my family. Somebody has to be the adult in this crazy mixed up world and obviously it won't be the PC crowd. 

If the time comes that I absolutely have to use a stall bathroom, instead of playing damsel in distress and hoping a big strong man will hear my womanly screams and run to my rescue in time, I prefer my odds with gun powder. As I'm sure plenty of other independent women will too.


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> Reading this thread has changed my mind. At first the thread seemed to be leading to completed trans genders using any bathroom but as the thread went on it was more clear that even an obvious man would be able to and many are ok with that. It's fine if your ok with it but I'm not. If a business does not have a private family bathroom I'll just skip going and will probably think twice about giving them my money in the future.if I decide not to give them my money I'll be sure to let them know why. If they offer a family room I'll use it because I am not comfortable with the way this looks to be going. I'll just do what transgenders should have done to begin with because I don't feel I'm entitled to make those decisions for the whole world, only myself and my family. Somebody has to be the adult in this crazy mixed up world and obviously it won't be the PC crowd.
> 
> If the time comes that I absolutely have to use a stall bathroom, instead of playing damsel in distress and hoping a big strong man will hear my womanly screams and run to my rescue I prefer my odds with gun powder. As I'm sure plenty of other independent women will too.


Good luck with your gunpowder where guns can't be carried. It's more prudent to be aware of your surroundings, that and not be terrified of a transgender woman washing her hands at the sink or touching up her makeup. That _would_ be embarrassing. And I never said, nor implied, a man to rescue me simply more people around. Unless you wouldn't help another woman in trouble? I would but that's me. 

Due to discrimination and it's ugliness there soon won't be choice- people will have to share _public_ bathrooms with transgender people or stay home. Their choice.


----------



## arabian knight

i love it. LOL see what troubles that such a few has now cause one this country, You talk about dividing a country. THIS new PC group of extremes are doing just that~!
*A small town in Alabama just passed the most extreme anti-transgender bathroom bill yet: The city of Oxford will now make it illegal for people to use a public bathroom that does not align with their birth certificate, punishing those who violate the law with a $500 fine and up to six months in jail.*


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> Good luck with your gunpowder where guns can't be carried. It's more prudent to be aware of your surroundings, that and not be terrified of a transgender woman washing her hands at the sink or touching up her makeup. That _would_ be embarrassing. And I never said, nor implied, a man to rescue me simply more people around. Unless you wouldn't help another woman in trouble? I would but that's me.
> 
> Due to discrimination and it's ugliness there soon won't be choice- people will have to share _public_ bathrooms with transgender people or stay home. Their choice.


Good luck knowing who's carrying a gun and where. Stay home? Really? You really think because I choose not to share a bathroom I have to stay home? Is there a law that says I HAVE to go into a bathroom I'm uncomfortable with?


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> Good luck knowing who's carrying a gun and where. Stay home? Really? You really think because I choose not to share a bathroom I have to stay home? Is there a law that says I HAVE to go into a bathroom I'm uncomfortable with?


LOL. :spooky music: There are transgenders everywhere. You never know where they'll turn up. Better stay home.


----------



## arabian knight

This liberal left extreme folks have not got do but be a bunch of busybodies with so much time on their hands they just MUST Stick this rose into things and just find SOMETHING, to ruin that will effect everyone, and not for the good, only for the warm and fuzzy feeling THEY GET~!


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> LOL. :spooky music: There are transgenders everywhere. You never know where they'll turn up. Better stay home.


SIGH Too childish and ugly to even bother with a response.


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> SIGH Too childish and ugly to even bother with a response.


Yet you did. :facepalm: ound:


----------



## oneraddad

When ever my kids or grandkids are/were out of my sight or behind closed doors I was only a voice away and kept watch. 

This thread isn't about keeping your children safe it's about arguing, period.


----------



## haypoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> I would suggest there are far more examples of priests and "pastors" abusing children than transgenders, but you're big on sending them to church.
> 
> By your "logic" that makes you responsible for them


Did you miss the point by accident or was it intentional?
I didn't see the inference that by allowing men into women's restrooms that there would be an uptick in transgenders raping children.

When you allow any/all men the opportunity to enter a woman's restroom, without question (because it wouldn't be fair to question a person's sexuality) then you'll provide an additional opportunity for pedophiles to engage children in an unsupervised, formerly safe, place. 

When you allow any/all men the opportunity to enter a woman's restroom, without question, you provide a place, often with limited view from the public, to get near a woman that has her panties around her ankles.

I think far more children have benefited from a religious learning experience based on ten basic requirements for a civilized society to exist than were molested by some creepy priest.


----------



## dixiegal62

------------


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> *Good luck knowing who's carrying* a gun and where. Stay home? Really? You really think because I choose not to share a bathroom I have to stay home? Is there a law that says I HAVE to go into a bathroom I'm uncomfortable with?


So you think you can hide a gun but a transgender can't hide their genitals?


----------



## DEKE01

Irish Pixie said:


> LOL I was responding to this, which was posted to me.
> 
> 
> 
> I am allowed an opinion even if you don't like it.


You forgot to tell me you don't care what I think. :sly:


----------



## DEKE01

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yeah, cause the only thing stopping those "perverts" from raping every kid they see is one law


Straw man. Already refuted.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

haypoint said:


> Did you miss the point by accident or was it intentional?
> I didn't see the inference that by allowing men into women's restrooms that there would be an uptick in transgenders raping children.
> 
> When you allow any/all men the opportunity to enter a woman's restroom, without question (because it wouldn't be fair to question a person's sexuality) then you'll provide an additional opportunity for pedophiles to engage children in an unsupervised, formerly safe, place.
> 
> When you allow any/all men the opportunity to enter a woman's restroom, without question, you provide a place, often with limited view from the public, to get near a woman that has her panties around her ankles.
> 
> I think far more children have benefited from a religious learning experience based on ten basic requirements for a civilized society to exist than were molested by some creepy priest.


There was no real point to be missed.

It was the same parroted speculation that's been repeated endlessly

There are far more documented instances of priests molesting children than transgenders, and trying to transfer blame to one group and not the other is hypocritical

No one is "allowing *any and all *men" to do anything at all.
This is about what everyone keeps claiming is 0.03% of the population.


----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> There was no real point to be missed.
> 
> It was the same parroted speculation that's been repeated endlessly
> 
> There are far more documented instances of priests molesting children than transgenders, and trying to transfer blame to one group and not the other is hypocritical
> 
> No one is "allowing *any and all *men" to do anything at all.
> This is about what everyone keeps claiming is 0.03% of the population.


Sorry wrong, target is already allowing any man who identifies as a woman in. Which means all he has to say is he feels like a woman. Which means he doesn't even have to be transgender. Repeating the same thing over and over does not make you right.


----------



## arabian knight

There are a few states that are pending legislation like that in NC. And now even Texas law makers are thinking the same way.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Bearfootfarm said:


> So you think you can hide a gun but a transgender can't hide their genitals?


I've been around new York dc and philly. I have seen many transgendered people. All ugly and easily recognizable. You can't hide broad shoulders, jaw lines, Adams apples and 6ft frames very easy. And as soon as they speak is instantly apparent. You act like they all look like super models. Everyone with half a brain can recognize a transgendered person as most are too broke to go all out.


----------



## greg273

dixiegal62 said:


> Sorry wrong, target is already allowing any man who identifies as a woman in. Which means all he has to say is he feels like a woman..


 If someone is bent on doing harm to others, they could just waltz into that bathroom now to do their evil deeds. Do you think a LAW is stopping people from doing that now?? It isn't LAWS that prevent people from doing harm to others, its peoples own morality.
Any man creeping around in a ladies room is going to be heavily scrutinized, no matter what the policy is. I don't see a rash of dudes creeping into the ladies room. If there are some, they'll be outed in a hurry, and probably served a serious beat down in the process. 
Personally I see this issue as just another chance for the holy rollers to try and get their way and force their morality code on others. They're basically afraid, because they lack the mental capacity and empathy to process the fact that some folks are born 'different' and they'll do anything in their power to marginalize those people. I aint having it, I learned early on in grade school not to make fun of people who were different. Doesnt mean I like them, or like what they do, it just means I dont add to their quotient of sorrow in this world.


----------



## dixiegal62

greg273 said:


> If someone is bent on doing harm to others, they could just waltz into that bathroom now to do their evil deeds. Do you think a LAW is stopping people from doing that now?? Like there is just so many rapists out there, but those dang laws just prevent it! LOL!! It isn't LAWS that prevent people from doing harm to others, its peoples own morality.
> Any man creeping around in a ladies room is going to be heavily scrutinized, no matter what the policy is. I don't see a rash of dudes creeping into the ladies room. If there are some, they'll be outed in a hurry, and probably served a serious beat down in the process.
> Personally I see this issue as just another chance for the holy rollers to try and get their way and force their morality code on others. They're basically afraid, because they lack the mental capacity and empathy to process the fact that some folks are born 'different' and they'll do anything in their power to marginalize those people. I aint having it, I learned early on in grade school not to make fun of people who were different. Doesnt mean I like them, or like what they do, it just means I dont add to their quotient of sorrow in this world.


Good for you. Now please show me where I've made fun of anybody. I'm not the one calling people holy rollers evidently what you learned in grade school did not stick. It's hard to take a person's lectures on tolerance seriously when their comments are themselves intolerant of others. You're fine with it...good to know. I'm not.


----------



## greg273

dixiegal62 said:


> Good for you. Now please show me where I've made fun of anybody. I'm not the one calling people holy rollers evidently what you learned in grade school did not stick. It's hard to take a person's lectures on tolerance seriously when their comments are themselves intolerant of others. You're fine with it...good to know. I'm not.


 Yes, I am intolerant of intolerance generally. Sorry if the term 'holy roller' offends you, it is my prejudiced term for those who think they have a direct, EXCLUSIVE hotline to the Creator. Instead of making the issue about you not liking my words, why not answer the question i first asked? Do you think its the law stopping people from harming others in the fashion you are envisioning?


----------



## Shine

greg273 said:


> If someone is bent on doing harm to others, they could just waltz into that bathroom now to do their evil deeds. Do you think a LAW is stopping people from doing that now?? It isn't LAWS that prevent people from doing harm to others, its peoples own morality.
> Any man creeping around in a ladies room is going to be heavily scrutinized, no matter what the policy is. I don't see a rash of dudes creeping into the ladies room. If there are some, they'll be outed in a hurry, and probably served a serious beat down in the process.
> Personally I see this issue as just another chance for the *holy rollers* to try and get their way and *force* their morality code on others. They're basically *afraid*, because they *lack the mental capacity and empathy* to process the fact that some folks are born 'different' and *they'll do anything in their power to marginalize those people*. I aint having it, I learned early on in grade school not to make fun of people who were different. Doesnt mean I like them, or like what they do, it just means I dont add to their quotient of sorrow in this world.


Nice general insult. You must be a compassionate person.


----------



## Heritagefarm

I have mixed feeling on this subject - some of you may have noticed. 
On the one hand, I think transgender is really weird. The idea of someone having their body disected and their gentitalia inserted, whacked, extracted, whatever, just doesn't vibe with me. I have a huge amount of respect for the human body, and it makes me cringe when people abuse it. 
But I also cringe when people get tattoos, eat Doritos, go tanning, or pretty much anything else that harms them. I'd make a great mother (I'm a guy). 
And it's their body, I won't enforce my morality on them. 
And I'm pretty sure I won't complain if the wrong gender comes into my restroom, because either it's a woman dressed as a man in my men's restroom, which means she's at risk and probably uncomfortable, or a dude dressed as a woman, which most likely poses no threat to me. I'm more worried about stray bullets from my trigger happy neighbor. 
On the flip side I view preventing men from entering the woman's restroom prudent because it creates a dangerous situation. 
In all of it, I think we just need to be understanding of people different than us, and try to accommodate them as best we can.


----------



## Shine

greg273 said:


> Yes, I am intolerant of intolerance generally. Sorry if the term 'holy roller' offends you, it is my prejudiced term for those who think they have a direct, EXCLUSIVE hotline to the Creator. Instead of making the issue about you not liking my words, why not answer the question i first asked? Do you think its the law stopping people from harming others in the fashion you are envisioning?


Laws are generally retro-active. No one that I know has an "EXCLUSIVE hotline to the Creator" so I'll just pass that off as something you wish to ding your pet peave people with...

How would you staunch the influx of perverts wearing dresses [should this eventuality rear its ugly head] that have no "I am a woman in a man's body" feelings? Do we honor their wishes to be treated as women?


----------



## dixiegal62

greg273 said:


> Yes, I am intolerant of intolerance generally. Sorry if the term 'holy roller' offends you, it is my prejudiced term for those who think they have a direct, EXCLUSIVE hotline to the Creator. Instead of making the issue about you not liking my words, why not answer the question i first asked? Do you think its the law stopping people from harming others in the fashion you are envisioning?


First I'll start with your comments. I never said I was offended. I also have made no intolerant comments about transgenders. Nor have I mentioned my creator. I may not agree with their lifestyle but its not my place to judge them, nor is it my place to hold their hand and help them do something I don't agree with. Obviously you don't believe in 'holy rollers'. Do you feel you should help them preach their beliefs to be tolerant of them? Since you aimed your comments at me I'll point out they are unfounded, thank you very much. 

Yes I do feel the laws at least slow down the people who would harm women in the ladies room. As it stands now an obvious male can be stopped so it makes sense that some wanting to do harm are hesitant. Under the new laws nobody has the right to question any obvious male so any wanting to cause harm will feel more free to do so.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> Sorry wrong, target is already allowing any man *who identifies as a woman* in. Which means all he has to say is he feels like a woman.
> 
> Which means he doesn't even have to be transgender. Repeating the same thing over and over does not make you right.


That's not "*any and all men*", and it's one store's policy.

Why keep pretending there will suddenly be scores of men pretending to be women just to get some cheap thrills if they aren't already doing it now?

Any "peeping" or "filming" will still be illegal, and laws aren't going to stop a rapist, who really isn't that likely to choose a public restroom to commit that crime.



> Which means he doesn't even have to be transgender.


If he truly "identifies as a woman" he's "transgender"



> Repeating the same thing over and over does not make you right


Nor does it you


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Vahomesteaders said:


> I've been around new York dc and philly.* I have seen many transgendered people*. All ugly and easily recognizable. You can't hide broad shoulders, jaw lines, Adams apples and 6ft frames very easy. And as soon as they speak is instantly apparent. You act like they all look like super models. Everyone with half a brain can recognize a transgendered person as most are too broke to go all out.


You must spend a lot of time looking for them
(Not that there's anything wrong with that)

How many of them have molested someone?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Nice general insult. You must be a compassionate person.


It's better than "sick mentally ill pervert".

Don't act as if you don't insult people on a regular basis while also pretending to be superior


----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's not "*any and all men*", and it's one store's policy.
> 
> Why keep pretending there will suddenly be scores of men pretending to be women just to get some cheap thrills if they aren't already doing it now?
> 
> Any "peeping" or "filming" will still be illegal, and laws aren't going to stop a rapist, who really isn't that likely to choose a public restroom to commit that crime.
> 
> 
> If he truly "identifies as a woman" he's "transgender"
> 
> 
> Nor does it you


One company with over 1700 stores in the states....over 1700 locations that allow any man who says he identifies as a woman. 

As I said earlier if just 1 woman gets attacked as a result of these new laws it's too many. What I didn't say was there would be 'scores' of men pretending. 

Use of public bathrooms and dressing rooms for sexual crimes has already been proven in this thread. Is there a magic number of women who need to be attacked before it's a reality?

Earlier you made transgenders different from cross dressers who changed their name to female and always dressed as female. Now any man who simply says he identifies is transgender. Hard to keep up.


----------



## JJ Grandits

If we just install unisex communal showers in all our school locker rooms within a generation or so this whole bathroom thing will look like a joke.

If you go back to the time of our great grandfathers and before, all males swam naked. I've seen old pictures of public swimming where only the females wore swimsuits. Nobody paid much attention to it because it was the norm at the time.
This whole situation is about changing a norm.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> One company with over 1700 stores in the states....over 1700 locations that allow any man who says he identifies as a woman.
> 
> As I said earlier if just 1 woman gets attacked as a result of these new laws it's too many. *What I didn't say was there would be 'scores' of men pretending. *
> 
> Use of public bathrooms and dressing rooms for sexual crimes has already been proven in this thread. Is there a magic number of women who need to be attacked before it's a reality?
> 
> Earlier you made transgenders different from cross dressers who changed their name to female and always dressed as female. Now any man who simply says he identifies is transgender. Hard to keep up.


Most of those against the ruling are implying it in nearly every post.

Someone who *always* dresses as a woman and has changed their name would be considered "transgender". 

Most *serious *transgenders are also "transexuals" in that they are doing the hormone treatments to change their physical appearance to more closely match their preferred gender

It's very rare for anyone to be "attacked" by someone posing as the opposite sex, and I really don't foresee this law changing that statistic.

I'm sure that will prompt a flurry of links to isolated cases, but it won't change the percentages


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Bearfootfarm said:


> You must spend a lot of time looking for them
> (Not that there's anything wrong with that)
> 
> How many of them have molested someone?


Cant miss them. They stand out pretty bad. And then there are the ones who make sure you know they are there. Very blatant. I have no clue how many molest someone. I see them in public. Who knows what they do behind doors. All I know is this. It's a sexual delusion and perversion. And where one exist others can exist like pedephilia and rape. Their mind is not working right. So who knows what their next thought process you could. And you cat say we'll they think like a woman or a man. No they really can't. Because genetically they are not, so they have know concept of what true male or female feelings or thought processes are like.


----------



## Irish Pixie

greg273 said:


> If someone is bent on doing harm to others, they could just waltz into that bathroom now to do their evil deeds. Do you think a LAW is stopping people from doing that now?? It isn't LAWS that prevent people from doing harm to others, its peoples own morality.
> Any man creeping around in a ladies room is going to be heavily scrutinized, no matter what the policy is. I don't see a rash of dudes creeping into the ladies room. If there are some, they'll be outed in a hurry, and probably served a serious beat down in the process.
> Personally I see this issue as just another chance for the holy rollers to try and get their way and force their morality code on others. They're basically afraid, because they lack the mental capacity and empathy to process the fact that some folks are born 'different' and they'll do anything in their power to marginalize those people. I aint having it, I learned early on in grade school not to make fun of people who were different. Doesnt mean I like them, or like what they do, it just means I dont add to their quotient of sorrow in this world.


Absolutely. Do people really think that another law will stop something from happening that has already been illegal for decades? This from many of the same people that want _smaller_ government. It's nuts.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Vahomesteaders said:


> Cant miss them. They stand out pretty bad. And then there are the ones who make sure you know they are there. Very blatant. I have no clue how many molest someone. I see them in public. Who knows what they do behind doors. All I know is this. It's a sexual delusion and perversion. And where one exist others can exist like pedephilia and rape. Their mind is not working right. So who knows what their next thought process you could. And you cat say we'll they think like a woman or a man. No they really can't. Because genetically they are not, so they have know concept of what true male or female feelings or thought processes are like.


Do you judge all people on their looks, or just LGBT?


----------



## thericeguy

Few people are saying that transgender people will be doing the creepy things. Why do you keep saying that? You cannot give transgenders restroom access without giving access to creeps who are NOT trandgender. It has been stated over and over, and you keep saying that transgenders wont commit those crimes. Subway Jarred is not transgender. Some sick men commit horrible crimes against children. Why make it easier?


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> Few people are saying that transgender people will be doing the creepy things. Why do you keep saying that? You cannot give transgenders restroom access without giving access to creeps who are NOT trandgender. It has been stated over and over, and you keep saying that transgenders wont commit those crimes. Subway Jarred is not transgender. Some sick men commit horrible crimes against children. Why make it easier?


So it's OK to discriminate against transgender people because of what pedophiles do? Unless someone lets their 5 year old use a public bathroom alone (which is stupid and has always been stupid) there is no more risk than there has been for decades. The key is proper supervision of your kid, and that has nothing to do with transgender.


----------



## thericeguy

There is no discrimination. They should be treated exactly the same. Everyone with a penis will use the Mens room. Everyone with a vagina will use the ladies room. See? Equal treatment. 

If I were to self identify as transspecies and clain to be a dog, would you argue my right to defecate in the park? Or do we allow some rules while calling others discrimination.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> There is no discrimination. They should be treated exactly the same. Everyone with a penis will use the Mens room. Everyone with a vagina will use the ladies room. See? Equal treatment.
> 
> If I were to self identify as transspecies and clain to be a dog, would you argue my right to defecate in the park? Or do we allow some rules while calling others discrimination.


You, or anyone else, don't get to choose a gender for anyone but yourself. See how easy that is? 

Nope. No transspecies, that mean a change from human DNA to canine, ain't happening.


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Irish Pixie said:


> Do you judge all people on their looks, or just LGBT?
> 
> Delusion? You call transgender delusional when you worship an imaginary person that tells you how to live your life? Seriously? Plus your brand of imaginary figure is better than the thousands of other imaginary figures and you (collective you) go to war over who's imaginary figure is better. But transgender people are delusional... Unbelievable.


And was does your discrimination against Christians fit into all this? Pot meet kettle.


----------



## thericeguy

And a change of sexual reproductive organs does not happen in the mind. Btw, you are a discriminating racist againt transspecies people. You are a hater. We have feelings too.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Vahomesteaders said:


> And was does your discrimination against Christians fit into all this? Pot meet kettle.


We aren't talking about christian discrimination, if you'd like to do that start another thread and I'd be happy to discuss it with you.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> And a change of sexual reproductive organs does not happen in the mind. Btw, you are a discriminating racist againt transspecies people. You are a hater. We have feelings too.


No there isn't an organ change in the mind, but that's where gender originates. 

The rest of your post isn't worthy of further discussion, in my opinion.


----------



## thericeguy

Yes, actually people do get to write rules for a society. We have the right to tell you how fast you can drive, how old you must be to work, how much education exposure you are required to get. We assign you a mandated serial number so we can track you. We can and do tell how to behave, and if you fail to behave, we will either lock you up or take your life from you depending on what you did. 

See, we write all kinds of rules. With this new "watch me" issue of transgender urination routines, you will likely see a new rule which will look something like penis left, vagina right. Its a rule most of us with common sense knew long before there was a rule. 

If we made a rule that said people born male cannot wear a dress, that would be discrimination and unconstitutional. Their choice of clothing does not impact public health or safety.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> Yes, actually people do get to write rules for a society. We have the right to tell you how fast you can drive, how old you must be to work, how much education exposure you are required to get. We assign you a mandated serial number so we can track you. We can and do tell how to behave, and if you fail to behave, we will either lock you up or take your life from you depending on what you did.
> 
> See, we write all kinds of rules. With this new "watch me" issue of transgender urination routines, you will likely see a new rule which will look something like penis left, vagina right. Its a rule most of us with common sense knew long before there was a rule.
> 
> If we made a rule that said people born male cannot wear a dress, that would be discrimination and unconstitutional. Their choice of clothing does not impact public health or safety.


So, you do feel that it's fine and dandy to discriminate against a group of Americans? Good to know.


----------



## thericeguy

You debate very poorly. When you can no longer win, you fall back to repeating yourself ang ignore the topic. Two possible causes. Weak mind or weak argument. 

Yes, hell yes I believe in discrimination. I bet you do too. I want every murderer and rapist locked up in jail forever. I want to treat them differently than others. I want to discriminate against them. I want to deprive them of freedom and liberty, and sometimes their very life. Discrimination in itself is not a bad thing. 

Do you let anyone and everyone from society at large come and go as they please in your home? Eat your food? Wear your clothes? Unlikely. You discriminate who you would allow to do those things. A small list of friends or family. You discriminate. 

Now I have unpowered your power buzzword. It carries nothing special in the word itself. Stop using it as a "win". It shows weakness. 

Now care to address the many and numerous legitimate claims made by me and others to show the power and superiority of your logic, or do you just want to keep hollering discrimination to make noise.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> You debate very poorly. When you can no longer win, you fall back to repeating yourself ang ignore the topic. Two possible causes. Weak mind or weak argument.
> 
> Yes, hell yes I believe in discrimination. I bet you do too. I want every murderer and rapist locked up in jail forever. I want to treat them differently than others. I want to discriminate against them. I want to deprive them of freedom and liberty, and sometimes their very life. Discrimination in itself is not a bad thing.
> 
> Do you let anyone and everyone from society at large come and go as they please in your home? Eat your food? Wear your clothes? Unlikely. You discriminate who you would allow to do those things. A small list of friends or family. You discriminate.
> 
> Now I have unpowered your power buzzword. It carries nothing special in the word itself. Stop using it as a "win". It shows weakness.
> 
> Now care to address the many and numerous legitimate claims made by me and others to show the power and superiority of your logic, or do you just want to keep hollering discrimination to make noise.


Sigh. What you have described is illegal, not discrimination. People that do illegal things are punished for it, LBGT, just by being LBGT, have done nothing illegal. You are discriminating against a group of people because they are LBGT, it's no different than discriminating against a person because they are black, disabled, a woman, etc.


----------



## TripleD

I wont rent to a lawyer so I'm discriminating. It happens all the time and will continue forever....


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> You, or anyone else, don't get to choose a gender for anyone but yourself. See how easy that is?
> 
> Nope. No transspecies, that mean a change from human DNA to canine, ain't happening.


IF that were the case wouldn't transsexual mean a change from and X chromosome to a Y chromosome, and vise versa? 

While the concept of gender may be fluid, the sex of an individual is usually not, we are speaking of anatomy, not feelings.


----------



## Farmerga

A locked door is a discriminatory act.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> IF that were the case wouldn't transsexual mean a change from and X chromosome to a Y chromosome, and vise versa?
> 
> While the concept of gender may be fluid, the sex of an individual is usually not, we are speaking of anatomy, not feelings.


The key is *human* DNA. *Gender* identity is not about gender?


----------



## thericeguy

So if there were a law that said anyone with a penis must use a restroom marked Mens, it would no longer be discrimination as it is just a law about legal and illegal activity? Just trying to follow your logic here. I am sad to say that is very difficult. 

Btw, I see you completely and conveniently failed to address that discrimination is something everyone does. Stop talking about discrimination and start talking about if a discrimination is warranted. I already PROVED that discrimination is not good or evil, so it's pointless for you to continue trying to character assassinate people by using it.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> The key is *human* DNA. *Gender* identity is not about gender?


You are speaking of gender, I am speaking of sex of an individual. You will notice that I didn't say "transgender". Who are you to say what species one is if the genes can't be used as an indicator of what sex one is?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> You are speaking of gender, I am speaking of sex of an individual. Who are you to say what species one is if the genes can't be used as an indicator of what sex one is?


You don't get to decide what gender someone is, period. We've discussed the differences between sex and gender ad nauseam so I'm confident you realize that there is a difference.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> So if there were a law that said anyone with a penis must use a restroom marked Mens, it would no longer be discrimination as it is just a law about legal and illegal activity? Just trying to follow your logic here. I am sad to say that is very difficult.
> 
> Btw, I see you completely and conveniently failed to address that discrimination is something everyone does. Stop talking about discrimination and start talking about if a discrimination is warranted. I already PROVED that discrimination is not good or evil, so it's pointless for you to continue trying to character assassinate people by using it.


I don't play "what if" games because it's exhausting and never accomplishes anything. If you like that sort of thing- carry on without me.


----------



## thericeguy

I would argue a transgenders right to dress as they see fit, live where they choose, attend or not attend a church, vote, marry, have and raise children, have free access to employment, healthcare, and government services. 

Know what I wont argue for? Letting anyone with a penis in a bathroom with my daughter. I dont care if that person is transgender or a space alien. 

Go on, now call me a homophobe, racist, and a discriminator. Try and paint me as someone trying to hold someone down. Wont work.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> You don't get to decide what gender someone is, period. We've discussed the differences between sex and gender ad nauseam so I'm confident you realize that there is a difference.


Yes, and we have/should determine bathroom access by sex, not "gender".


----------



## Vahomesteaders

Irish Pixie said:


> No there isn't an organ change in the mind, but that's where gender originates.
> 
> The rest of your post isn't worthy of further discussion, in my opinion.


You have brought up Christians beliefs several times in this thread. None in a positive manner. You are discriminating against their beliefs and rights. Which were established long before gender dysphoria was accepted.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't play "what if" games because it's exhausting and never accomplishes anything. If you like that sort of thing- carry on without me.


Right. As soon as you lose your power word, its game over.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> Right. As soon as you lose your power word, its game over.


Whatever you say. :facepalm:


----------



## Irish Pixie

Vahomesteaders said:


> You have brought up Christians beliefs several times in this thread. None in a positive manner. You are discriminating against their beliefs and rights. Which were established long before gender dysphoria was accepted.


Sigh. I've used _religion_ as a comparison when people say that transgender is all in the mind and there is no proof or test that it exists.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> Whatever you say. :facepalm:


Your entire argument is centered around "omg you cant just discriminate against people". I have shown quite clearly that we CAN and DO, including you. 

You have to show me why the needs of a transgender person relieving themselves in one room as opposed to another overrides my concern for the safety of my family. Why should I allow this to happen?

Edit: I doubt you can make a credible case. But prove me wrong.


----------



## arabian knight

thericeguy said:


> I would argue a transgenders right to dress as they see fit, live where they choose, attend or not attend a church, vote, marry, have and raise children, have free access to employment, healthcare, and government services.
> 
> Know what I wont argue for? Letting anyone with a penis in a bathroom with my daughter. I dont care if that person is transgender or a space alien.
> 
> Go on, now call me a homophobe, racist, and a discriminator. Try and paint me as someone trying to hold someone down. Wont work.


 And THEY ar losing their augment that this is some kind of discriminatory act. it is NOT. That is the ONLY way THEY can come up something to make the rest of the country believe in THM. It is and never was discriminatory. They have Lost that argument and many step will now floor in the wake of what SC is doing just to PROVE THAT POINT. It is not about what is right or wrong it is now THEM against the rest of the people who do want PRIVACY in the bathrooms. 
Why the heck make a stupid law that only makes this country even MORE Divided? Dumb on all counts.


----------



## dixiegal62

It seems this sex versus gender is relatively new.

https://familyinequality.wordpress....dont-defend-the-sex-versus-gender-distinction


Recently I was corrected by another sociologist: âPhil â âfemaleâ and âmaleâ refer to oneâs sex, not gender.â


----------



## thericeguy

dixiegal62 said:


> It seems this sex versus gender is relatively new.
> 
> https://familyinequality.wordpress....dont-defend-the-sex-versus-gender-distinction
> 
> 
> Recently I was corrected by another sociologist: âPhil â âfemaleâ and âmaleâ refer to oneâs sex, not gender.â


I would agree with that. This is an issue of anatomy for me. I do not care, nor is it any of my business, what is going on in another persons brain. What my children see and how they feel IS. Little girls, and more recently little boys, have been taught for many years not to talk to strange men. Why? Well, it isnt because parents just want to discriminate against men. It is because of the very REAL threat of men wanting to molest little girls. 

I do not keep adult magazines in my home. I do not want my children to see the adult anatomy of the opposite sex. You can bash that all you want. I am free to make that choice. Until now, public policy has supported my choice with respect to who would be allowed into a public restroom. My beliefs are under attack. I intend to fight back.


----------



## thericeguy

I have an idea. You want to see discrimination. You want to see how society works to protect children? If you are male, put on your favorite sweat pants. Head down to the local library. Head straight to the childrens section where all the little boys and girls are sitting around reading books. Keep your hands in your pockets and wait 5 minutes. You will get a real good lesson in child protection. You will be told to leave.


----------



## dixiegal62

I think many times discrimination is way over used.

I admit I don't feel comfortable with these bathroom law changes not because of fully changed transgender but because of would be criminals.

I also say I think all places with public bathrooms should have men, women and private family bathrooms so everyone can feel safe.

For this I am told I'm discriminating and mean among other things but then I'm told if I don't like it stay home. I never wanted people different from me to stay home and not be able to enjoy their life whatever they choose to be. I only wanted safe and comfortable answers for all people involved. It would seem compromise is not wanted, it's another my way or the highway battle.

I can't tell from the photo but if Krogers is offering private unisex bathroom for all I think they got this right. It's win win for everyone


----------



## DEKE01

Irish Pixie said:


> We aren't talking about christian discrimination, if you'd like to do that start another thread and I'd be happy to discuss it with you.


since you keep injecting religion into this thread, that is very hypocritical, but I've come to expect double standard from the left.


----------



## thericeguy

Take away their power word and you see the effect? Poof! They do not have a sound argument. They just come out mud slinging hate and character assassination and hope you run into a corner.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> I would agree with that. This is an issue of anatomy for me. I do not care, nor is it any of my business, what is going on in another persons brain. What my children see and how they feel IS. Little girls, and more recently little boys, have been taught for many years not to talk to strange men. Why? Well, it isnt because parents just want to discriminate against men. It is because of the very REAL threat of men wanting to molest little girls.
> 
> I do not keep adult magazines in my home. I do not want my children to see the adult anatomy of the opposite sex. You can bash that all you want. I am free to make that choice. Until now, public policy has supported my choice with respect to who would be allowed into a public restroom. My beliefs are under attack. I intend to fight back.


And you can do anything anything you want in your home. What you can't do is discriminate (if that word choice bothers you insert "control") against who uses a _public_ bathroom.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> Take away their power word and you see the effect? Poof! They do not have a sound argument. They just come out mud slinging hate and character assassination and hope you run into a corner.


You are getting rather personal, can you tone that down please?


----------



## DEKE01

Irish Pixie said:


> So, you do feel that it's fine and dandy to discriminate against a group of Americans? Good to know.


Just as you feel it is fine and dandy to discriminate against a group of Americans based on their religious preferences. In fact, you believe it is proper to use gov't force to fine and imprison individuals and destroy their businesses of a group of Americans based on their religious choices if they do not comply with laws you agree with. 

Good to know that your standard is a double standard.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> You are getting rather personal, can you tone that down please?


When you speak of my God as an invisible person, is that personal. Your notion that you "care more" does not excuse your poor behaviour. I have given you the chance to tell me why I should not force males to use a mens room and females a ladies room. You have gone virtually silent when the debate shifted from name calling and religion bashing to logic and good public policy. Why?


----------



## Irish Pixie

DEKE01 said:


> Just as you feel it is fine and dandy to discriminate against a group of Americans based on their religious preferences. In fact, you believe it is proper to use gov't force to fine and imprison individuals and destroy their businesses of a group of Americans based on their religious choices if they do not comply with laws you agree with.
> 
> Good to know that your standard is a double standard.


Where have I discriminated against religion in this thread? Can you point it out please? I have used it as a comparison when other posters have said that transgender is a mental illness, but that's not discrimination.

I simply don't care if people believe in god or religion, it's none of my business.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> Do you judge all people on their looks, or just LGBT?
> 
> Delusion? You call transgender delusional when you worship an imaginary person that tells you how to live your life? Seriously? Plus your brand of imaginary figure is better than the thousands of other imaginary figures and you (collective you) go to war over who's imaginary figure is better. But transgender people are delusional... Unbelievable.


Hows that for intolerance and disrespect for other peoples beliefs? Didnt take long to find an example of intolerance and disrespect. Far as I can tell, you are a walking talking example of it.


----------



## DEKE01

Irish Pixie said:


> You are getting rather personal, can you tone that down please?


To quote you in your msg #770: "So, you do feel that it's fine and dandy to discriminate against a group of Americans? Good to know. "

Was not that even more personal than what you just complained about? This is a pattern with you, already used by you against me in this thread. You get personal and then complain when others either accurately summarize your position or respond to your "you" with another "you". In this case, it was a general statement about the left, using "they" so your complaint is even less relevant. 

Another you double standard.


----------



## Irish Pixie

DEKE01 said:


> To quote you in your msg #770: "So, you do feel that it's fine and dandy to discriminate against a group of Americans? Good to know. "
> 
> Was not that even more personal than what you just complained about? This is a pattern with you, already used by you against me in this thread. You get personal and then complain when others either accurately summarize your position or respond to your "you" with another "you". In this case, it was a general statement about the left, using "they" so your complaint is even less relevant.
> 
> Another you double standard.


Report it.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> And you can do anything anything you want in your home. What you can't do is discriminate (if that word choice bothers you insert "control") against who uses a _public_ bathroom.


Yes, you can control who uses a restroom. In the same way you can control who can drive a car. It is very easy. You pass a law that says penis right, vagina left. It is VERY easy.


----------



## DEKE01

Irish Pixie said:


> Report it.


I don't have a problem with people saying what they think. I applaud it. But I do enjoy pointing out the flaws, bigotry, and double standards in the thinking of those who wish to impose their agenda on others.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> Yes, you can control who uses a restroom. In the same way you can control who can drive a car. It is very easy. You pass a law that says penis right, vagina left. It is VERY easy.


What laws do we have right now that have to do with what sex you are?


----------



## Irish Pixie

DEKE01 said:


> I don't have a problem with people saying what they think. I applaud it. But I do enjoy pointing out the flaws, bigotry, and double standards in the thinking of those who wish to impose their agenda on others.


Good for you.


----------



## Nevada

DEKE01 said:


> Just as you feel it is fine and dandy to discriminate against a group of Americans based on their religious preferences. In fact, you believe it is proper to use gov't force to fine and imprison individuals and destroy their businesses of a group of Americans based on their religious choices if they do not comply with laws you agree with.


If I understand your argument correctly, preventing Christians from exercising their God given right to discriminate against gays is, in itself, discriminatory. Do I have that correct?

The problem with that argument is that it's the same argument the KKK used to justify segregation and Jim Crow laws. KKK had Biblical justification (at least as they interpreted the Bible) for everything they did.


----------



## dixiegal62

Right on cue the tide turns and the reporting begins. :bored:


----------



## thericeguy

Everyone can now clearly see that Pixie is totally unable to voice WHY we should grant anatomical males access to a female restroom. Their whole argument is to insult and try to paint any opposing view as evil or crazy. Remember back when I said weak mind or weak argument?


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> Right on cue the tide turns and the reporting begins. :bored:


Why have you started reporting? I have not.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Nevada said:


> If I understand your argument correctly, preventing Christians from exercising their God given right to discriminate against gays is, in itself, discriminatory. Do I have that correct?


Winner winner chicken dinner.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> Why have you started reporting? I have not.


Nope just following the same old pattern. Things stop going a certain way and two things usually happen some start reporting or work on getting the thread to mod review.


----------



## DryHeat

> You pass a law that says penis right, vagina left. It is VERY easy.


Does an anatomical hermaphrodite have to flip a coin each time?


----------



## Farmerga

It is not discrimination. All women (sex not gender) should use the Woman's facilities and all men (sex, not gender) should use the men's facilities. That means that I can't use the women's facilities either as my sex is male.


----------



## Irish Pixie

DryHeat said:


> Does an anatomical hermaphrodite have to flip a coin each time?


Thank you. That made me laugh.


----------



## thericeguy

DryHeat said:


> Does an anatomical hermaphrodite have to flip a coin each time?


No public policy, no matter how well intentioned or worded, will perfectly apply 100% of the time. Never. To use an example that applies to what, .0001% of the societies population is..... Well, I will leave that you to decide and just be thankful you are not personally writing public policy.


----------



## painterswife

DryHeat said:


> Does an anatomical hermaphrodite have to flip a coin each time?


What happens to men that have had an accident and had their penis removed? 

We all have to use the bathroom. Why does it matter where if we use a stall beside someone of a different sex?


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> What happens to men that have had an accident and had their penis removed?
> 
> We all have to use the bathroom. Why does it matter where if we use a stall beside someone of a different sex?


It would seem that depends on who you ask, a transgender or someone who is not. I thought this whole debate was about being able to use the bathroom with the one you identify with.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> What happens to men that have had an accident and had their penis removed?
> 
> We all have to use the bathroom. Why does it matter where if we use a stall beside someone of a different sex?


That has been answered many many many times in this thread. Your rejection of that answer does not mean it was not answered, but just in case you missed the multiple copies of the answer to your question, here is one more try. 

Granting males access to a female restroom, regardless of the good intention, also grants access to people you and I might agree we do not want there; namely pedophiles and rapists. To protect from this real danger, we have no choice but to impose upon the desires of a minority group, trans, to require them to use a restroom that matches their sex, OR use the unisex room, or quitly and discreetly use the room of their choice, just as I believe they have been doing in harmony for many decades. 

Hows that for an answer, again?


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> What happens to men that have had an accident and had their penis removed?
> 
> We all have to use the bathroom. Why does it matter where if we use a stall beside someone of a different sex?


It may not matter to some. It really doesn't matter to me, but, I can see why this current silliness can be problematic for some, we have to make the distinction somewhere, and the most logical place is sex of the individual as that is a more concrete line of demarcation.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> That has been answered many many many times in this thread. Your rejection of that answer does not mean it was not answered, but just in case you missed the multiple copies of the answer to your question, here is one more try.
> 
> Granting males access to a female restroom, regardless of the good intention, also grants access to people you and I might agree we do not want there; namely pedophiles and rapists. To protect from this real danger, we have no choice but to impose upon the desires of a minority group, trans, to require them to use a restroom that matches their sex, OR use the unisex room, or quitly and discreetly use the room of their choice, just as I believe they have been doing in harmony for many decades.
> 
> Hows that for an answer, again?


You reject my answer.

Pedophiles and rapists seem to have no problem getting access to victims. Should we separate the sexes in everything we do because you think it will slow down crimes? Should my boss be required to have a separate building for the female employees and the male employees so there is no possibility of rape?


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> You reject my answer.
> 
> Pedofiles and rapists seem to have no problem getting access to victims. Should we separate the sexes in everything we do because you think it will slow down crimes? Should my boss be required to have a separate building for the female employees and the male employees so there is no possibility of rape?


I remember, back in high school that those who wanted to fight would often choose a restroom, why? because it was a "private" area with little supervision and reaction times would be longer. A sicko would love to remove the suspicion, of a male entering a female restroom, as he will have a new, out of the way, relatively private area to victimize people. He is far less likely to ply his trade in an open office, public library, restaurant, etc.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> I remember, back in high school that those who wanted to fight would often choose a restroom, why? because it was a "private" area with little supervision and reaction times would be longer. A sicko would love to remove the suspicion, of a male entering a female restroom, as he will have a new, out of the way, relatively private area to victimize people. He is far less likely to ply his trade in an open office, public library, restaurant, etc.


You are making assumptions about things. Office buildings have lots of out of the way places. Shopping malls are another example. How about parking garages?

Are you going to demand that all those places now become one sex locations?


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> You reject my answer.
> 
> Pedofiles and rapists seem to have no problem getting access to victims. Should we separate the sexes in everything we do because you think it will slow down crimes? Should my boss be required to have a separate building for the female employees and the male employees so there is no possibility of rape?


These are false arguments put forward. We both know it is not laws criminals fear. It is getting caught they fear. When the subway guy was downloading kiddie porn, do you think he cared about the law or getting caught?

This segment of society, predators, exists. Every rational person knows this. We must create laws and public norms that limit their ability to inflict harm as best we can. Changing a social norn that allows people to dismiss a man walking into a womans restroom is not good policy designed to limit this as best we can. Period. I do not want to live in a society where women would not shriek, cry pervert, and begin beating a man who walked into a female restroom. 

This whole debate is not about restrooms anyway. It is just a topic chosen by a minority group for an "in your face here we are" campaign for acceptance. Why arent we debating how to accept them instead of this completely tidiculous topic? It was a poor choice on their part. I cannot support this for reasons that have NOTHING to do with them.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> These are false arguments put forward. We both know it is not laws criminals fear. It is getting caught they fear. When the subway guy was downloading kiddie porn, do you think he cared about the law or getting caught?
> 
> This segment of society, predators, exists. Every rational person knows this. We must create laws and public norms that limit their ability to inflict harm as best we can. Changing a social norn that allows people to dismiss a man walking into a womans restroom is not good policy designed to limit this as best we can. Period. I do not want to live in a society where women would not shriek, cry pervert, and begin beating a man who walked into a female restroom.
> 
> This whole debate is not about restrooms anyway. It is just a topic chosen by a minority group for an "in your face here we are" campaign for acceptance. Why arent we debating how to accept them instead of this completely tidiculous topic? It was a poor choice on their part. I cannot support this for reasons that have NOTHING to do with them.


So you post that we need to separate the sexes but only when you think it is right? This debate for me is only about restrooms. 

Social norms get changed all the time when they are archaic and serve no good purpose.


----------



## thericeguy

And I spoke spefically about norms of restroom usage. Can you please clarify any other situation I mentioned, or any time I mentioned we need to seperate or not seperate sexes. You are fighting a false fight here. 

I will ask you the same question I asked before. Why should I forgoe a percieved or real safety concern for my family in favor of people, all people trans or not, being able to use any restroom they choose?


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> And I spoke spefically about norms of restroom usage. Can you please clarify any other situation I mentioned, or any time I mentioned we need to seperate or not seperate sexes. You are fighting a false fight here.
> 
> I will ask you the same question I asked before. Why should I forgoe a percieved or real safety concern for my family in favor of people, all people trans or not, being able to use any restroom they choose?


You don't need to forgo any safety concerns with regards to your family. You however don't get to decide how others live based on their sex. You are free to find and use single occupant bathrooms. You don't get to make laws that discriminate based on sex.


----------



## DEKE01

Nevada said:


> If I understand your argument correctly, preventing Christians from exercising their God given right to discriminate against gays is, in itself, discriminatory. Do I have that correct?
> 
> The problem with that argument is that it's the same argument the KKK used to justify segregation and Jim Crow laws. KKK had Biblical justification (at least as they interpreted the Bible) for everything they did.


Not unsurprisingly, you do not understand my argument correctly. Therefore everything that follows is irrelevant. Thanks for giving it your best shot.


----------



## thericeguy

Based on what I see here, the fight is over. Noone can state WHY this should be allowed. States will pass laws. Cities will pass laws. Companies will pass policies. This issue will become polarized and divided regarding acceptance of trans people, and I expect an increase in hate crimes over it. Very sad for me. People have totally lost the art of compromise. I am out. I stated my views clearly numerous times just to have every rational thing I said ignored by the other side. Hope it ends well for you.


----------



## arabian knight

Farmerga said:


> It is not discrimination. All women (sex not gender) should use the Woman's facilities and all men (sex, not gender) should use the men's facilities. That means that I can't use the women's facilities either as my sex is male.


That is the ONLY argument left for them. And they are losing and will lose. This is NOT never has been and never will be discriminating issue. It is ONLY in their minds and the only way they can continue with this bs they are PUSHING and SHOVING it down the throats of American.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> Based on what I see here, the fight is over. Noone can state WHY this should be allowed. States will pass laws. Cities will pass laws. Companies will pass policies. This issue will become polarized and divided regarding acceptance of trans people, and I expect an increase in hate crimes over it. Very sad for me. People have totally lost the art of compromise. I am out. I stated my views clearly numerous times just to have every rational thing I said ignored by the other side. Hope it ends well for you.


Seems to me that you are bowing out because you don't want to discuss others people rational arguments and only yours.


----------



## Shine

painterswife said:


> You reject my answer.
> 
> Pedofiles and rapists seem to have no problem getting access to victims. Should we separate the sexes in everything we do because you think it will slow down crimes? Should my boss be required to have a separate building for the female employees and the male employees so there is no possibility of rape?


There is now an additional caveat - the ability for males that would do others harm, for them to access the bathrooms has now been broadcast far and wide. I did not even know that these laws existed [my fault] - I am of the belief that this is where the rubber meets the road. Now that it is well known to the lion's share of the population, will advantage be taken?


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> You don't need to forgo any safety concerns with regards to your family. You however don't get to decide how others live based on their sex. You are free to find and use single occupant bathrooms. You don't get to make laws that discriminate based on sex.


Yes, laws discriminate all the time. Most of them do. You are wrong about that. Your word discriminate carries no power in any legitimate debate, but we both know you are not debating legitimately. The left rarely does. Guilt snd character assassination are their tools.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> Yes, laws discriminate all the time. Most of them do. You are wrong about that. Your word discriminate carries no power in any legitimate debate, but we both know you are not debating legitimately. The left rarely does. Guilt snd character assassination are their tools.


Your posts are trying really hard to put other posters down. I see that you do that as soon as someone else replies with logic you start putting how they post down. Maybe sticking to the discussion of the topic instead of the poster and their style would be best in the future.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> Seems to me that you are bowing out because you don't want to discuss others people rational arguments and only yours.


You have put forward no rational argument. Only an argument. You ignore every question I ask you because you have no answer, so must fall back on the tried and true "RACIST".


----------



## DEKE01

painterswife said:


> What happens to men that have had an accident and had their penis removed?
> 
> We all have to use the bathroom. Why does it matter where if we use a stall beside someone of a different sex?


That's why the few laws I have seen specify birth sex. It really is not all that complicated when you aren't focusing on meaningless arguments. 

The stall issue is a strawman, refuted many times throughout this thread. I invite you to review the thread at your leisure. Your side wants to focus on the instances of the least personal privacy intrusions while you ignore the fact that this policy applies to locker rooms of school age children both in schools and outside of schools. 

My daughter swam daily in a rec center adjacent to the school, subject to Title IX policies and open to the public at the same time. Until rules were passed against it, many kids were changing in front of 100s of people on the pool deck while their friends held up towels to give them privacy. The kids thought it was their best shot at privacy because of all the people in the locker rooms. And that was before this loony policy was established.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> Your posts are trying really hard to put other posters down. I see that you do that as soon as someone else replies with logic you start putting how they post down. Maybe sticking to the discussion of the topic instead of the poster and their style would be best in the future.


There is no discussion. You will not answer questions. Right?


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> You have put forward no rational argument. Only an argument. You ignore every question I ask you because you have no answer, so must fall back on the tried and true "RACIST".


Yes, your posts say that every time you are losing the point of the discussion.


----------



## thericeguy

DEKE01 said:


> That's why the few laws I have seen specify birth sex. It really is not all that complicated when you aren't focusing on meaningless arguments.
> 
> The stall issue is a strawman, refuted many times throughout this thread. I invite you to review the thread at your leisure. Your side wants to focus on the instances of the least personal privacy intrusions while you ignore the fact that this policy applies to locker rooms of school age children both in schools and outside of schools.
> 
> My daughter swam daily in a rec center adjacent to the school, subject to Title IX policies and open to the public at the same time. Until rules were passed against it, many kids were changing in front of 100s of people on the pool deck while their friends held up towels to give them privacy. The kids thought it was their best shot at privacy because of all the people in the locker rooms. And that was before this loony policy was established.


They do not care about real world impact on real people.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> Yes, your posts say that every time you are losing the point of the discussion.


I see. Can you direct mt to your answer to why I should support this in spite of my concerns? I must have missed that well worded logical rational response. 

Was it the "you cant do that"? Was that your answer? We limit where and when people can pee all the time. Go take a ---- inside your police station. See if I am right.


----------



## DEKE01

painterswife said:


> You reject my answer.
> 
> Pedophiles and rapists seem to have no problem getting access to victims. Should we separate the sexes in everything we do because you think it will slow down crimes? Should my boss be required to have a separate building for the female employees and the male employees so there is no possibility of rape?


your hyperbole aside, that strawman has also been addressed. Again, I invite you to review the thread at your leisure. Your boss having a policy of not forcing disrobed men, women, and children into one common room is probably good business and likely to save him from a lawsuit or two. 

I wonder why you keep ignoring the child issue here? You don't care about the children? Hmmmm...


----------



## DEKE01

painterswife said:


> You are making assumptions about things. Office buildings have lots of out of the way places. Shopping malls are another example. How about parking garages?
> 
> Are you going to demand that all those places now become one sex locations?


More hyperbole and you still aren't seeing, perhaps you don't care or don't want to, that this policy applies CHILDREN in SCHOOLS where they are in various stages of undress. Your examples above are just a silly distraction from the real topic. Perhaps you can't defend why children should be exposed to these dangers so you choose to ignore it? 

If you have other motives than what I have assumed here, I'm listening. Perhaps I just not creative enough to guess as to why someone would argue for making it easier to endanger all children when at best it is making a micro fraction of a percent of the population, who are mentally ill feel, somehow feel less bad about being mentally ill.


----------



## thericeguy

DEKE01 said:


> your hyperbole aside, that strawman has also been addressed. Again, I invite you to review the thread at your leisure. Your boss having a policy of not forcing disrobed men, women, and children into one common room is probably good business and likely to save him from a lawsuit or two.
> 
> I wonder why you keep ignoring the child issue here? You don't care about the children? Hmmmm...


They must ignore those issues and pretend it was never said. Why? Because there is no rational reason for the original demand given the choices already available. 

It is the same reason given by my children when I ask why they should get candy and I have said no. 

But i want it but i want it i want but but i want i want it i want it. They dont get candy.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> There is no discussion. You will not answer questions. Right?


There was no question in the post I quoted.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> You are making assumptions about things. Office buildings have lots of out of the way places. Shopping malls are another example. How about parking garages?
> 
> Are you going to demand that all those places now become one sex locations?


I am going to demand that women have a private (as in women only) areas in which to do their business, disrobe, do other private things, without the specter of unwelcome males having the ability to walk in on them. There must be reasonable accommodations for privacy, even in "public" places. Separate restrooms for males and females have worked for decades and will work for the foreseeable future.


----------



## DEKE01

painterswife said:


> So you post that we need to separate the sexes but only when you think it is right? This debate for me is only about restrooms.
> 
> Social norms get changed all the time when they are archaic and serve no good purpose.


You are alone in choosing to making this only about restrooms. Title IX pushed upon us by DoEd says it applies to locker rooms as well. 

And you might want to quit introducing shopping malls and an out of the way corner where you work if you want the topic to only be about restrooms.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> There was no question in the post I quoted.


Right. My bad. Let me ask it a 5th time. I know it can be hard to see. Let me try caps to catch your attention.

WHY SHOULD I, AS A PARENT OF CHILDREN, SUPPORT A POLICY THAT WILL LET ALL MEN ANYWHERE IN ANY VENUE ACCESS TO THE BATHROOM MY DAUGHTER IS USING?

Catch it this time?


----------



## painterswife

painterswife said:


> What laws do we have right now that have to do with what sex you are?


I am still waiting for your answer to the above. So your snarky posts about others not answering when you do the same thing is quite amusing.



thericeguy said:


> Right. My bad. Let me ask it a 5th time. I know it can be hard to see. Let me try caps to catch your attention.
> 
> WHY SHOULD I, AS A PARENT OF CHILDREN, SUPPORT A POLICY THAT WILL LET ALL MEN ANYWHERE IN ANY VENUE ACCESS TO THE BATHROOM MY DAUGHTER IS USING?
> 
> Catch it this time?


You don't have to support anything. No one said you have to.


----------



## Cabin Fever

I'm not worried. Women will revolt once they find the toilet seats left up in public restrooms. Things will go back to normal.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/7685240-post1.html
> 
> Quote:
> *A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that public schools must allow transgender students to use the bathrooms that match their gender identity, the first such decision of its kind.
> *
> The ruling is a victory for a Virginia high school student, Gavin Grimm, who was born female but identifies as male, has undergone hormone therapy, and has legally changed his name.
> 
> School officials were supportive and allowed him to use the boys' restrooms, but the school board later barred the school from making that accommodation.
> 
> 
> The information above is in the first post on this thread, so definitely not a fail.


Most definately a fail for two reasons. Consititional laws prohibiting this have not been written yet because until recent history, before American society became insane, no men ever requested entry into a ladies room. Those laws will be coming. In case you doubt it, Texas had closed all but, hmmmm, 5 abortion clinics in the state via completely constitutional law. Your social justice via unelected officials is not a win. 

It will only take a single high profile case where some young girl is accosted in s bathroom by a man. Even your precious Supreme Court bows to political pressure. 

This was and is a HORRIBLE decision as a battleground. You two have managed within thid thread slone to take me from a "leave them alone" position on trans to a "lets outlaw it" position. Good job integrating.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> Most definately a fail for two reasons. Consititional laws prohibiting this have not been written yet because until recent history, before American society became insane, no men ever requested entry into a ladies room. Those laws will be coming. In case you doubt it, Texas had closed all but, hmmmm, 5 abortion clinics in the state via completely constitutional law. Your social justice via unelected officials is not a win.
> 
> It will only take a single high profile case where some young girl is accosted in s bathroom by a man. Even your precious Supreme Court bows to political pressure.
> 
> This was and is a HORRIBLE decision as a battleground. You two have managed within thid thread slone to take me from a "leave them alone" position on trans to a "lets outlaw it" position. Good job integrating.


HB2 is waiting for a ruling in the supreme court so you might want to wait until you claim some type of victory.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> HB2 is waiting for a ruling in the supreme court so you might want to wait until you claim some type of victory.


There will be a ruling. A new law will be written. Another ruling. Another law. Justices will die. New justices installed. This ehole ram it down peoples throats, it doesnt work. Again, good job on alienating someone on your side. I can see the benefits in that. 

Should I mention now how neither one of you has answered my question? Head in sand much? What about lockerrooms brought up? 16 year old boys showering with girls? Just ignore all that, right?

I want it i want it it it want want i want it. 

Big fat LOL for me.


----------



## DEKE01

painterswife said:


> I
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to support anything. No one said you have to.


Nice dodge.


----------



## colourfastt

DEKE01 said:


> your hyperbole aside, that strawman has also been addressed. Again, I invite you to review the thread at your leisure. Your boss having a policy of not forcing disrobed men, women, and children into one common room is probably good business and likely to save him from a lawsuit or two.
> 
> *I wonder why you keep ignoring the child issue here? You don't care about the children? * Hmmmm...


Why does everyone always phrase an argument as being "about the children"?


----------



## Shine

colourfastt said:


> Why does everyone always phrase an argument as being "about the children"?


For me that is the only important portion of this particular argument. 

Sending my kids to school and trusting that they will not be harmed is first and foremost in my consideration. I can see a vast exodus from the public school system should this plan be put into effect as the school system cannot provide that "safe" area for children when they are required to disrobe. I do not consider having children of different sexes having to be in various states of undress to be a "safe" environment.

I do not care if a grown woman comes into the men's restrooms, I do care if a grown man is given access to a woman's restroom where small children will be at their most vulnerable. Do you think that every parent will provide the necessary vigilance to insure that their child will be protected in that environment? Or will there be those that send the children off to the restroom by themselves?

ETA Dues to the lack of multiple incidents where there have been problems with Transgendered people using the other restrooms, I repeat again, the issue does NOT appear to be that the children will be harmed by those individuals, it could happen but apparently has not so as to fall lower than the reported instances where others have preyed on children. 

The central idea here being that the bar for legally entering the restroom not of your biological sex has been placed so low it effectively has a flashing light over the women's restrooms saying "Come on in!!!"


----------



## JJ Grandits

I don't know what the problem is with a long time transgender using the ladies room.
Mitchell Obama has been doing it for years.


----------



## Shine

JJ Grandits said:


> I don't know what the problem is with a long time transgender using the ladies room.
> Mitchell Obama has been doing it for years.


You noticed the Adam's Apple too, I would guess.


----------



## DEKE01

colourfastt said:


> Why does everyone always phrase an argument as being "about the children"?


Why does the left abandon the children as soon as it is inconvenient for their ill-conceived plans? 

Sometimes it really is about the kids.


----------



## Irish Pixie

JJ Grandits said:


> I don't know what the problem is with a long time transgender using the ladies room.
> Mitchell Obama has been doing it for years.


Ann Coulter was arrested.


----------



## arabian knight

Nice put up and photoshop work, just to make you FAIL in all aspects.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

DEKE01 said:


> Straw man. Already *refuted*.


I realize your arguments were refuted, but you keep repeating them.
I'm still waiting for you to show where I made any "demands"


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Vahomesteaders said:


> Cant miss them. They stand out pretty bad. And then there are the ones who make sure you know they are there. Very blatant. I have no clue how many molest someone. I see them in public. Who knows what they do behind doors. All I know is this. It's a sexual delusion and perversion. And where one exist others can exist like pedephilia and rape. *Their mind is not working right.* So who knows what their next thought process you could. And you cat say we'll they think like a woman or a man. No they really can't. Because genetically they are not, so they have know concept of what true male or female feelings or thought processes are like.


If that's what concerns you, you shouldn't want to be around anyone, anywhere.



> I have no clue how many molest someone


Exactly. You base all your arguments on your biased views


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> There is no discrimination. They should be treated exactly the same. Everyone with a penis will use the Mens room. Everyone with a vagina will use the ladies room. See? Equal treatment.
> 
> If I were to self identify as transspecies and clain to be a dog, would you argue my right to defecate in the park? Or do we allow some rules while calling others discrimination.


So you'd be forcing this person to use the "women's" rest room:









And this one to use the "male's":









That wouldn't cause any problems


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> Right. As soon as you lose your power word, its game over.


If your "power" is based on "what if", you've got no "game".
You've got a fantasy


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> When you speak of my God *as an invisible person*, is that personal. Your notion that you "care more" does not excuse your poor behaviour. I have given you the chance to tell me why I should not force males to use a mens room and females a ladies room. You have gone virtually silent when the debate shifted from name calling and religion bashing to logic and good public policy. Why?


I'd call it factual unless you have a picture you can show


----------



## thericeguy

Nice photos. She is pretty hawt too. You and I both know she or he can keep doing exactly like they have been doing for, apparently, a long time. Go use the restroom they are DEMANDING to use now. Noone will know. Noone ever cared. This is a fabricated argument to create a federal legal challenge to further other goals not being mentioned. They chose poorly as this particular issue walks straight into some very deeply held beliefs about right and wrong, proper and improper. All wrapped neatly inside a personal space and safety issue. Very very wrong choice coming out of the gate. 


You would have this person in the restroom with your daughter, niece, sister, mother to grant someone a right they have already been exercising for decades?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...aces-child-sex-and-child-pornography-charges/


----------



## DEKE01

Bearfootfarm said:


> I realize your arguments were refuted, but you keep repeating them.
> I'm still waiting for you to show where I made any "demands"


I'm rubber, you're glue...

Every time I think you've reached bottom, you prove me wrong. Is that really the level of discourse you want?


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'd call it factual unless you have a picture you can show


When you see people shot square in the face with a bazooka in a movie, do you think someone actually died in the making of that entertainment. Do not insult my intelligence with diversionary tactics. Wont work.


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> If your "power" is based on "what if", you've got no "game".
> You've got a fantasy


Are you in a cave? Do you not hear the regular news stories about child abduction and molestation? What city do you live in? Do they have a complete online newspaper and s police blotter section which lists arrests and convictions. I would pay for a subscription to show you how many sick perverted people live right in your community, and they are doing very real harm to very real people. 

My only what if is what if you started dealing in real world facts and concerns, instead of Harvard and Yale hypotheticsl academia, this conversation would not be happening. What if.


----------



## thericeguy

Just out of curiosity, why do the lbgstvsshibf (they keep adding letters. I cant keep up) crowd distance themselves from the Man Boy Love society? Are they into discriminating against people.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> Right. My bad. Let me ask it a 5th time. I know it can be hard to see. Let me try caps to catch your attention.
> 
> WHY SHOULD I, AS A PARENT OF CHILDREN, SUPPORT A POLICY THAT WILL LET *ALL MEN ANYWHERE IN ANY VENUE* ACCESS TO THE BATHROOM MY DAUGHTER IS USING?
> 
> Catch it this time?


Can you show us where any law states that?
I haven't seen one
The ones I've seen address only those who identify as women.
That's not "all men"


----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> So you'd be forcing this person to use the "women's" rest room:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this one to use the "male's":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That wouldn't cause any problems


And that's different from obvious men using the women's room how? With targets new rules a 6 ft 300 lb biker dude can now go it with women and say he feels like a girl today. You don't seem to have a problem with a woman to be in there with a man that looks like a man.

People keep telling you we are not talking about the people you posted photos of but you keep beating that dead horse. Obviously you have no better argument.:bdh::bdh::bdh:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> When you see people shot square in the face with a bazooka in a movie, do you think someone actually died in the making of that entertainment. *Do not insult my intelligence *with diversionary tactics. Wont work.


Don't insult mine by insisting something you *imagine* is real, but you can't show any actual evidence
You can't seem to debate without becoming irrational and unrealistic.


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> Can you show us where any law states that?
> I haven't seen one
> The ones I've seen address only those who identify as women.
> That's not "all men"


Sure, I can show you the end redult of what you are asking for. I can even have you show it. 

Word for me please, a legal constitutional law that grants access to a trans person access to a bathroom of their choice which also does not grant me that same right. Please. Pretty pretty please, show me how that can be done.


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> Don't insult mine by insisting something you *imagine* is real, but you can't show any actual evidence
> You can't seem to debate without becoming irrational and unrealistic.


Oh, I did not insult your intelligence. I only challenged it. As expected, you divert with tactics a magician would use. 

Fact: you stated that without a photo of God, there was no proof He existed. 

Fact2: I showed the fallacy of your argument. I can show you countless photos of situations we both know are not real, and used a movie as an example.

Fact3: like clockwork, you ignore these facts in support of a strawman argument that cannot hold weight. When pinned, you just come out blind swinging with insults and diversions. Like I said before, weak mind or weak argument cannot deal in the end results.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

DEKE01 said:


> I'm rubber, you're glue...
> 
> Every time I think you've reached bottom, you prove me wrong. Is that really the level of discourse you want?


It's what you give, so it's what you get


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> Are you in a cave? Do you not hear the regular *news stories about child abduction and molestation?* What city do you live in? Do they have a complete online newspaper and s police blotter section which lists arrests and convictions. I would pay for a subscription to show you how many sick perverted people live right in your community, and they are doing very real harm to very real people.
> 
> My only what if is what if you started dealing in real world facts and concerns, instead of Harvard and Yale hypotheticsl academia, this conversation would not be happening. What if.


*Show us *all these "news stories" that involve men dressed like women.
Otherwise you're just ranting about things that have nothing to do with *this *topic


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> Sure, *I can show you *the end redult of what you are asking for. I can even have you show it.
> 
> Word for me please, a legal constitutional law that grants access to a trans person access to a bathroom of their choice which also does not grant me that same right. Please. Pretty pretty please, show me how that can be done.


I made a specific request.
I didn't ask for more meaningless rambling about your theories on the law



> Fact: you stated that without a photo of God, there was no proof He existed.
> 
> Fact2: I showed the fallacy of your argument. I can show you countless photos of situations we both know are not real, and used a movie as an example.
> 
> Fact3: like clockwork, you ignore these facts in support of a strawman argument that cannot hold weight. When pinned, you just come out blind swinging with insults and diversions. Like I said before, weak mind or weak argument cannot deal in the end results.


But you can't show what I asked for, because it doesn't exist.


----------



## greg273

dixiegal62 said:


> And that's different from obvious men using the women's room how? With targets new rules a 6 ft 300 lb biker dude can now go it with women and say he feels like a girl today.
> .


 And he would be promptly escorted out, and potentially charged with trespassing. Saying you 'felt like a woman' isn't going to stand up to any real judicial or legal scrutiny. Targets stated policy refers to 'trans gendered people', not 'any and all men'.


----------



## Irish Pixie

DryHeat said:


> Does an anatomical hermaphrodite have to flip a coin each time?


I have no idea but if they peek in a stall through the door jamb there are some here that will whip out a gun and shoot them.


----------



## dixiegal62

greg273 said:


> And he would be promptly escorted out, and potentially charged with trespassing. Saying you 'felt like a woman' isn't going to stand up to any real judicial or legal scrutiny. Targets stated policy refers to 'trans gendered people', not 'any and all men'.


I suggest you read targets own statement and watch in store interviews that say they can do just that.


----------



## greg273

Regardless of some folks overheated and laviscious imaginations, trans people are going to continue to use whatever restroom they feel more comfortable in , just as they have been doing. And assinine law that purports to restrict them to the 'bathroom that corresponds to their birth gender' is yet one more lame attemp to marginalize them. It is unenforceable anyway, unless some of you want to volunteer to be 'junk inspectors' on the way into the restroom.


----------



## logbuilder

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'd call it factual unless you have a picture you can show


I'm pretty sure there are no 'pictures' of George Washington but he was real. There are paintings of GW but there are probably many more of God.

I'm not stating these in support of the question one way or another. I'm just showing that the absence of a picture does not indicate it didn't/doesn't exist. Didn't they just discover several new species of animals in the rainforest. We now know they are real but no picture previously existed.


----------



## dixiegal62

greg273 said:


> Regardless of some folks overheated and laviscious imaginations, trans people are going to continue to use whatever restroom they feel more comfortable in , just as they have been doing. And assinine law that purports to restrict them to the 'bathroom that corresponds to their birth gender' is yet one more lame attemp to marginalize them. It is unenforceable anyway, unless some of you want to volunteer to be 'junk inspectors' on the way into the restroom.


As you said they where already using it with no problem. Now tempers are flaring and people are on high alert and taking sides. Sadly there will be damage on both sides of the issue before it's over. Good job!


----------



## logbuilder

thericeguy said:


> Word for me please, a legal constitutional law that grants access to a trans person access to a bathroom of their choice which also does not grant me that same right. Please. Pretty pretty please, show me how that can be done.


Could you please restate this question a little more clearly. I'll work on answering it but I want to make sure I understand the question first.


----------



## Heritagefarm

greg273 said:


> Regardless of some folks overheated and laviscious imaginations, trans people are going to continue to use whatever restroom they feel more comfortable in , just as they have been doing. And assinine law that purports to restrict them to the 'bathroom that corresponds to their birth gender' is yet one more lame attemp to marginalize them. It is unenforceable anyway, unless some of you want to volunteer to be 'junk inspectors' on the way into the restroom.


In that case, trans have more "rights" than normal people. "normal" people can't just decide they want a different restroom. If I decide I want to use the women's restroom, I'd get labeled pervert, possibly arrested and at least yelled at.


----------



## painterswife

Heritagefarm said:


> In that case, trans have more "rights" than normal people. "normal" people can't just decide they want a different restroom. If I decide I want to use the women's restroom, I'd get labeled pervert, possibly arrested and at least yelled at.


Do you self identify as a women? Then you have the same right.


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> *Show us *all these "news stories" that involve men dressed like women.
> Otherwise you're just ranting about things that have nothing to do with *this *topic


You are wrong. You are dead 100% wrong, but I am not suprised that you cling to untruths because you wsnt this outcome so badly. I never said trans people were doing the molesting, did I? You quoted me. You know exactly what I, and others, have said. You ignore it because you cannot possibly have a justification. 

What could they be?

Men dont molest children?

Parents have no legitimate concern for child safety?

Utterlt ridiculous, just like this entire debate. Utterly ridiculous. I gtow weary of you supporterd ignoring every legitimate concern and tossing out strawman arguments and insults. Your debate is flawed. It will lose in the courts. .0003% of a population is not going to tell us how to live. I am done unless you choose to stop running in circles and start answering questions. I will simply vote for candidated who propose pridon sentences for trans people. Maybe next time you will be reasonable.


----------



## haypoint

greg273 said:


> And he would be promptly escorted out, and potentially charged with trespassing. Saying you 'felt like a woman' isn't going to stand up to any real judicial or legal scrutiny. Targets stated policy refers to 'trans gendered people', not 'any and all men'.


Greg, I think I see where you are coming from. You and I disagree because I see this issue differently. Bear with me.

A few years ago, Michigan voters were asked to legalize medical marijuana. Who would want to deny a dying cancer patient some relief from their pain in the final months of their life? Lots of folks, opposed to recreational use of pot, voted in favor of medical marijuana. 

But now folks with everything from panic attacks to acid reflux are getting pot. Those that have the pop habit believe the Michigan voters intent was to legalize pot for everyone and they are effectively correct. Michigan voters opened the door to a select few, but now it is a free for all.

A number of years ago, the Feds passed Americans With Disability Act. I think we all want disabled folks open access to as much as is possible. We don't want to discriminate against someone due to their handicap. Right?

So, now when a person carries their dog into a grocery store or restaurant, it must be allowed. While service dogs have always been allowed into such places, pets were not. All a person has to do is say that they experience anxiety when away from their dog. This is medical and might be a disability. To deny access to this person and their dog is a violation of the AWDA. You can get sued by such discrimination. So I get to sit next to someone's dog while I eat my dinner.

Now we get the transgender issue. Most of the time, a guy that identifies as a woman, will look like a woman and vice versa. Law or no law, short of employing "junk" police, it'll happen.

But by making it legal, the common sense of this goes out the window. 

No one can tell if I identify as a woman or a man. I identify as I say I identify. If you question my right to identify as a woman and use the women's rest room, you are singling me out for discrimination. You will be breaking the law simply by questioning my identity.

I can have a beard and identify as a woman. If I truly identify as a woman, I'm no threat to you or your 8 year old daughter.

But there is no outward difference between me self identifying as a woman and a guy wanting to view females of do them harm in a vulnerable location.

Most women do not want me, self identifying as a woman using the ladies room, until I resemble a woman.
Most men do not want me, looking like a guy, going into the restroom behind their wife or daughter. Most aren't interested in my self-identification. My self-identification and my intentions are not visible. 

I've worked in a prison for nearly three decades. I've seen a couple trans-gender prisoners. A male prisoner, with breasts and a strong sex drive directed towards the other male prisoners is a nightmare. They had their male parts, so were considered male.

But until you are ready to let every guy go into every women's rest room, then this issue needs to return to the way it has been for a long while. 

Because when you allow Katelyn Jenner legal rights to enter a women's rest room, you have to allow Michal Moore in a wig in there, too. I don't think that will end well.
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHt7EBCgJnI[/ame]

You might want to listen to this rant, too. You'll have to cut and paste these two pieces of a single web site. https://www.youtube.com and /watch?v=2dBpR36VFQM or take the and out.


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> In that case, trans have more "rights" than normal people. "normal" people can't just decide they want a different restroom. If I decide I want to use the women's restroom, I'd get labeled pervert, possibly arrested and at least yelled at.


Yes, when this becomes legal and accepted, you absolutely can just walk into any eomans restroom. There is no ID carf for trans. That would be unconstitutional. Thry want to rip the fabric of society so people on the margins can feel good about themselves. Sorry you were born different. I didnt do it. Cowboy up. 

These unreasonable people who care about noone but trans people have convinced me there is no middle ground. My only option left is to vote for policies that deny them as many rightd as possible. The in your face has fsiled misersbly in my behalf. I was supporting genersl rights. Not anymore. All I can see now is prople who hate me and my way of life. I will give back what is given.

You are turning readonable compasdionate people against you. Do you realize the insanity of that?


----------



## logbuilder

Heritagefarm said:


> In that case, trans have more "rights" than normal people. "normal" people can't just decide they want a different restroom. *If I decide I want to use the women's restroom, I'd get labeled pervert, possibly arrested and at least yelled at.*


I totally agree that you would be hassled. On what basis do you think people would be prompted to hassle you? Your looks, right? You would look out of place and people would react.

Transgenders believe they are of the other gender. They want to be perceived as of the other gender. The make efforts to look like the gender they believe they are. There are some pictures earlier that demonstrate how successful they can be at looking like the gender they believe they are.

Now regarding this NC law, you would be required to go into the bathroom associated with your birth gender. You would be requiring people who strive to look like the other gender to go into the opposite bathroom. As you would be hassled, so would they. An 18yo trans 'girl' would be required to use the mens room only to be hassled. Depending on the extent of the hassle, the men doing the hassling could be brought up on charges of harassment, assault, hate crimes. The 'girl' would be subjected to an awful experience. If you kids are watching, you would have to explain it to them. Let's say it is just you and a brawny looking trans male (born female) comes in. Are you more comfortable with them being in your restroom rather in the male?

Now if we just let them go where they best identify and do their business in a stall, likely nobody will notice.

Showers in schools, bigger issue. Installation of some shower curtains might be a low cost solution.


----------



## thericeguy

dixiegal62 said:


> As you said they where already using it with no problem. Now tempers are flaring and people are on high alert and taking sides. Sadly there will be damage on both sides of the issue before it's over. Good job!


Yes , as a result on this, there will be laws passed which will apply crminal prosecution to trans people. I doubt that existed before. This whole debate will end poorly for trans people.


----------



## thericeguy

You tell me my daughter has to shower with a boy at school and I will show you the last day she walks into a public school. Once again, we are pushing policies that only the poor cannot avoid. No small miracle they feel abandoned in this society.


----------



## DEKE01

painterswife said:


> Do you self identify as a women? Then you have the same right.


You completely missed Heritage Farm's point. A transG gets to choose. He does not. That gives the transG special rights not available to the general public.


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> Yes, when this becomes legal and accepted, you absolutely can just walk into any eomans restroom. There is no ID carf for trans. That would be unconstitutional. Thry want to rip the fabric of society so people on the margins can feel good about themselves. Sorry you were born different. I didnt do it. Cowboy up.
> 
> These unreasonable people who care about noone but trans people have convinced me there is no middle ground. My only option left is to vote for policies that deny them as many rightd as possible. The in your face has fsiled misersbly in my behalf. I was supporting genersl rights. Not anymore. All I can see now is prople who hate me and my way of life. I will give back what is given.
> 
> You are turning readonable compasdionate people against you. Do you realize the insanity of that?


This has to be one of the most incoherent rants I've read in a long time. If you're letting people on forums make up your mind for you, you don't have very strong facalties.



logbuilder said:


> I totally agree that you would be hassled. On what basis do you think people would be prompted to hassle you? Your looks, right? You would look out of place and people would react.
> 
> Transgenders believe they are of the other gender. They want to be perceived as of the other gender. The make efforts to look like the gender they believe they are. There are some pictures earlier that demonstrate how successful they can be at looking like the gender they believe they are.
> 
> Now regarding this NC law, you would be required to go into the bathroom associated with your birth gender. You would be requiring people who strive to look like the other gender to go into the opposite bathroom. As you would be hassled, so would they. An 18yo trans 'girl' would be required to use the mens room only to be hassled. Depending on the extent of the hassle, the men doing the hassling could be brought up on charges of harassment, assault, hate crimes. The 'girl' would be subjected to an awful experience. If you kids are watching, you would have to explain it to them. Let's say it is just you and a brawny looking trans male (born female) comes in. Are you more comfortable with them being in your restroom rather in the male?
> 
> Now if we just let them go where they best identify and do their business in a stall, likely nobody will notice.
> 
> Showers in schools, bigger issue. Installation of some shower curtains might be a low cost solution.


Heck, I'd like shower curtains any time. I'm very private.
Honestly, as I've watched this thread unfold, no one has been able to show my original theory - that trans originally men would try to use the woman's restroom, only that perverts are perverts and this doesn't really effect them much. I can definitely see horny teenage boys trying the excuse to use the girls locker room etc.


----------



## thericeguy

HeritageFarm, please explain to me how you will craft a law or public policy that is constitutional that allows a trans male who feels female to use a female restroom while denying me the same access.

Will you issue trans ID cards?

Will you place a psychologist at every restroom to prove someone is trans?

Tell me, how will you discriminate who gets access to what?


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> HeritageFarm, please explain to me how you will craft a law or public policy that is constitutional that allows a trans male who feels female to use a female restroom while denying me the same access.
> 
> Will you issue trans ID cards?
> 
> Will you place a psychologist at every restroom to prove someone is trans?
> 
> Tell me, how will you discriminate who gets access to what?


Honestly, my unicorn bathrooms would solve all the problems. We could even have weird half urinal half toilets!
Sorry, could t help it. Honestly, I don't know.
If we abolish gender restrooms, it would solve the trans bathroom problem. At the cost of making everyone feel violated, just so trans people can be happy. 
If we let trans people use the bathroom of their choice, we have to let everyone do the same. 
If we enforce new unisex/unsex/whateversex bathrooms, it will place undue burden on businesses. We already have too many laws and infrastructure rules, however, so I don't like this option either. 
The last solution is make trans illegal and ship them to Greenland, which would make everyone except radical conservatives angry. 
Are we at a standstill? Someone will be made unhappy by any of these rules. Compromises will have to be made.


----------



## oneraddad

thericeguy said:


> HeritageFarm, please explain to me how you will craft a law or public policy that is constitutional that allows a trans male who feels female to use a female restroom while denying me the same access.
> 
> Will you issue trans ID cards?
> 
> Will you place a psychologist at every restroom to prove someone is trans?
> 
> Tell me, how will you discriminate who gets access to what?



You sure won the internet today


----------



## Bearfootfarm

logbuilder said:


> I'm pretty sure there are no 'pictures' of George Washington but he was real. There are paintings of GW but there are probably many more of God.
> 
> I'm not stating these in support of the question one way or another. I'm just showing that the absence of a picture does not indicate it didn't/doesn't exist. Didn't they just discover several new species of animals in the rainforest. We now know they are real but no picture previously existed.


There's no empirical evidence *of any kind* of the actual existence of any "god" ever, although there have been many of them "believed in" over human history. 

There are still many different "gods" and many different "religions" and they all tend to claim theirs is the only true way.

I keep hearing that proof "can be shown" but it's yet to be actually presented, leading me to think it's not forthcoming


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> You are wrong. You are dead 100% wrong, but I am not suprised that you cling to untruths because you wsnt this outcome so badly. I never said trans people were doing the molesting, did I? You quoted me. You know exactly what I, and others, have said. You ignore it because you cannot possibly have a justification.
> 
> What could they be?
> 
> Men dont molest children?
> 
> Parents have no legitimate concern for child safety?
> 
> Utterlt ridiculous, just like this entire debate. Utterly ridiculous. I gtow weary of you supporterd ignoring every legitimate concern and tossing out strawman arguments and insults. Your debate is flawed. It will lose in the courts. .0003% of a population is not going to tell us how to live. I am done unless you choose to stop running in circles and start answering questions. I will simply vote for candidated who propose pridon sentences for trans people. Maybe next time you will be reasonable.


Lots more rambling, still no *"showing*"
You're even starting to spew a little.
Try spellcheck once in a while



> *I am done *unless you choose to stop running in circles and start answering questions.


I doubt that is true, but I guess we will quickly see if you have any credibility.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's no empirical evidence *of any kind* of the actual existence of any "god" ever, although there have been many of them "believed in" over human history.
> 
> There are still many different "gods" and many different "religions" and they all tend to claim theirs is the only true way.
> 
> I keep hearing that proof "can be shown" but it's yet to be actually presented, leading me to think it's not forthcoming


It is quite difficult. The God that I worship requires faith from us, it is an integral ingredient. Those that seek Him and seek Him with their whole heart are given glimpses, not looks, just mere glimpses of the glory surrounding Him. 
If He proved Himself, who would do good for either the sake of doing good or to glorify Him, giving thanks for the opportunity and the capability of doing good. If He proved Himself then people would acquire the desire to do good things in and of themselves thereby proving them worthy when none are worthy. No, it is for those of us that seek His face to trust that He oversaw every translation of the Bible allowing this or that small change to achieve that which is His plan. ...to trust that things are going as He has seen fit.

Proof can be shown, but not from one man to another. He chooses who He will put the matter to rest with, He will show those that he shows.

I have supplied this explanation out of love, hoping that you might understand a bit. I do not intend to discourage you nor do I wish to bamboozle you. This is the best that I can offer, I am aware of a number of instances that are of the actual spiritual world, having had some experiences myself and then hearing of experiences that are too similar to my own to discount. I know that God is real, I know that my journey is not for naught.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> *Proof can be shown*, but not from one man to another. He chooses who He will put the matter to rest with, *He will show those that he shows*.


You contradict yourself with meaningless verbage


----------



## roadless

How does one "prove" love, fear, or any emotion or any thought for that matter?
We can see the byproducts of thoughts and emotions but can we scientifically prove them?


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's no empirical evidence *of any kind* of the actual existence of any "god" ever, although there have been many of them "believed in" over human history.
> 
> There are still many different "gods" and many different "religions" and they all tend to claim theirs is the only true way.
> 
> I keep hearing that proof "can be shown" but it's yet to be actually presented, leading me to think it's not forthcoming


It's ok.
Foolishness of God is wiser then men.
This thread is more than proof.


----------



## haypoint

Maybe another example.
All of the State Parks in Michigan prohibit all alcoholic beverages. This law has been in place for 50 plus years. 
But, if you want to drink alcohol in a State Park, you are careful, respectful and you don't draw attention to yourself and there is no problem.
When a group gets a bit loud, a bit rowdy, Ranger doesn't have to make a judgment call as to at what point did they get drunk, too loud or too rowdy. They see the booze and that gets them kicked out, no gray area on this. No alcohol Allowed, they had alcohol. Simple.

So, 97.7% of the population uses the restroom that matches their birth certificate. The gals that wrap their torso in ace elastic wrap and dress like a dude, passes for a dude, march into a restroom marked Gentlemen and no one gives a crap. A guy with all the proper surgeries, looks like a transvestite or an ugly woman, goes into the women's rom without much notice.
But, a male football player puts on a pantsuit and tip toes into the Ladies Room, is going to be subjected to a few screaming women and the authorities will be called.
So, like the State Park, we keep something illegal, so as to prevent those that violate a less clear rule, we have the quite clear rule to fall back on. This keeps the attention off the transgender and quells the concerns of the masses.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

roadless said:


> How does one "prove" love, fear, or any emotion or any thought for that matter?
> We can see the byproducts of thoughts and emotions but *can we scientifically prove them?*


They have been studied and proven to be real, having actual physical and chemical signatures that can be measured with the proper equipment.

Religion, or the existence of "god", not so much.

This thread really isn't about that topic though.


----------



## thericeguy

oneraddad said:


> You sure won the internet today


Ignore questions. Fling insults. That has pretty much all I have seen today.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> You contradict yourself with meaningless verbage


When God calls you, you will find that all these things of Him that are detestable to you will slowly become pleasing in your heart. 

I do not contradict myself, I said that I cannot prove His existence for you, I am not, unless He makes it so, capable of proving to you His presence. 

However, if He makes that choice, and I hope He does, there is no avoiding it.

I was not a "godly" person, I ran as far and as fast as I could FROM anything that was even remotely associated with religion. I could not run far nor fast enough it seems. 

Now I am His.

I do not condemn you, it is not in my power. 

I cannot do that which He will not allow me to do.


----------



## thericeguy

All that the other side has managed to do with me today is polarize for me what was a non issue when I woke up this morning. By assaulting my God, my beliefs, my values, and my norms, they have provided me with the disdain needed to support political candidates that promise to criminalize trans behaviour. You demanded an enemy. You earned one today. One less person to support your cause. Nice strategy.


----------



## Heritagefarm

haypoint said:


> Maybe another example.
> All of the State Parks in Michigan prohibit all alcoholic beverages. This law has been in place for 50 plus years.
> But, if you want to drink alcohol in a State Park, you are careful, respectful and you don't draw attention to yourself and there is no problem.
> When a group gets a bit loud, a bit rowdy, Ranger doesn't have to make a judgment call as to at what point did they get drunk, too loud or too rowdy. They see the booze and that gets them kicked out, no gray area on this. No alcohol Allowed, they had alcohol. Simple.
> 
> So, 97.7% of the population uses the restroom that matches their birth certificate. The gals that wrap their torso in ace elastic wrap and dress like a dude, passes for a dude, march into a restroom marked Gentlemen and no one gives a crap. A guy with all the proper surgeries, looks like a transvestite or an ugly woman, goes into the women's rom without much notice.
> But, a male football player puts on a pantsuit and tip toes into the Ladies Room, is going to be subjected to a few screaming women and the authorities will be called.
> So, like the State Park, we keep something illegal, so as to prevent those that violate a less clear rule, we have the quite clear rule to fall back on. This keeps the attention off the transgender and quells the concerns of the masses.


So we just make trans illegal? Why not ban homosexuals while we're at it.



thericeguy said:


> Ignore questions. Fling insults. That has pretty much all I have seen today.


Welcome to General Chat.



thericeguy said:


> All that the other side has managed to do with me today is polarize for me what was a non issue when I woke up this morning. By assaulting my God, my beliefs, my values, and my norms, they have provided me with the disdain needed to support political candidates that promise to criminalize trans behaviour. You demanded an enemy. You earned one today. One less person to support your cause. Nice strategy.


Again I say, if you've changed your political views because of screaming banshees on an online forum, you need a rain check. Go read some articles and make your own opinions. Better yet, take a sabbatical, drink some iced tea on your front porch and watch a sunrise. Then tell everyone else to go jump off a cliff.


----------



## thericeguy

Heritage, when faced with such hatred and unreasonableness, fairly normal reaction to fight back. 

Of course I am just venting, just as I did with my wife tonight over this latest assault on common sense. I do not hate people. Well, certain people who have demonstrated a will to harm others, but I did not and now do not care where someone takes a pee. I hope rational thought and reason prevail here to form sound public policy. Their attitude, I feel, will lead to criminalizing something that should not be criminal in states. Sad. Sad.


----------



## greg273

haypoint said:


> a male football player puts on a pantsuit and tip toes into the Ladies Room, is going to be subjected to a few screaming women and the authorities will be called.
> .


 Exactly. And when its clear he's up to no good, he'll be arrested. Just as now.


----------



## greg273

I'm trying to understand what some of you want here... some of these laws being proposed would have the man, who _looks_ like a woman, is attracted to other men, using the MENS room, and the woman who_ looks_ like a man, and is a attracted to women, using the WOMENS room. So now ask yourself, what is to stop a STRAIGHT man, from pretending to be a butch lesbian, walking into the restroom and assualting the females within? This whole uproar is simply ridiculous. The anti-gay folks will use literally ANY issue to ostracize and marginalize those they are against.


----------



## thericeguy

greg273 said:


> I'm trying to understand what some of you want here... some of these laws being proposed would have the man, who _looks_ like a woman, is attracted to other men, using the MENS room, and the woman who_ looks_ like a man, and is a attracted to women, using the WOMENS room. So now ask yourself, what is to stop a STRAIGHT man, from pretending to be a butch lesbian, walking into the restroom and assualting the females within? This whole uproar is simply ridiculous. The anti-gay folks will use literally ANY issue to ostracize and marginalize those they are against.


Thank you for proving exactly why we do not want men in the ladies room. It has been said over and over and over, only to be ignored over and over and over. Noone is saying trans are going to be molesting little girls. That has been said over and over and over. You cannot make it socially acceptable for men to be in the ladies rooms precisely for the reason you stated. That has been said over and over and over. That reality means that we will have to ask the trans group to be accomodating for public safety. It is not them we do not want in the restroom by and large (I cant speak for everyone), it is the pretending guy we want to keep out. That has been said over and over and over. Even you said it. 

In spite of that, what seems to be your conclusion to it all? Anti-gay. Geez.


----------



## Heritagefarm

I spoke to a close family member recently. She was sexually molested for years as a child, and years as an adult. She said she would never tolerate a man in the women's restroom, or a former man even. She is afraid of all men and rightly so; they've all treated her like dirt. She can barely trust me. 
You're going to make people like this, who view the restroom as at least one place where they can have some privacy, into another "human rights" war zone. 
You know where the real human rights issues are? Overseas now. The real issues exist in countries where people die from starvation, from a desperate, clawing need for food. They die from oil and pollution, smog in the air. Injustice abounds and it drags them down, they have no dignity. The live in bondage to their companies and our corporations, living in cubicles. They have no bathroom sometimes, and if they do, everyone shares it. 
Only in America do we have enough extra resources to blow on useless issues. Eventually, when climate change has burnt us to a crisp, it will be an even bigger non-issue.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> When God calls you, you will find that all these things of Him that are detestable to you will slowly become pleasing in your heart.
> 
> *I do not contradict myself*, I said that I cannot prove His existence for you, I am not, unless He makes it so, capable of proving to you His presence.
> 
> However, if He makes that choice, and I hope He does, there is no avoiding it.
> 
> I was not a "godly" person, I ran as far and as fast as I could FROM anything that was even remotely associated with religion. I could not run far nor fast enough it seems.
> 
> Now I am His.
> 
> I do not condemn you, it is not in my power.
> 
> I cannot do that which He will not allow me to do.


Yes you did when you said "proof can be shown" but didn't offer anything but more vague rhetoric.


----------



## thericeguy

Its all OK bear. You will have a very very long time to hate Christians and ponder these questions.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> All that the other side has managed to do with me today is polarize for me what was a non issue when I woke up this morning. By assaulting my God, my beliefs, my values, and my norms, they have provided me with the disdain needed to support political candidates that promise to criminalize trans behaviour. You demanded an enemy. You earned one today. One less person to support your cause. Nice strategy.


Do you really think anyone believes all that?
No one has asked for your support.
Don't delude yourself.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> Its all OK bear. You will have a very very long time to hate Christians and ponder these questions.


I knew it wasn't the truth when you said you were done.

I have no "hate" for real Christians, and your mysterious insinuations are just more wasted words. 

You're trying to hint I will go somewhere that only exists in your mind, and be punished for not agreeing with you. It would be laughable if it weren't just sad

You have yet to show anything real pertaining to the actual topic.


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> You have yet to show anything real pertaining to the actual topic.


I have. Many people have. We have clearly expressed exactly what we want to see happen. We have even explained our reasoning. Maybe its your turn. 

Tell me clearly what you want to see happen on the legal front. Tell me clearly how those laws, if any, will work in the actual real society. 

Who gets to do what, when, and any restrictions you deem fit, if any. What do you want to happen?


----------



## DEKE01

greg273 said:


> Exactly. And when its clear he's up to no good, he'll be arrested. Just as now.


I'm sure that will give great comfort to the molested child and her family.


----------



## thericeguy

The social changes that have taken place in America have mixed results. The discrimination against blacks persists, but it is far better today than 100 years ago. The same is true for many topics. 

That said, if the government (unelected officials) continues down this path that tells mothers and fathers that school bathrooms and locker rooms must be coed, it is going to get nasty. Really nasty. 

I will remove my children from school when that day comes. I still must pay school taxes, but they will get no more from me than that.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> *I have. *Many people have. We have clearly expressed exactly what we want to see happen. We have even explained our reasoning. Maybe its your turn.
> 
> Tell me clearly what you want to see happen on the legal front. Tell me clearly how those laws, if any, will work in the actual real society.
> 
> Who gets to do what, when, and any restrictions you deem fit, if any. What do you want to happen?


I said "something *real*", not just your biased opinions and vague speculations.

I specifically asked you to show the actual "news stories" you referred to, and all you've done is continue to ramble.

There's little point in rehashing what's already been stated, since you are not paying attention to any of it now. Scroll back if you want the answers.

You're just on your soapbox, telling those who don't agree they are going to Hell 



> I will remove my children from school when that day comes.


I doubt that too, since earlier you said "I'm done" and yet here you are still.


----------



## roadless

Bearfootfarm said:


> They have been studied and proven to be real, having actual physical and chemical signatures that can be measured with the proper equipment.
> 
> Religion, or the existence of "god", not so much.
> 
> This thread really isn't about that topic though.


The physical and chemical signatures are the byproducts of thoughts and emotions...that is my point....the actual specific thought /emotion cannot be observed by our limited senses.


----------



## JJ Grandits

Liberals lie when they are losing an argument.
Which is why liberals are always lying.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

roadless said:


> The physical and chemical signatures are the byproducts of thoughts and emotions...that is my point....the actual specific *thought /emotion cannot be observed* by our limited senses.


Correct.
You cannot *see* a thought because it only exists in the mind.

If you're saying thoughts equal reality, you've just made an argument that supports what transgenders believe as being every bit as real as "god", which was the entire point of the comparisons.

It's a recurring theme in these discussions


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JJ Grandits said:


> Liberals lie when they are losing an argument.
> Which is why liberals are always lying.


Others resort to name calling when they know they have nothing worthwhile to contribute.
I'm not sure what your comment has to do with the actual topic here


----------



## haypoint

greg273 said:


> Exactly. And when its clear he's up to no good, he'll be arrested. Just as now.


When will it be clear that the football player in a pant suit is up to no good? With this new ruling, if he says he identifies as a woman, he can be there. :hair 

The supporters that hope to change society are giving every evil person a right to be in a very private place with your mother, wife, daughter and grandchild.

How many generations will it take for every woman to accept a guy, that self identifies as a woman, to strut into the ladies room? I'm betting not in our lifetimes. 

But don't think it ends with sharing restrooms. Once the nose of this camel is in the tent, there'll be no stopping it. Locker rooms is the next logical step.

When a business wants to attract the transgender segment of society into their business, perhaps they could add a third restroom? Advertise as "Trans Friendly".:idea:


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> Correct.
> You cannot *see* a thought because it only exists in the mind.
> 
> If you're saying thoughts equal reality, you've just made an argument that supports what transgenders believe as being every bit as real as "god", which was the entire point of the comparisons.
> 
> It's a recurring theme in these discussions


Soooo, let me see how this works. If a trans person thinks it, it is as real as God, but if anyone opposed to a trans showering next to their daughter thinks something, it just a biased opinion and not real. It is so not real, it is beneath you to even respond. 

Ok. Now I see how the conversation works in your brain. I must say, your logic is infallible and consistent. Good job.


----------



## thericeguy

Anyhow, I knew you would not answer what youvwanted to see happen. It would be self destructive for you to say, "I demand that trans people be treated differently than everyone else and gor society to allow them to do anything they want wherevet they want". 

The only other valid answer would be, "I want to destroy American value systems".

Both of those things would be bad for your case here, but either or both appear true.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> All that the other side has managed to do with me today is polarize for me what was a non issue when I woke up this morning. By assaulting my God, my beliefs, my values, and my norms, they have provided me with the disdain needed to support political candidates that promise to criminalize trans behaviour. You demanded an enemy. You earned one today. One less person to support your cause. Nice strategy.


If your mind can be changed so easily you weren't committed to LGBT equality in the first place. Maybe I'm wrong and you are that indecisive. Who knows, and who really cares?


----------



## haypoint

greg273 said:


> I'm trying to understand what some of you want here... some of these laws being proposed would have the man, who _looks_ like a woman, is attracted to other men, using the MENS room, and the woman who_ looks_ like a man, and is a attracted to women, using the WOMENS room. So now ask yourself, what is to stop a STRAIGHT man, from pretending to be a butch lesbian, walking into the restroom and assualting the females within? This whole uproar is simply ridiculous. The anti-gay folks will use literally ANY issue to ostracize and marginalize those they are against.


I think many Gays would be offended by your apparent grouping them in with Transgenders. 
I can't speak for everyone, but I've never been concerned over a gay guy in a guy's restroom. Seems like most women get along with what you refer to as butch lesbians using their restrooms. So it isn't a gay thing at all.

"So now ask yourself, what is to stop a STRAIGHT man, from pretending to be a butch lesbian, walking into the restroom and assaulting the females within?" 
Currently, there would be a lot of screaming and yelling when a man dressed as a woman entered the restroom. He'd be kicked out and perhaps taken into police custody. With this latest social engineering experiment, the STRAIGHT man, pretending or not pretending to be anything must be allowed into the ladies room without so much as a "What are you doing here?" from anyone. Apparently, to question a man that self identifies as a woman would be seen as an attempt to ostracize or marginalize them. 
" I self identify as a woman." becomes a free pass to the ladies room and perhaps a "Get out of jail free" card, too.:cow:

If a guy really looks like a woman, identifies as a woman, he currently is using the ladies room. This will continue until (I doubt anyone is calling for this) we get underwear police. But there are a hundred shades of gray between one that passes as a woman and the kooky cross dressing male that no one wants in the ladies room. There cannot be a law meant to assist the guy that identifies as a woman and looks like a woman, that keeps out the kooky guy in a dress. :bored:


----------



## Irish Pixie

JJ Grandits said:


> Liberals lie when they are losing an argument.
> Which is why liberals are always lying.


Why post this drivel? What does this add to the discussion? Generalizations make people look like fools.


----------



## Irish Pixie

haypoint said:


> I think many Gays would be offended by your apparent grouping them in with Transgenders.
> I can't speak for everyone, but I've never been concerned over a gay guy in a guy's restroom. Seems like most women get along with what you refer to as butch lesbians using their restrooms. So it isn't a gay thing at all.


Really? LGBTQQ= lesbian, gay, bisexual, *transgender*, queer, questioning. :facepalm:


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> If your mind can be changed so easily you weren't committed to LGBT equality in the first place. Maybe I'm wrong and you are that indecisive. Who knows, and who really cares?


Once again, you choose not to see and comprehend simple words put right in front of you. You continue to choose to see only what you want to see. Three people have been very vocally supportive of the idea of trans choosing whatever restrooms and shower stalls they want. All three exhibit this same behaviour. You see only words you choose to attacknor ridicule and ignore everything else. 

Lets look closely at what you said. LGBT equality. How am I not commited to LGBT equality? Who is defining equality here? You? Me? The legislatures? If I support an LGBT's right to fair employment, housing, worship, etc, and thevlist goes on and on, and is the EXACT same list I would support for a white male, a Jew, a female, a child, an athiest, etc, and the list is inclusive to every citizen on the USA or legal resident, is that not the definition of equality?

According to what you have previously stated, the answer is no. I am not treating them equally until I am treating them differently and specially. That defies logic.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> Once again, you choose not to see and comprehend simple words put right in front of you. You continue to choose to see only what you want to see. Three people have been very vocally supportive of the idea of trans choosing whatever restrooms and shower stalls they want. All three exhibit this same behaviour. You see only words you choose to attacknor ridicule and ignore everything else.
> 
> Lets look closely at what you said. LGBT equality. How am I not commited to LGBT equality? Who is defining equality here? You? Me? The legislatures? If I support an LGBT's right to fair employment, housing, worship, etc, and thevlist goes on and on, and is the EXACT same list I would support for a white male, a Jew, a female, a child, an athiest, etc, and the list is inclusive to every citizen on the USA or legal resident, is that not the definition of equality?
> 
> According to what you have previously stated, the answer is no. I am not treating them equally until I am treating them differently and specially. That defies logic.


American transgender people have the same rights as another American citizen. LBGT will be added to the protected classes at some point in the near future because they are being discriminated against. The anti LGBT contingent will simply have to adjust just as the anti black, anti women, etc. did in the 60s.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> American transgender people have the same rights as another American citizen. LBGT will be added to the protected classes at some point in the near future because they are being discriminated against. The anti LGBT contingent will simply have to adjust just as the anti black, anti women, etc. did in the 60s.


I see, shockingly, that you chose to ignore every single word I said. Again.


----------



## thericeguy

When all this hits the legislature floors, the halls of Congress, and the Supreme Court, you had better hope your side has better debaters than you. Being unable or unwilling to answer simple direct questions is a sure way to lose.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> I see, shockingly, that you chose to ignore every single word I said. Again.


That is some conversation style. Keep telling people that they ignore what you post instead of actually discussing the points they made.


----------



## DEKE01

Irish Pixie said:


> Why post this drivel? What does this add to the discussion? Generalizations make people look like fools.


Like the generalization you just made?

White people have lighter skin than black people. That is a generalization because there are exceptions. Those who would dispute that generalization would look like fools.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> That is some conversation style. Keep telling people that they ignore what you post instead of actually discussing the points they made.


It is impossible to have a conversation with a person who ignores what you say and does not respond to questions. Right? Impossible. It is the three of you who refuse to have any substance. 

Keep repeating the same 3 to 4 word soundbytes you heard on TV over and over. When questioned what that soundbyte means or how something would work across society; attack, divert attention, ignore. That is all I have seen for 24 hours from the three of you. Zero substance.


----------



## DEKE01

painterswife said:


> That is some conversation style. Keep telling people that they ignore what you post instead of actually discussing the points they made.


:hysterical: 

Your side has consistently ignored the issues raised and yelled discrimination. 

Has anyone bothered to explain how it is discrimination? Maybe I missed that message. What rights are being denied?


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> It is impossible to have a conversation with a person who ignores what you say and does not respond to questions. Right? Impossible. It is the three of you who refuse to have any substance.
> 
> Keep repeating the same 3 to 4 word soundbytes you heard on TV over and over. When questioned what that soundbyte means or how something would work across society; attack, divert attention, ignore. That is all I have seen for 24 hours from the three of you. Zero substance.


Your questions have been answered, you just want to complain about everyone who has a logical answer you don't like or does not answer exactly like you demand.


----------



## thericeguy

DEKE01 said:


> :hysterical:
> 
> Your side has consistently ignored the issues raised and yelled discrimination.
> 
> Has anyone bothered to explain how it is discrimination? Maybe I missed that message. What rights are being denied?


I was typing that question, then cancelled. They wont answrr it anyway.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> It is impossible to have a conversation with a person who ignores what you say and does not respond to questions. Right? Impossible. It is the three of you who refuse to have any substance.
> 
> Keep repeating the same 3 to 4 word soundbytes you heard on TV over and over. When questioned what that soundbyte means or how something would work across society; attack, divert attention, ignore. That is all I have seen for 24 hours from the three of you. Zero substance.


It's not the fault of the poster that people don't like what we have to say and ignore it to attack and belittle rather than comment on the content of their posts. 

This really isn't seen as belittling: "Keep repeating the same 3 to 4 word soundbytes you heard on TV over and over. When questioned what that soundbyte means or how something would work across society; attack, divert attention, ignore. That is all I have seen for 24 hours from the three of you. Zero substance." Read it again, and again, and again until it's seen for what it is.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> When all this hits the legislature floors, the halls of Congress, and the Supreme Court, you had better hope your side has better debaters than you. Being unable or unwilling to answer simple direct questions is a sure way to lose.


Rather than respond to the content of my post you chose to belittle me personally. Nice.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> Your questions have been answered, you just want to complain about everyone who has a logical answer you don't like or does not answer exactly like you demand.


Do you support both sexes, trans gay or straight, a constitutional fundamental right to have unimpeded access to all bathroom and showrring facilities of their choosing?

Yes or no. I will give you plenty of opportunities to fully flesh our your ideas. I just want to start simple. 

Yes or no


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> Rather than respond to the content of my post you chose to belittle me personally. Nice.


You get what you give in life.


----------



## Irish Pixie

DEKE01 said:


> :hysterical:
> 
> Your side has consistently ignored the issues raised and yelled discrimination.
> 
> Has anyone bothered to explain how it is discrimination? Maybe I missed that message. What rights are being denied?


Discrimination is a violation of LBGT's civil rights. It violates federal law of equal protection.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> Discrimination is a violation of LBGT's civil rights. It violates federal law of equal protection.


What does that have to do with "what discrimination are they getting"?


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> Do you support both sexes, trans gay or straight, a constitutional fundamental right to have unimpeded access to all bathroom and showrring facilities of their choosing?
> 
> Yes or no. I will give you plenty of opportunities to fully flesh our your ideas. I just want to start simple.
> 
> Yes or no


I decide how I answer. That control thing about how people answer your questions is showing .

It does not matter to me what sex sits in the stall beside me. I have always believed that every single person should have a right to privacy when they disrobe for changing or showers. Therefore private showers and changing areas should be provided for those that want to use them. If they chose to do so in communal ones then they give up that right to privacy.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> What does that have to do with "what discrimination are they getting"?


I answered your question, "I was typing that question, then cancelled. They wont answrr it anyway."

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


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> Discrimination is a violation of LBGT's civil rights. It violates federal law of equal protection.


You continue to avoid the question. Again, not shocking.

What discriminatory actions are happening to them?


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> You continue to avoid the question. Again, not shocking.
> 
> What discriminatory actions are happening to them?


The equal treatment of those of the same gender.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> I decide how I answer. That control thing about how people answer your questions is showing .
> 
> It does not matter to me what sex sits in the stall beside me. I have always believed that every single person should have a right to privacy when they disrobe for changing or showers. Therefore private showers and changing areas should be provided for those that want to use them. If they chose to do so in communal ones then they give up that right to privacy.


Finally, someone who answered a simple question. Ok, lets just assume you get to write exactly that, the idea you just proposed, into national law. How do we implement it?


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> The equal treatment of those of the same gender.


More running. What unequal treatment sre they getting?


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> Finally, someone who answered a simple question. Ok, lets just assume you get to write exactly that, the idea you just proposed, into national law. How do we implement it?


I don't need to write it into law, nor do I want to. Our constitution already supports my position.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> More running. What unequal treatment sre they getting?


Seriously? What is this thread about? I'm not spoon feeding you information that has already been discussed. I suggest you read the entire thread.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> Seriously? What is this thread about? I'm not spoon feeding you information that has already been discussed. I suggest you read the entire thread.


I dont think you know the answer. You are either just repeating news soundbytes, or scared to state your position.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> I dont think you know the answer. You are either just repeating news soundbytes, or scared to state your position.


And I don't think that you are capable of posting without belittling. Ain't it great to have an opinion?


----------



## painterswife

Irish Pixie said:


> And I don't think that you are capable of posting without belittling. Ain't it great to have an opinion?


He is capable, he just has to because it appears his position changes with his feelings.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> I don't need to write it into law, nor do I want to. Our constitution already supports my position.


Ok, no written law. Lets just ignore the fact there are no protections for genders, only sexes. But ok, the supreme court rules tomorrow, every man woman and child now must be allowed to use any restroom they choose. You said build private stalls. Great. I can support that. 

But wait, virtually every medium to large building in the US, private and public, is unable to comply with your proposed solution. What do we do now?


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> Ok, no written law. Lets just ignore the fact there are no protections for genders, only sexes. But ok, the supreme court rules tomorrow, every man woman and child now must be allowed to use any restroom they choose. You said build private stalls. Great. I can support that.
> 
> But wait, virtually every medium to large building in the US, private and public, is unable to comply with your proposed solution. What do we do now?


Women's washrooms have private stalls. It is possible.


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> He is capable, he just has to because it appears his position changes with his feelings.


That is true, there seems to be a lot of vacillation...


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> Women's washrooms have private stall. It is possible.


Most men's bathrooms have at least one stall as well.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> Women's washrooms have private stalls. It is possible.


You and I have hit our first disagreement over your proposed solution. Lets see if we can find common ground. 

I define a private stall as a single use restroom. I go in. I close the door. Noone else is in there. 

I think, correct me if I am wrong, that you are talking about our current system where there are many fixtures but seperated by false walls. 

My problem with that, if it a correct interpretation of your definition, is people who want to harm others. It seems rational that there are far more male sexual predators than female, so is it ok if we refer to the "bad guys" as men?

I worry about things like the people who would use readily available technology "spy gadgets" to unknowingly film people in stalls next door. 

A simple solution is to add to your supreme court ruling a simple line. Bathrooms seperation walls must now extend fully to the floor, making it far harder and more obvious to film. Could you support that?


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> You and I have hit our first disagreement over your proposed solution. Lets see if we can find common ground.
> 
> I define a private stall as a single use restroom. I go in. I close the door. Noone else is in there.
> 
> I think, correct me if I am wrong, that you are talking about our current system where there are many fixtures but seperated by false walls.
> 
> My problem with that, if it a correct interpretation of your definition, is people who want to harm others. It seems rational that there are far more male sexual predators than female, so is it ok if we refer to the "bad guys" as men?
> 
> I worry about things like the people who would use readily available technology "spy gadgets" to unknowingly film people in stalls next door.
> 
> A simple solution is to add to your supreme court ruling a simple line. Bathrooms seperation walls must now extend fully to the floor, making it far harder and more obvious to film. Could you support that?


I have no problems with walls and doors to the ceiling. I don't need them but I understand that others do. They could do a few full walls for those that need them and leave the rest the same for those that don't.


----------



## thericeguy

Great. After 24 hours, you are the first to acknowledge in any form the legitamacy of my concerns and to not ridicult it. 

Ok, so now thats lined out. Will we grandfather old buildings and just ammend building codes? If we do not grandfather, who pays for retrofits at privately owned buildings?


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> Great. After 24 hours, you are the first to acknowledge in any form the legitamacy of my concerns and to not ridicult it.
> 
> Ok, so now thats lined out. Will we grandfather old buildings and just ammend building codes? If we do not grandfather, who pays for retrofits at privately owned buildings?


You are so funny. I have never said there was no legitimacy to anyone's claims. Everyone has things that concern them. You however can't make laws based on everyone's concerns that go against our constitution.

Going forward the cost burdens of course taken on by the owners of the building. It is really no different than when handicapped needs had to be met.


----------



## thericeguy

Do I need to go back and count the number of times and numbet of people who have read my concerns only to summarize them as worthless, hating, anti, and discriminatory. Noone has ever said in any way shape or form that the safety and protection of my family mattered, ever, at all, in any words. But lets continue. We are close to a compromise here. All I have ever wanted was a sincere debate. 

Ok, in a mens room, there are typically urinals. Male genitals are exposed with no privacy at all. If a woman chooses to walk into a mens room, her choice, would that be a criminal act for the man? Would it be indecent exposure?

How about a man in the ladies room. Would he ever be prosecuted for indecent exposure? Lets assume some reasonable behavior here. Not chasing people around waving a penis.


----------



## oneraddad

Why don't we make a separate bathroom for coaches, priests and conservative politicians ?


----------



## TripleD

I finally got it all figured out ! We just rip out all public restrooms and put in porta - jons. They a fully enclosed and lockable . Case closed huh ?


----------



## thericeguy

oneraddad said:


> Why don't we make a separate bathroom for coaches, priests and conservative politicians ?


See how things go? As soon as a real and meaningful civilized fialogue starts, here come the folks who just want to scream.


----------



## thericeguy

TripleD said:


> I finally got it all figured out ! We just rip out all public restrooms and put in porta - jons. They a fully enclosed and lockable . Case closed huh ?


Single use stalls. That dang sure can work. Hopefully over time they would improve over portas though.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> Great. After 24 hours, you are the first to acknowledge in any form the legitamacy of my concerns and to not ridicult it.
> 
> Ok, so now thats lined out. Will we grandfather old buildings and just ammend building codes? If we do not grandfather, who pays for retrofits at privately owned buildings?


Again, if you'd read the _entire_ thread...


----------



## TripleD

thericeguy said:


> Single use stalls. That dang sure can work. Hopefully over time they would improve over portas though.


Hey they work. I have them all over the farm but the nephews and nieces use them as deer blinds.....


----------



## oneraddad

I'm just trying to keep the children safe


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> Again, if you'd read the _entire_ thread...


Shh. I am having a conversation with painter. I tried talking to you. I found it to be impossible. 

Why dont you go quote me one time someone said public safety mattered.


----------



## thericeguy

TripleD said:


> Hey they work. I have them all over the farm but the nephews and nieces use them as deer blinds.....


Haha.


----------



## thericeguy

oneraddad said:


> I'm just trying to keep the children safe


Yes. You come across as very sincere.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> Shh. I am having a conversation with painter. I tried talking to you. I found it to be impossible.
> 
> Why dont you go quote me one time someone said public safety mattered.


Of course you do once I answered the "very important question" and it was impossible for you to go on ad nauseam about no one answering it. 

What a hoot. :happy2:


----------



## arabian knight

oneraddad said:


> I'm just trying to keep the children safe


 Yes I agree, but you won;t if this bs that is goons got now by a tiny few in this country is to continue. THEY MUST be stopped from this bs equal rights crap. That is the only argument they got and they have slim to no chance of that holding water.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> Of course you do once I answered the "very important question" and it was impossible for you to go on ad nauseam about no one answering it.
> 
> What a hoot. :happy2:


I have no memory of you actually answering a question. Remind me again what discrimination there is in current widespread bathroom usage? Bathrooms are divided based on sex. They always have been. Are we applying a different rule to some group of people? Watch. No answer again. Go read the thread. Got it. You just want to scream and fight and this issue is an excuse to do that for you.


----------



## thericeguy

Well, I seem to have lost painter here, and other people only intent on screaming are now present. Shame. It was good while it lasted. Maybe we can finish later.


----------



## arabian knight

thericeguy said:


> I have no memory of you actually answering a question. Remind me again what discrimination there is in current widespread bathroom usage? Bathrooms are divided based on sex. They always have been. Are we applying a different rule to some group of people? Watch. No answer again. Go read the thread. Got it. You just want to scream and fight and this issue is an excuse to do that for you.


Common sense, morality, and decency have left the liberal mind these days. Don't know where they got the idea of controlling people like they have. But when they have joined this gay and lesbian part of the world that is where they really have messed up. There minds are now so clouded with lies and distorted facts they just can't back down, they just can't quit ANY conversion they MUST CONTROL. Boloney on th whole bunch.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> I have no memory of you actually answering a question. Remind me again what discrimination there is in current widespread bathroom usage? Bathrooms are divided based on sex. They always have been. Are we applying a different rule to some group of people? Watch. No answer again. Go read the thread. Got it. You just want to scream and fight and this issue is an excuse to do that for you.


I'm not spoon feeding information that is contained in the thread.


----------



## oneraddad




----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> Well, I seem to have lost painter here, and other people only intent on screaming are now present. Shame. It was good while it lasted. Maybe we can finish later.


You have lost me because you do exactly what you accuse others of. You don't read others posts and then accuse them of answering in certain ways then you berate everyone for not bowing to your demands for answers just like you want them.

Not a basis for any kind of good discussion. When you would like a good discussion then stop with the crap and you might get one.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm not spoon feeding information that is contained in the thread.


Aside from that brief unfinished conversation with painter, this thread represents nothing but hate, loathing, and ridicule from both sides.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> You have lost me because you do exactly what you accuse others of. You don't read others posts and then accuse them of answering in certain ways then you berate everyone for not bowing to your demands for answers just like you want them.
> 
> Not a basis for any kind of good discussion. When you would like a good discussion then stop with the crap and you might get one.


Sigh. OK. Seems like a jekyl and hyde switch, but whatever. 

So all these people I didnt answer, all these questions I ignored, how many could you go find if your life depended on it? 

When you say, does my familys safety matter to you? And you get the answer back of ..

There is no safety issue. You are just a crazy Christian that believes in a false god that hates gays and wsnts to marginalize them because you are an ignorant conservative. 

How do you respond to that? Your question goes unanswered. You have been attacked on a very personal level, with assumptions made about you that are very wrong. All it does is polarize and alienate. But again, whatever. I find a complete void in this thread when looking for real people wanting to have a real conversation about public policy. 

I guess we can just duke it out in the legislatures then.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> Aside from that brief unfinished conversation with painter, this thread represents nothing but hate, loathing, and ridicule from both sides.





thericeguy said:


> Sigh. OK. Seems like a jekyl and hyde switch, but whatever.
> 
> So all these people I didnt answer, all these questions I ignored, how many could you go find if your life depended on it?
> 
> When you say, does my familys safety matter to you? And you get the answer back of ..
> 
> There is no safety issue. You are just a crazy Christian that believes in a false god that hates gays and wsnts to marginalize them because you are an ignorant conservative.
> 
> How do you respond to that? Your question goes unanswered. You have been attacked on a very personal level, with assumptions made about you that are very wrong. All it does is polarize and alienate. But again, whatever. I find a complete void in this thread when looking for real people wanting to have a real conversation about public policy.
> 
> I guess we can just duke it out in the legislatures then.




Sigh. It's obvious you haven't read the entire thread so how would you know?


----------



## farmrbrown

thericeguy said:


> Great. After 24 hours, you are the first to acknowledge in any form the legitamacy of my concerns and to not ridicult it.
> 
> Ok, so now thats lined out. Will we grandfather old buildings and just ammend building codes? If we do not grandfather, who pays for retrofits at privately owned buildings?





painterswife said:


> You are so funny. I have never said there was no legitimacy to anyone's claims. Everyone has things that concern them. You however can't make laws based on everyone's concerns that go against our constitution.
> 
> Going forward the cost burdens of course taken on by the owners of the building. It is really no different than when handicapped needs had to be met.





Irish Pixie said:


> Again, if you'd read the _entire_ thread...


Yep.
And IF the NC law was read (I posted it earlier) it states all those conditions debated in this thread. It addresses safety concerns, exceptions for those who need them, and allows private, single use restrooms.

Of course instead of reading it and accepting it as such, it is characterized as "discrimination". Therefore the boycotts and name calling ensues.


----------



## DEKE01

Irish Pixie said:


> Discrimination is a violation of LBGT's civil rights. It violates federal law of equal protection.


How?

I know what discrimination is. How is requiring an anatomically male person to use the bathroom for anatomical males discrimination?


----------



## Irish Pixie

DEKE01 said:


> How?
> 
> I know what discrimination is. How is requiring an anatomically male person to use the bathroom for anatomical males discrimination?


Gender isn't based on anatomy, but you know that.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> Gender isn't based on anatomy, but you know that.


In this "new" world I guess that we're going to have to accept that as true. Maybe gender is not associated with anatomy but the bathrooms are.


----------



## painterswife

Shine said:


> In this "new" world I guess that we're going to have to accept that as true. Maybe gender is not associated with anatomy but the bathrooms are.


Bathrooms don't need to be associated with sex. That is a limitation of some peoples minds.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Gender isn't based on anatomy, but you know that.


And I have stated over and over, just assign bathroom entry by SEX, not gender.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> And I have stated over and over, just assign bathroom entry by SEX, not gender.


And as I have stated over and over, that is discriminatory to the transgendered who are also American citizens.


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> Gender isn't based on anatomy, but you know that.


Unfortunately, that seems to be true for less than 1% of the population.
For the other 99%, that's like trying to convince us that night time is when the sun out and daytime is when it's dark and you see the moon.:shrug:

Either that, or all my earliest memories discovering the difference between little boys and little girls are just a case of my imagination and mental illness that get referenced when discussing others' core beliefs.
When rock solid foundations are eroded, everything built upon them collapses......unless of course you don't believe in THAT.


----------



## Heritagefarm

I find it interesting that, within this thread at least, the men are arguing to keep other men out of the women's restroom, while the women seem to think it's all right.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> And as I have stated over and over, that is discriminatory to the transgendered who are also American citizens.


Why? Is not their sex a concrete aspect of their being? It is simple, a pre-op male to female transgender's sex is male, just as mine is. He may feel like he is a woman and his gender may be female, but, his sex is male until after the surgery. To limit access to bathrooms based on the sex of the individual is not discriminatory because it treats all males/females the same. On the other hand, to give an anatomically male person special access to restrooms, reserved for females, is discriminatory to all of the other males.


----------



## farmrbrown

Heritagefarm said:


> I find it interesting that, within this thread at least, the men are arguing to keep other men out of the women's restroom, while the women seem to think it's all right.


That's why men usually refer to them as our "better half".
LOL
They are the cooler, more reasonable ones that keep us out of trouble sometimes.
:bash:
There's a reason why God saw fit to give us a help mate..........because it's obvious when we need help.
:happy2:


----------



## Heritagefarm

farmrbrown said:


> Unfortunately, that seems to be true for less than 1% of the population.
> For the other 99%, that's like trying to convoke us that night time is when the sun out and daytime is when it's dark and you see the moon.:shrug:
> 
> Either that, or all my earliest memories discovering the difference between little boys and little girls are just a case of my imagination and mental illness that get referenced when discussing others' core beliefs.
> When rock solid foundations are eroded, everything built upon them collapses......unless of course you don't believe in THAT.


Apparently, my belief that I'm a male because I have male equipment is just all in my head. I know lots of other stuff is in my head, but I didn't know about that one!:whistlin:


----------



## farmrbrown

Heritagefarm said:


> Apparently, my belief that I'm a male because *I have male equipment is just all in my head.* :whistlin:


Don't you hate it when you have to state the obvious?
:happy2:


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Why? Is not their sex a concrete aspect of their being? It is simple, a pre-op male to female transgender's sex is male, just as mine is. He may feel like he is a woman and his gender may be female, but, his sex is male until after the surgery. To limit access to bathrooms based on the sex of the individual is not discriminatory because it treats all males/females the same. On the other hand, to give an anatomically male person special access to restrooms, reserved for females, is discriminatory to all of the other males.


No, it's not. The key is gender not sex. C'mon this isn't a new concept- after 1000+ posts and 51+ pages with pictures you should understand this by now.


----------



## DEKE01

Irish Pixie said:


> Gender isn't based on anatomy, but you know that.


But how is it discrimination? I don't have time right now to fully research this. Since some court made a stupid ruling, there has to be a law out there that supports the decision in some way. I'm looking for some sort of adverse consequences where rights are being violated. "I feel bad because I'm not like them," doesn't rate as an adverse consequence in my book.

I just checked the EEOC site, which isn't really a great source since it is employment law, but it gets at what I'm looking for as discrimination and adverse consequences. EEOC discussed...

_What Discriminatory Practices Are Prohibited by These Laws? Under Title VII, the ADA, GINA, and the ADEA, it is illegal to discriminate in any aspect of employment, including:

hiring and firing;
compensation, assignment, or classification of employees;
transfer, promotion, layoff, or recall;
job advertisements;
recruitment;
testing;
use of company facilities;
training and apprenticeship programs;
fringe benefits;
pay, retirement plans, and disability leave; or
other terms and conditions of employment.

Discriminatory practices under these laws also include:

harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, genetic information, or age;
retaliation against an individual for filing a charge of discrimination, participating in an investigation, or opposing discriminatory practices;
employment decisions based on stereotypes or assumptions about the abilities, traits, or performance of individuals of a certain sex, race, age, religion, or ethnic group, or individuals with disabilities, or based on myths or assumptions about an individual's genetic information; and
denying employment opportunities to a person because of marriage to, or association with, an individual of a particular race, religion, national origin, or an individual with a disability. Title VII also prohibits discrimination because of participation in schools or places of worship associated with a particular racial, ethnic, or religious group._


----------



## Irish Pixie

Heritagefarm said:


> Apparently, my belief that I'm a male because I have male equipment is just all in my head. I know lots of other stuff is in my head, but I didn't know about that one!:whistlin:


Are you transgender? You don't get to choose someone else's gender.


----------



## Irish Pixie

DEKE01 said:


> But how is it discrimination? I don't have time right now to fully research this. Since some court made a stupid ruling, there has to be a law out there that supports the decision in some way. I'm looking for some sort of adverse consequences where rights are being violated. "I feel bad because I'm not like them," doesn't rate as an adverse consequence in my book.
> 
> I just checked the EEOC site, which isn't really a great source since it is employment law, but it gets at what I'm looking for as discrimination and adverse consequences. EEOC discussed...
> 
> _What Discriminatory Practices Are Prohibited by These Laws? Under Title VII, the ADA, GINA, and the ADEA, it is illegal to discriminate in any aspect of employment, including:
> 
> hiring and firing;
> compensation, assignment, or classification of employees;
> transfer, promotion, layoff, or recall;
> job advertisements;
> recruitment;
> testing;
> use of company facilities;
> training and apprenticeship programs;
> fringe benefits;
> pay, retirement plans, and disability leave; or
> other terms and conditions of employment.
> 
> Discriminatory practices under these laws also include:
> 
> harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, genetic information, or age;
> retaliation against an individual for filing a charge of discrimination, participating in an investigation, or opposing discriminatory practices;
> employment decisions based on stereotypes or assumptions about the abilities, traits, or performance of individuals of a certain sex, race, age, religion, or ethnic group, or individuals with disabilities, or based on myths or assumptions about an individual's genetic information; and
> denying employment opportunities to a person because of marriage to, or association with, an individual of a particular race, religion, national origin, or an individual with a disability. Title VII also prohibits discrimination because of participation in schools or places of worship associated with a particular racial, ethnic, or religious group._


Employment law doesn't apply [in this case]. You know this because you noted it, but good try. 

ETA the obvious.


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> No, it's not. The key is gender not sex. C'mon this isn't a new concept- after 1000+ posts and 51+ pages with pictures you should understand this by now.


Understanding someone else's definition doesn't equal acceptance of it as true or valid.
It may be a valid point of view to a small minority, and whenever possible, the majority should find a reasonable and compassionate way to accommodate them, but insisting on the acceptance of something that is fundamentally opposite of what we believe isn't reasonable OR possible.
That seems to me, to be the major impasse.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Irish Pixie said:


> Are you transgender? You don't get to choose someone else's gender.


Unlike with homosexuals, there is almost no evidence to suggest trans can be attributed to chemical or hormonal imbalances. Homosexuality is obvious - probably too much estrogen in males, too much testosterone in females. Or maybe it's the fake estrogen in beef cattle and on canned good linings.

No such evidence for trans, aside from some shoddy attempts to blame it on something we're don't know about.


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> Are you transgender? You don't get to choose someone else's gender.


That's true.
I assume that applies equally to all (?).
I never really considered it a "choice" , but on the rare occasions when the thought occurred, I resigned myself to the fact that it wasn't really an option. It was a determination that was made when I was still inside my mother.
Some things that are already settled and done, can be accepted, and I guess that's something all of us have to deal with on our own terms.


----------



## Bubba1358

Irish Pixie said:


> You don't get to choose someone else's gender.


We also don't have to accept non-scientific and unsubstantiated claims as true.


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> Employment law doesn't apply. You know this because you noted it, but good try.


Actually it does. That was one of the sections that was amended by the NC law, labor and employment regulations.
Some of this debate is pointless if it's arguing over already established facts.
:bored:


----------



## arabian knight

Yes it sure does. And this is NOT Discrimination, like a FEW want to BELIEVE it is. Quit that strawman argument.


----------



## DEKE01

Irish Pixie said:


> Employment law doesn't apply. You know this because you noted it, but good try.


I don't know why you so frequently miss the point, if it is because you really don't get it or are afraid of getting it because you can't argue on the merits. 

I showed you types of discrimination based on adverse consequences. How is bathroom choice discrimination,? 

I'm just asking for fun. I know better than to expect a real answer.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Heritagefarm said:


> Unlike with homosexuals, there is almost no evidence to suggest trans can be attributed to chemical or hormonal imbalances. Homosexuality is obvious - probably too much estrogen in males, too much testosterone in females. Or maybe it's the fake estrogen in beef cattle and on canned good linings.
> 
> No such evidence for trans, aside from some shoddy attempts to blame it on something we're don't know about.


If you say so, but that has nothing to do with choosing someone else's gender...


----------



## Heritagefarm

Irish Pixie said:


> If you say so, but that has nothing to do with choosing someone else's gender...


I never said it did? Look, I'm willing to be nice and accepting towards trans. What I'm NOT willing to do is give them more rights than I have or normal people have. And by normal I mean heterosexual.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> No, it's not. The key is gender not sex. C'mon this isn't a new concept- after 1000+ posts and 51+ pages with pictures you should understand this by now.


I know you want to make it about gender as that bolsters your argument, but, an honest evaluation is that sex of the individual, is/ should be the determining factor because that is a concrete concept that is more difficult to muddy.


----------



## Irish Pixie

DEKE01 said:


> I don't know why you so frequently miss the point, if it is because you really don't get it or are afraid of getting it because you can't argue on the merits.
> 
> I showed you types of discrimination based on adverse consequences. How is bathroom choice discrimination,?
> 
> I'm just asking for fun. I know better than to expect a real answer.


It is my opinion that it's discriminatory to refuse a transgender woman access to a woman's bathroom, and transgender man to the man's bathroom. 

I base this opinion on the equal protection clause:

The Equal Protection Clause is located at the end of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Further reading:

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/gayrights.htm


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> I know you want to make it about gender as that bolsters your argument, but, an honest evaluation is that sex of the individual, is/ should be the determining factor because that is a concrete concept that is more difficult to muddy.


I think you discount gender because it doesn't support your argument.


----------



## painterswife

Heritagefarm said:


> I never said it did? Look, I'm willing to be nice and accepting towards trans. What I'm NOT willing to do is give them more rights than I have or normal people have. And by normal I mean heterosexual.


They have the right to enter the bathroom of the gender they identify. You do as well. They don't have more rights than you.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Heritagefarm said:


> I never said it did? Look, I'm willing to be nice and accepting towards trans. What I'm NOT willing to do is give them more rights than I have or normal people have. And by normal I mean heterosexual.


Please don't use the word "normal" as a descriptor for a human being. It's not nice and it's not fair. No one is "normal" because human behavior varies so significantly.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> They have the right to enter the bathroom of the gender they identify. You do as well. They don't have more rights than you.


We have the right to enter a public restroom of the sex that one's organs would imply, so do they.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> We have the right to enter a public restroom of the sex that one's organs would imply, so do they.


Sigh. Oh, East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet- Rudyard Kipling.

This will be decided by SCOTUS, and (imho) LGBT will be added as a protected class in order to force some to treat other human beings as equals.


----------



## Heritagefarm

painterswife said:


> They have the right to enter the bathroom of the gender they identify. You do as well. They don't have more rights than you.


I'm a heterosexual male. Are you saying all I have to do is throw on a dress to use the women's restroom?



Irish Pixie said:


> Please don't use the word "normal" as a descriptor for a human being. It's not nice and it's not fair. No one is "normal" because human behavior varies so significantly.


Humans are hard wired through evolution to be heterosexual. Deviant behavior exists everywhere, of course.


----------



## painterswife

Heritagefarm said:


> I'm a heterosexual male. Are you saying all I have to do is throw on a dress to use the women's restroom?


Did I say that? Playing word games does not help you support your position.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Sigh. Oh, East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet- Rudyard Kipling.
> 
> This will be decided by SCOTUS, and (imho) LGBT will be added as a protected class in order to force some to treat other human beings as equals.


Likely you are correct. The SCOTUS has shown itself time and time again, to be a corrupt body that rules more by political winds and less by the Constitution with each passing year.


----------



## Nevada

Irish Pixie said:


> This will be decided by SCOTUS, and (imho) LGBT will be added as a protected class in order to force some to treat other human beings as equals.


That issue was settled when United States v. Windsor found DOMA to be unconstitutional. To overturn DOMA, the court identified the LGBT community as a damaged class that was deserving of constitutional protection.


----------



## Farmerga

Heritagefarm said:


> I'm a heterosexual male. Are you saying all I have to do is throw on a dress to use the women's restroom?


 
She might not have said that, but, that is the truth of the matter. There will not be a questionnaire, asking if one is a real transgender, or, just some pervert looking for a good time, prior to entering a public restroom.


----------



## Farmerga

Nevada said:


> That issue was settled when United States v. Windsor found DOMA to be unconstitutional. To overturn DOMA, the court identified the LGBT community as a damaged class that was deserving of constitutional protection.


There is no discrimination in requiring bathroom assignment by anatomical sex.


----------



## Heritagefarm

painterswife said:


> Did I say that? Playing word games does not help you support your position.


This entire thread has been a word game, because it cannot be shown that trans have ANY sort of science to back up their position. It's just another narcissistic feel-good goal.

Word game #1: Transgendered people can use either restroom. I am not transgendered, therefore I use only one restroom.

Word game #2: I can, theoretically, use either restroom. All I have to do is put on a dress, take some drugs, call myself a women and get off on it. 

You seem delightfully unaware of how far men are willing to go to arouse themselves.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Heritagefarm said:


> Unlike with homosexuals, there is almost no evidence to suggest trans can be attributed to chemical or hormonal imbalances. Homosexuality is obvious - probably too much estrogen in males, too much testosterone in females. Or maybe it's the fake estrogen in beef cattle and on canned good linings.
> 
> No such evidence for trans, aside from some shoddy attempts to blame it on something we're don't know about.


Theory on genetics, brain structure, etc. of transgender.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-something-unique-about-the-transgender-brain/

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150213112317.htm


----------



## Irish Pixie

Heritagefarm said:


> Humans are hard wired through evolution to be heterosexual. Deviant behavior exists everywhere, of course.


So you would have no problem looking at your transgender or gay kid and telling them that you as a heterosexual are normal and they are deviant and therefore abnormal?


----------



## Heritagefarm

Irish Pixie said:


> Theory on genetics, brain structure, etc. of transgender.
> 
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-something-unique-about-the-transgender-brain/
> 
> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150213112317.htm


Very good. Unfortunately, nothing definitive, but it doesn't rule it out, either. 



Irish Pixie said:


> So you would have no problem looking at your transgender or gay kid and telling them that you as a heterosexual are normal and they are deviant and therefore abnormal?


I wouldn't use those words. I would try to help them through the developmental process and ultimately accept them for who they are. Unless they said they were a cat, in which case I'd have them see a psychiatrist.


----------



## DEKE01

Irish Pixie said:


> It is my opinion that it's discriminatory to refuse a transgender woman access to a woman's bathroom, and transgender man to the man's bathroom.
> 
> I base this opinion on the equal protection clause:
> 
> The Equal Protection Clause is located at the end of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment:
> 
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
> 
> Further reading:
> 
> http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/gayrights.htm


So after all the many times you've yelled discrimination you can't tell me how it is discrimination, only that it is your opinion it is discrimination? How does equal access to bathrooms violates any of the following:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You must know how it is discrimination because you keep yelling that it is. 

The court cases you linked were not material. No one is being punished and all are being treated equally in the general sense, though I'll agree that there have been instances in the past where men's rooms had more relief spots vs the women's rooms next door. That was remedied in the 90s, I think. 

What you want are special rights for transgenders not available to me. You want to discriminate against me.


----------



## Irish Pixie

DEKE01 said:


> So after all the many times you've yelled discrimination you can't tell me how it is discrimination, only that it is your opinion it is discrimination? How does equal access to bathrooms violates any of the following:
> 
> No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
> 
> You must know how it is discrimination because you keep yelling that it is.
> 
> The court cases you linked were not material. No one is being punished and all are being treated equally in the general sense, though I'll agree that there have been instances in the past where men's rooms had more relief spots vs the women's rooms next door. That was remedied in the 90s, I think.
> 
> What you want are special rights for transgenders not available to me. You want to discriminate against me.


Nope. Just equality.

SCOTUS will rule, and in my opinion in favor of LGBT rights (or as Nevada has said it already has with DOMA) and that will be that. LGBT are American citizens with all the rights that that includes.


----------



## DEKE01

Irish Pixie said:


> So you would have no problem looking at your transgender or gay kid and telling them that you as a heterosexual are normal and they are deviant and therefore abnormal?


if you distance yourself from the emotionally charged meanings you've attached to the word, you'll have to agree that normal is hetero. 

Normal: usual, ordinary
Abnormal: deviating from the normal or average.

Since over 90% of the general population around the world is hetero, that is the norm. That is normal. Everything else is abnormal. 

I told repeatedly told my daughter while she was growing up to celebrate her abnormality. She was different and that was a good thing. In her case, she is a nerdy brainiac. I don't think her being abnormal is a bad thing.


----------



## DEKE01

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope. Just equality.
> 
> SCOTUS will rule, and in my opinion in favor of LGBT rights (or as Nevada has said it already has with DOMA) and that will be that. LGBT are American citizens with all the rights that that includes.


so again, you can yell discrimination but you can't even say how it is discrimination.


----------



## JeffreyD

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope. Just equality.
> 
> SCOTUS will rule, and in my opinion in favor of LGBT rights (or as Nevada has said it already has with DOMA) and that will be that. LGBT are American citizens with all the rights that that includes.


So, your ok with discriminating as long as very vocal minority doesnt get their feelings hurt? Isn't that exactly what you are railing against? What's that word for this?

Why are you ok with discriminating against religious folks? It's just a bizarre stance, it really is.


----------



## Irish Pixie

JeffreyD said:


> So, your ok with discriminating as long as very vocal minority doesnt get their feelings hurt? Isn't that exactly what you are railing against? What's that word for this?
> 
> Why are you ok with discriminating against religious folks? It's just a bizarre stance, it really is.


Where have I discriminated against "religious folks" can you point it out please? I simply don't care if someone else believes in god or has a religion, it's none of my business. 

I have this weird notion that the rights of American citizen belong to *all* citizens and not just the majority.


----------



## Irish Pixie

DEKE01 said:


> if you distance yourself from the emotionally charged meanings you've attached to the word, you'll have to agree that normal is hetero.
> 
> Normal: usual, ordinary
> Abnormal: deviating from the normal or average.
> 
> Since over 90% of the general population around the world is hetero, that is the norm. That is normal. Everything else is abnormal.
> 
> I told repeatedly told my daughter while she was growing up to celebrate her abnormality. She was different and that was a good thing. In her case, she is a nerdy brainiac. I don't think her being abnormal is a bad thing.


Can you accept that someone else has a different view what is normal than you do? Or must we all kowtow to what you believe?

I saw this on Facebook and think it's apt: Normal is a setting on a dryer.


----------



## Irish Pixie

DEKE01 said:


> so again, you can yell discrimination but you can't even say how it is discrimination.


Whatever you say.


----------



## DEKE01

Irish Pixie said:


> Can you accept that someone else has a different view what is normal than you do? Or must we all kowtow to what you believe?
> 
> I saw this on Facebook and think it's apt: Normal is a setting on dryer.


I know how liberals like to redefine words to suit their tastes, so I'm not surprised a bit. But words have meanings even if they don't mesh with your political agenda. I'm not asking you to kowtow to what I believe, so I don't know why you made that up. I prefer to use a normal source for word meanings. Let's see what Oxford says about normal...

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/normal

Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected: itâs quite normal for puppies to bolt their food normal working hours
More example sentences Synonyms
1.1(Of a person) free from physical or mental disorders: until her accident Louise had been a perfectly normal little girl many previously normal people exhibit psychotic symptoms after a few nights without sleep

there is more if you want to look it up, but that proves hetero is normal by normal definitions using a normal source for definitions. If I walk down the street and meet someone, it would be normal for that person to be hetero. See how this works? 

And I'm still waiting for you to explain why you repeatedly yell discrimination...


----------



## DEKE01

Irish Pixie said:


> Whatever you say.


So then it is not discrimination. We agree.


----------



## Nevada

DEKE01 said:


> So then it is not discrimination. We agree.


I think we can look to the federal court system for an answer. Consider this article.

_Disallowing Girl to Use Boys' Bathroom Is Sex Discrimination, Federal Court Says_
http://www.christianpost.com/news/t...-federal-court-gavin-grimm-gloucester-162203/

That says that it IS discrimination in plain language.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Nevada said:


> I think we can look to the federal court system for an answer. Consider this article.
> 
> _Disallowing Girl to Use Boys' Bathroom Is Sex Discrimination, Federal Court Says_
> http://www.christianpost.com/news/t...-federal-court-gavin-grimm-gloucester-162203/
> 
> That says that it IS discrimination in plain language.


Thanks Nevada. Perhaps (dare we to hope) that there will be silence on the matter of discrimination now?


----------



## Nevada

Irish Pixie said:


> Thanks Nevada. Perhaps (dare we to hope) that there will be silence on the matter of discrimination now?


Probably not. Conservatives argued the same thing about gays not being a class deserving of constitutional consideration. Even after the Supreme Court ruled that they were a deserving class, the argument still comes up occasionally.

Conservatives just aren't very good at seeing the handwriting on the wall.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> Soooo, let me see how this works. If a trans person thinks it, it is as real as God, but if anyone opposed to a trans showering next to their daughter thinks something, it just a biased opinion and not real. It is so not real, it is beneath you to even respond.
> 
> Ok. Now I see how the conversation works in your brain. I must say, your logic is infallible and consistent. Good job.


More rambling, but still no data, no news stories, no "done".



> Anyhow, I knew you would not answer what youvwanted to see happen. It would be self destructive for you to say, "*I demand* that trans people be treated differently than everyone else and gor society to allow them to do anything they want wherevet they want".
> 
> The only other valid answer would be, "I want to destroy American value systems".
> 
> Both of those things would be bad for your case here, but either or both appear true.


You're the second one to falsely state I've made some sort of "demands."
He's shown the same amount of proof as you, which is to say none at all.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> You and I have hit our first disagreement over your proposed solution. Lets see if we can find common ground.
> 
> *I define a private stall as a single use restroom.* I go in. I close the door. Noone else is in there.
> 
> I think, correct me if I am wrong, that you are talking about our current system where there are many fixtures but seperated by false walls.
> 
> My problem with that, if it a correct interpretation of your definition, is people who want to harm others. It seems rational that there are far more male sexual predators than female, so is it ok if we refer to the "bad guys" as men?
> 
> I worry about things like the people who would use readily available technology "spy gadgets" to unknowingly film people in stalls next door.
> 
> A simple solution is to add to your supreme court ruling a simple line. Bathrooms seperation walls must now extend fully to the floor, making it far harder and more obvious to film. Could you support that?


Then you don't know the meaning of common words, and further attempts at conversation would be futile.



> I worry about things like the people who would use readily available technology "spy gadgets" to unknowingly film people in stalls next door.


That's illegal no matter who does it

It's also been discussed already.

You're running in ever diminishing circles now, with no end in sight.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Nevada said:


> I think we can look to the federal court system for an answer. Consider this article.
> 
> _Disallowing Girl to Use Boys' Bathroom Is Sex Discrimination, Federal Court Says_
> http://www.christianpost.com/news/t...-federal-court-gavin-grimm-gloucester-162203/
> 
> That says that it IS discrimination in plain language.


Everything, including the courts, is an interpretation of our existence, and our social constructions. Discrimination? Rights? Laws? Everything is a piece of neuron impulses in our heads. Nothing exists except through our perceptions. You could be hooked up to a mind machine. You're welcome.


----------



## greg273

Farmerga said:


> to give an anatomically male person special access to restrooms, reserved for females, is discriminatory to all of the other males.


 A guy who thinks like a woman, dresses like a woman, and is attracted to other men (just like a woman) is not really 'anatomically male', except for one piece of plumbing. 
Not even sure what we're arguing about anymore, but at least in the case of Target, they said SPECIFICALLY 'transgender' people can use the bathroom of their choice, not 'any and all men'. Sure, some perverts could sneak in, just as easily as they could now. Bad people are going to be bad people no matter what. Restrictive gun laws should have taught you that.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> In this "new" world I guess that we're going to have to accept that as true. Maybe gender is not associated with anatomy but the bathrooms are.


The courts disagree with you , and their opinions matter more


----------



## thericeguy

Well, these issues, discussions (if you can even call them that) clearly show the electorate one thing; how vitally important it is who holds office as elected officials. What is "right" and "true" is just stuff decided by people appointed as federal judges and the supreme court. 

We have a vacancy right now. Who wins this election will likely have a large bearing on the outcome of these cases and the cases against state laws that will be passed. Both sides will be voting. Will be interesting to see who prevails.


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> Then you don't know the meaning of common words, and further attempts at conversation would be futile.
> 
> 
> That's illegal no matter who does it
> 
> It's also been discussed already.
> 
> You're running in ever diminishing circles now, with no end in sight.


Whether something is illegal has no bearing on if an action makes it easier or harder. Criminals do not obey laws, do they?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Bubba1358 said:


> We also don't have to accept *non-scientific and unsubstantiated *claims as true.


Like "religion"?


----------



## DEKE01

Nevada said:


> I think we can look to the federal court system for an answer. Consider this article.
> 
> _Disallowing Girl to Use Boys' Bathroom Is Sex Discrimination, Federal Court Says_
> http://www.christianpost.com/news/t...-federal-court-gavin-grimm-gloucester-162203/
> 
> That says that it IS discrimination in plain language.


My question stands. How is it discrimination? That's what I've been asking. You did not address my question. Where is opportunity, privilege, education, jobs, housing, or whatever else you can think of being denied? I am well aware that the Obama administration has implemented a policy that says it is discrimination. Don't use tautological ill-logic to justify it, explain it. 

All that has been alleged from what I've read is that it made the girl feel bad that she didn't have something she wanted. I want to know where my gov't provided Ferrari is. I feel bad that I don't have one. 

So Irish Pixie, you've claimed discrimination more than anyone else. I'm still waiting for you to explain how it is discrimination.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> I know *you want to make it about gender *as that bolsters your argument, but, an honest evaluation is that sex of the individual, is/ should be the determining factor because that is a concrete concept that is more difficult to muddy.


Did you actually read the first post? 
Do you understand what is the subject of the thread?

It is *all* about "gender"

You're the one wanting to change the issue to "sex"


----------



## DEKE01

Irish Pixie said:


> Thanks Nevada. Perhaps (dare we to hope) that there will be silence on the matter of discrimination now?


{smash}

{squish}

{squash}

Those are the sounds of me throwing hope on the ground and pulverizing it with my heal. :happy2:


Since you are sure it is discrimination, can you please tell me how? What detriment is being suffered from a normal bathroom policy?


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> Like "religion"?


Correct. The use of religion as a criteria for public policy is banned by the Constitution. You knew that.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> Whether something is illegal has no bearing on if an action makes it easier or harder. Criminals do not obey laws, do they?


Correct, so one more law one way or the other won't change anything.
Nothing is "made easier" when all they have to do now is open a door.

This thread has outlived it's usefulness.


----------



## DEKE01

Bearfootfarm said:


> Did you actually read the first post?
> Do you understand what is the subject of the thread?
> 
> It is *all* about "gender"
> 
> You're the one wanting to change the issue to "sex"


If we accept your definition of gender, it is about gender only because the Obama administration has decided to make it so. Locker rooms are divided by sex, male and female. Not gender as you define it, else there would have to be at least one and maybe several more bathroom choices if each of the genders, as you define them, are given their own. 

But in the court case, the transgender didn't want her own gender defined bathroom, she didn't want her own sex defined bathroom. Like a small child, she wanted what someone else had and stomped her feet and shouted until her weak parents gave in.


----------



## thericeguy

The political system, all branches of federal and state government, with the input of the electorate, will decide whst it is "all about". Not you.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> The courts disagree with you , and their opinions matter more


...not the first time the courts screwed something up, is it?

I really am not that hyped on the bathroom thing as much as I am about what is intended for the children, that's much more damaging.

The world is just being pushed further into the cesspool by a few selfish people. Oh, well, this will pass, of that I am certain.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Like "religion"?


Yes, for many people, like religion.


----------



## JJ Grandits

Bearfootfarm said:


> Others resort to name calling when they know they have nothing worthwhile to contribute.
> I'm not sure what your comment has to do with the actual topic here


None really. I was referring to a post I had read but my response apparently followed far after. My mistake. I will from now on quote posts I am referring too.

OK, my response was to post #859 by Irish Pixie showing Ann Coulter arrested for using the ladies room.


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> I saw this on Facebook and think it's apt: Normal is a setting on a dryer.


I think the appliance industry is setting itself up for a big "discrimination" lawsuit......eep:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

DEKE01 said:


> If we accept *your definition of gender*, it is about gender only because the Obama administration has decided to make it so. Locker rooms are divided by sex, male and female. Not gender *as you define it*, else there would have to be at least one and maybe several more bathroom choices if each of the genders, *as you define them*, are given their own.
> 
> But in the court case, the transgender didn't want her own gender defined bathroom, she didn't want her own sex defined bathroom. Like a small child, she wanted what someone else had and *stomped her feet and shouted *until her weak parents gave in.


It's not "my" definition

It's *"the"* definition

That's what this case is about, and now you're the one "stomping feet and shouting"


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Yes, for many people, like religion.


Do you know what you're agreeing to there?


----------



## Vahomesteaders

A great read by one qualified to comment on the subject. 

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/06/15145/


----------



## DEKE01

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's not "my" definition
> 
> It's *"the"* definition
> 
> That's what this case is about, and now you're the one "stomping feet and shouting"


Have you conveniently forgotten that we have already established there is a long history of gender = sex , which for this argument is my definition, and you believe, as do some medical dictionaries, that gender can also mean a person's self perceived sexual identity role which may be different from their birth sex. I may have worded that poorly out of sheer ignorance, but that is generally the definition you have based your position in this thread. Hence the "you" and "your" in my prior post. 

If you weren't so busy looking for something to argue about, perhaps you might have noticed it wasn't a denigration of your definition.


----------



## Irish Pixie

I read something this morning and thought that I'd share- all those pedophiles that some are so worried about dressing up as woman to use women's bathrooms are already in the bathroom with our sons. 

The problem is with pedophiles and those that wish to harm, not the transgender.


----------



## Irish Pixie

DEKE01 said:


> Have you conveniently forgotten that we have already established there is a long history of gender = sex , which for this argument is my definition, and you believe, as do some medical dictionaries, that gender can also mean a person's self perceived sexual identity role which may be different from their birth sex. I may have worded that poorly out of sheer ignorance, but that is generally the definition you have based your position in this thread. Hence the "you" and "your" in my prior post.
> 
> If you weren't so busy looking for something to argue about, perhaps you might have noticed it wasn't a denigration of your definition.


Things change, gender no longer equals sex. This is especially true with anything related to psychology.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Vahomesteaders said:


> A great read by one qualified to comment on the subject.
> 
> http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/06/15145/


You tried to slip Dr Paul McHugh through before, he's part of the LGBT hate group The American College of Pediatricians. Which tries very hard to sound like a medical society, but isn't. 

The Witherspoon Institute is a conservative think tank that masquerades as legitimate non biased research facility. 

Read links, research the author, and see who is behind the information.


----------



## thericeguy

As I have said numerous times, our country has a complex political system. It can take decades to sort out legal definitions. One outgoing administration hell bent on creating a legacy besides the one overshadowing it already does not end a discussion. 

Elections happen. States chime in. Very few of these things have occured yet. You are dancing around acting as if it is over, settled, written in stone. We are far far from that day. I would say pretty much at the starting line. 

I understand why you do that. You think it is going your way. Of course you support that. But its far from over. Even abortion is not a "done deal". Also should be a good clue for you to start wrapping your head around the idea that govt can and often do restrict "fundamental rights". The whole we won. Pee anywhere we want now mentality. Well, if you want to think that, no worries. 

But its not as over as you think.


----------



## DEKE01

Irish Pixie said:


> I read something this morning and thought that I'd share- all those pedophiles that some are so worried about dressing up as woman to use women's bathrooms are already in the bathroom with our sons.
> 
> The problem is with pedophiles and those that wish to harm, not the transgender.


Yes, we agreed upon that a long time ago. 

I still think there is something wrong with the opposite sexed person in a locker room, but the pedo issue is a far greater and real danger.


----------



## DEKE01

Irish Pixie said:


> You tried to slip Dr Paul McHugh through before, he's part of the LGBT hate group The American College of Pediatricians. Which tries very hard to sound like a medical society, but isn't.
> 
> The Witherspoon Institute is a conservative think tank that masquerades as legitimate non biased research facility.
> 
> Read links, research the author, and see who is behind the information.


Dr McHugh is no slouch and just because he is conservative and you and the pro-trans site you are about to site disagree with him, does not make him unqualified or wrong. From Wiki: (bolding is mine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._McHugh


_Paul Rodney McHugh (born 1931) is an American psychiatrist, researcher, and educator. *He is University Distinguished Professor of Psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine*[1] and the author, co-author, or editor of seven books within his field...

...Dr. Paul R. McHugh does not agree with the existence of transsexuality. He is the *former psychiatrist-in-chief for John Hopkins Hospital* and is the current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Hopkins. *He argues that transgenderism is a âmental disorderâ that needs to be treated <Chapman>. He also states that changing your sex is ââbiologically impossible,â and that people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorderâ* <Chapman>. Dr. McHugh has written six books and at the least 125 peer-reviewed medical articles. He recently made comments in the Wall Street Journal saying that âtransgender surgery is not the solution for people who suffer a âdisorder of âassumptionââ â the notion that their maleness or femaleness is different than what nature assigned to them biologicallyâ <Chapman>. In recent years the classification of transgender identity as a disease has been criticized by many as enforcing antiquated gender norms... 

...In 1979, in his capacity as chair of the Department of Psychiatry, McHugh ended gender assignment surgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital_


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> As I have said numerous times, our country has a complex political system. It can take decades to sort out legal definitions. One outgoing administration hell bent on creating a legacy besides the one overshadowing it already does not end a discussion.
> 
> Elections happen. States chime in. Very few of these things have occured yet. You are dancing around acting as if it is over, settled, written in stone. We are far far from that day. I would say pretty much at the starting line.
> 
> I understand why you do that. You think it is going your way. Of course you support that. But its far from over. Even abortion is not a "done deal". Also should be a good clue for you to start wrapping your head around the idea that govt can and often do restrict "fundamental rights". The whole we won. Pee anywhere we want now mentality. Well, if you want to think that, no worries.
> 
> But its not as over as you think.


To whom are you directing these statements?


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> To whom are you directing these statements?


The forum readers?


----------



## Irish Pixie

DEKE01 said:


> Dr McHugh is no slouch and just because he is conservative and you and the pro-trans site you are about to site disagree with him, does not make him unqualified or wrong. From Wiki: (bolding is mine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._McHugh
> 
> 
> _Paul Rodney McHugh (born 1931) is an American psychiatrist, researcher, and educator. *He is University Distinguished Professor of Psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine*[1] and the author, co-author, or editor of seven books within his field...
> 
> ...Dr. Paul R. McHugh does not agree with the existence of transsexuality. He is the *former psychiatrist-in-chief for John Hopkins Hospital* and is the current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Hopkins. *He argues that transgenderism is a âmental disorderâ that needs to be treated <Chapman>. He also states that changing your sex is ââbiologically impossible,â and that people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorderâ* <Chapman>. Dr. McHugh has written six books and at the least 125 peer-reviewed medical articles. He recently made comments in the Wall Street Journal saying that âtransgender surgery is not the solution for people who suffer a âdisorder of âassumptionââ â the notion that their maleness or femaleness is different than what nature assigned to them biologicallyâ <Chapman>. In recent years the classification of transgender identity as a disease has been criticized by many as enforcing antiquated gender norms...
> 
> ...In 1979, in his capacity as chair of the Department of Psychiatry, McHugh ended gender assignment surgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital_


I guess I'm just silly but I think Dr's are as easily swayed by their bias as anyone else. The proof is that he affiliates with not one but two anti-LGBT agencies. 

And your last statement is enlightening.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> The forum readers?


Thanks. The way "you" was used throughout the post was confusing.


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> Things change, gender no longer equals sex. This is especially true with anything related to psychology.





Bearfootfarm said:


> It's not "my" definition
> 
> It's *"the"* definition
> 
> That's what this case is about, and now you're the one "stomping feet and shouting"


It's interesting to see people try to change the definition of words when it helps them support a position, and other times they refuse to change a definition for the same reason, rather than just accepting the words for what they are.

So explain to me, if you can, the purpose and meaning of the word "trans" in the term transgender...........if gender doesn't mean "sex"?

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/trans-


----------



## painterswife

farmrbrown said:


> It's interesting to see people try to change the definition of words when it helps them support a position, and other times they refuse to change a definition for the same reason, rather than just accepting the words for what they are.
> *
> So explain to me, if you can, the purpose and meaning of the word "trans" in the term '...........if gender doesn't mean "sex"?
> *
> http://www.dictionary.com/browse/trans-


That is pretty simple. Changing from living as one gender to living as another. Surgery to change the sexual organs is not always involved.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> Thanks. The way "you" was used throughout the post was confusing.


I am not interested in teaching reading comprehension. 

I feel as if most readers instinctively knew when "you" referred to them or not. Maybe some of them can assist with your question.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> ]*I not interested in teaching reading comprehension. *
> 
> I feel as if most readers instinctively knew when "you" referred to them or not. Maybe some of them can assist with your question.[/Q[/B]UOTE]
> 
> Are you getting pleasure from posting nasty responses like the above?


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> thericeguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not interested in teaching reading comprehension.
> *
> I feel as if most readers instinctively knew when "you" referred to them or not. Maybe some of them can assist with your question.[/Q*UOTE]
> 
> Are you getting pleasure from posting nasty responses like the above?
> 
> 
> 
> I even said thank you and still received a snarky response.
Click to expand...


----------



## arabian knight

thericeguy said:


> I am not interested in teaching reading comprehension.
> 
> I feel as if most readers instinctively knew when "you" referred to them or not. Maybe some of them can assist with your question.


There are only such a small few 2 maybe 3 and maybe they can get their heads together and figure it out. LOL


----------



## farmrbrown

painterswife said:


> That is pretty simple. Changing from living as one gender to living as another. Surgery to change the sexual organs is not always involved.





> Changing from living as one gender to living as another.


Yep, I get that from the latin origin, the literal definition of the word "trans-gender."
It is simple.
Now, explain what the term "gender" means in that context........if it doesn't mean to "change from living as one *sex* to living as another"?

Is there another meaning to the word "gender" that I'm missing here?


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> thericeguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]I[/B]* am not interested in teaching reading comprehension.
> 
> I feel as if most readers instinctively knew when "you" referred to them or not. Maybe some of them can assist with your question.[/Q*UOTE]
> 
> Are you getting pleasure from posting nasty responses like the above?
> 
> 
> 
> It is not nasty. It is factual. Just because you agree or disagree with something does not make it right or wrong, good or bad.
> 
> Fact: I am not interested in teaching a reader when the read word applies to them. It is a skill most readers learn naturally.
> 
> Fact 2: Most readers I know, and by inference, readers here probably have that skill.
> 
> See, completely logical on my part. And a fair assessment on my behalf from my perdpective. It is not about enjoying or not. Just stating facts as I see them.
Click to expand...


----------



## Heritagefarm

If a transgender does nothing aside from wear the opposite sex's clothing, they're not transgender in my book, they're a cross dresser.



thericeguy said:


> I am not interested in teaching reading comprehension.
> 
> I feel as if most readers instinctively knew when "you" referred to them or not. Maybe some of them can assist with your question.


Umm, your posts CAN be erratic and confusing. Just saying...



farmrbrown said:


> I think the appliance industry is setting itself up for a big "discrimination" lawsuit......eep:


I feel more like the Air Fluff setting.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Do you know what you're agreeing to there?


Most certainly. There are many people that pass right by the grace and goodness of God just because they do not want to appear to be foolish to some, and then there are others that take comfort in their understanding of that grace and goodness.


----------



## greg273

Shine said:


> Most certainly. There are many people that pass right by the grace and goodness of God just because they do not want to appear to be foolish to some, and then there are others that take comfort in their understanding of that grace and goodness.


 And there are some that use religion as a cover for deep-seated bigotry. For the thousandth time, gay people are no more 'sinners' than anyone else, and it certainly isn't whom they are attracted to that is the sin (and just to head off your standard reply, neither is it 'acting on' that attraction.)


----------



## farmrbrown

greg273 said:


> And there are some that use religion as a cover for deep-seated bigotry. For the thousandth time, gay people are no more 'sinners' than anyone else, and it certainly isn't whom they are attracted to that is the sin (and just to head off your standard reply, neither is it 'acting on' that attraction.)


And for the 1,001st time, no kidding, we're all sinners, except for Christ, the Judge.
Some of us have no problem with that admission, it's the one's that do that will have a problem.


----------



## DEKE01

Irish Pixie said:


> I guess I'm just silly but I think Dr's are as easily swayed by their bias as anyone else. The proof is that he affiliates with not one but two anti-LGBT agencies.
> 
> And your last statement is enlightening.


Agreed, we are all swayed by personal biases. Including you. It is quite possible that prejudices and discrimination you have faced throughout life have so colored your opinion that you instantly believe discrimination as soon as someone complains, even though, apparently, no one can describe the discrimination or adverse consequences. 

McHugh makes a great point, that we don't deal with other mental illnesses in a similar manner, surgically altering someone and expecting the whole world to pretend that it is not a mental illness. Even if he is biased, his logic stands. But that really is not the point of the thread, so I'll give you the last word on Dr. McHugh and return to my search for the discrimination that is the supposed point of the thread.


----------



## Irish Pixie

DEKE01 said:


> Agreed, we are all swayed by personal biases. Including you. It is quite possible that prejudices and discrimination you have faced throughout life have so colored your opinion that you instantly believe discrimination as soon as someone complains, even though, apparently, no one can describe the discrimination or adverse consequences.
> 
> McHugh makes a great point, that we don't deal with other mental illnesses in a similar manner, surgically altering someone and expecting the whole world to pretend that it is not a mental illness. Even if he is biased, his logic stands. But that really is not the point of the thread, so I'll give you the last word on Dr. McHugh and return to my search for the discrimination that is the supposed point of the thread.


I know, religion isn't recognized as a mental illness even tho the symptoms are the similar to transgenderism. What's up with that? Has to be bias, right? 

I've already said why it's discrimination and I'm not repeating myself. Can you drop it now or will you continue to harass me in nearly every post?

ETA: Think of the dueling opinions in this discussion as expert information in a court trial, who's information is more credible?


----------



## logbuilder

logbuilder said:


> I totally agree that you would be hassled. On what basis do you think people would be prompted to hassle you? Your looks, right? You would look out of place and people would react.
> 
> Transgenders believe they are of the other gender. They want to be perceived as of the other gender. The make efforts to look like the gender they believe they are. There are some pictures earlier that demonstrate how successful they can be at looking like the gender they believe they are.
> 
> Now regarding this NC law, you would be required to go into the bathroom associated with your birth gender. You would be requiring people who strive to look like the other gender to go into the opposite bathroom. As you would be hassled, so would they. An 18yo trans 'girl' would be required to use the mens room only to be hassled. Depending on the extent of the hassle, the men doing the hassling could be brought up on charges of harassment, assault, hate crimes. The 'girl' would be subjected to an awful experience. If you kids are watching, you would have to explain it to them. Let's say it is just you and a brawny looking trans male (born female) comes in. Are you more comfortable with them being in your restroom rather in the male?
> 
> Now if we just let them go where they best identify and do their business in a stall, likely nobody will notice.
> 
> Showers in schools, bigger issue. Installation of some shower curtains might be a low cost solution.





logbuilder said:


> Lets just for a moment assume that the proposed law is good and it gets passed. If everyone followed that law, you now have people who _look_ like a female going into the male restroom and people who _look_ like male going into the female restroom. That's the law.
> 
> How will people react? Will they question the person? Hassle them? Should they say nothing?
> 
> I suspect people will not let this go without reacting. I can see how the trans person following the law will be far more uncomfortable by going to the 'proper' restroom.
> 
> Shouldn't this law also contain some type of protection from harassment? Maybe it should be a crime to interfere in any way with someone who is not dressed in the gender of the bathroom. The punishment should be equal to what would be imposed if the trans person when into the illegal restroom.
> 
> I can see it resulting in many more non-trans people getting in trouble than the trans people.
> 
> Plus, now anybody can go into any restroom. If questioned, they just need to say they are trans.
> 
> For those in favor of the law, is this the way you want this to turn out?


I posted both of these and never received any response. Can someone who is for laws that require you to use the one associated with your birth gender please respond? Thanks in advance.


----------



## arabian knight

Yes THOSE people just created a larger problem that it EVER WAS. I see Target is up to One million in stopping to shop t=in their stores. 
Yuppers lets just create a bigger problem for the masses when in fact there was NO PROBLEM to start with. Only in their liberal progressive minds was it a problem.


----------



## thericeguy

Yes, pictures of trans people were posted of those who look like an opposite sex. I believe my reaction was "hawt". But what about this person. The trans teen ejected from the cruz rally. 









Is that a girl looking like a boy, or a boy looking like a boy but saying they are a girl. As best I can tell in that picture, it is a teenage girl, with breasts, looking like a boy. So we have someone who looks like two sexes heading into a bathroom. Not quite the hottie that was chosen to represent trans earlier. 

How about the guy who decided yesterday he has been trans his whole life and just now admitted to himself. Completely male looking, and wants access to the ladies room now. Not quite the hottie noone will notice. 

Same story, but with a female. No hormones. Just accepts she is a man and is now strolling into the mens room. Not quite the bodybuilder pic posted before. 

So will someone become the judge at every restroom? Ok, you look girly enough, so go on in. You are sufficiently butch. Have at it. 

No, none of those things will happen. It makes me chuckle everytime someone says "guy dresses in a dress to go in a restroom". Is there some restroom dress code? No. The guy can dress any way they want and go in that restroom. Same for women in a mens room. 

UNLESS it has nothing to do with clothes, or identities, or anything BUT sexual organs, which are a static thing, concrete in form, and no form of fraud or deception can change that. 

Get it whacked off. Enjoy the ladies room.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> Yes, pictures of trans people were posted of those who look like an opposite sex. I believe my reaction was "hawt". But what about this person. The trans teen ejected from the cruz rally.
> 
> Is that a girl looking like a boy, or a boy looking like a boy but saying they are a girl. As best I can tell in that picture, it is a teenage girl, with breasts, looking like a boy. So we have someone who looks like two sexes heading into a bathroom. Not quite the hottie that was chosen to represent trans earlier.
> 
> How about the guy who decided yesterday he has been trans his whole life and just now admitted to himself. Completely male looking, and wants access to the ladies room now. Not quite the hottie noone will notice.
> 
> Same story, but with a female. No hormones. Just accepts she is a man and is now strolling into the mens room. Not quite the bodybuilder pic posted before.
> 
> So will someone become the judge at every restroom? Ok, you look girly enough, so go on in. You are sufficiently butch. Have at it.
> 
> No, none of those things will happen. It makes me chuckle everytime someone says "guy dresses in a dress to go in a restroom". Is there some restroom dress code? No. The guy can dress any way they want and go in that restroom. Same for women in a mens room.
> 
> UNLESS it has nothing to do with clothes, or identities, or anything BUT sexual organs, which are a static thing, concrete in form, and no form of fraud or deception can change that.
> 
> Get it whacked off. Enjoy the ladies room.


Your problem with the ambiguity of this person's gender is _your_ issue, not theirs. They can use the bathroom in which they identify. 

It's none of your business which bathroom they choose to use.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> Your problem with the ambiguity of this person's gender is _your_ issue, not theirs. They can use the bathroom in which they identify.
> 
> It's none of your business which bathroom they choose to use.


You keep saying that, but it is only true in some peoples minds. You saying it 500 times does not make it a universal truth. 

Society tells all kinds of people what they can and can not do, or a very wide range of topics. Unless you are arguing for a disbandment of govetnment, this issue will get decided by a political procesd, of which I am a part. So, yes, I get my vote in deciding where they pee. 

Or do we ignore the fact the supreme court rarely rules without a dissent. There are few universal unassailable truths. This one is DEFINATELY assailable.

Edit: in case you were unclear, I will be voting for anatomical males pee in the mens room. If you are enough of a hottie to stroll in the ladies room unnoticed, more power to you, exactly as it has been.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Irish Pixie said:


> You tried to slip Dr Paul McHugh through before, he's part of the LGBT hate group *The American College of Pediatricians*. Which tries very hard to sound like a medical society, but isn't.
> 
> The Witherspoon Institute is a conservative think tank that masquerades as legitimate non biased research facility.
> 
> Read links, research the author, and see who is behind the information.


Shine used them as a source to start a thread, and they defined gender is not directly related to biological sex.

It's funny how some want to believe what they say until it's pointed out what they *really* said


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> Shine used them as a source to start a thread, and they defined gender is not directly related to biological sex.
> 
> It's funny how some want to believe what they say until it's pointed out what they *really* said


Interesting. Has nothing to do with me.


----------



## thericeguy

Would you care to respond to the full on male, dressed as a male, walking into s ladies room?


----------



## greg273

thericeguy said:


> Edit: in case you were unclear, I will be voting for anatomical males pee in the mens room. If you are enough of a hottie to stroll in the ladies room unnoticed, more power to you, exactly as it has been.


 So you'd rather have the she-male, who dresses like a woman, and is attracted to men, use the mens bathroom... got it. Seems weird, but whatever. I guess you aren't worried that they may just as well be those pedophiles you've all been talking about sneaking into the ladies room. What, you don't care about young boys getting assaulted now?? 
And unless you are volunteering to stand outside the mens room checking peoples equipment, laws like this are basically unenforceable. That reasonable expectation of privacy extends to the cross-dressers and transgendered individuals also.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> It's interesting to see people try to change the definition of words when it helps them support a position, and other times they refuse to change a definition for the same reason, rather than just accepting the words for what they are.
> 
> So explain to me, if you can, the purpose and meaning of the word "trans" in the term transgender...........if gender doesn't mean "sex"?
> 
> http://www.dictionary.com/browse/trans-


It doesn't mean "biological sex" *only*.
That's been repeated multiple times in this and other threads.

No definitions have been "changed"
Don't confuse the misuse of proper terms with "changing definitions"

Your source linked only defines "trans".
You should have also used them to define "gender":

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/gender?s=t



> noun
> 1.
> either the male or female division of a species, *especially as differentiated by social and cultural roles and behavior:*


Note the absence of the word "sex"


----------



## thericeguy

greg273 said:


> So you'd rather have the she-male, who dresses like a woman, and is attracted to men, use the mens bathroom... got it. Seems weird, but whatever. I guess you aren't worried that they may just as well be those pedophiles you've all been talking about sneaking into the ladies room. What, you don't care about young boys getting assaulted now??
> And unless you are volunteering to stand outside the mens room checking peoples equipment, laws like this are basically unenforceable. That reasonable expectation of privacy extends to the cross-dressers and transgendered individuals also.


Yes, I want that cross dressing full on male in the mens room. Statistically speaking, there are far fewer pedophiles among the trandgender transsexual crowd than among the male population that is not a part of those two groups. It is called risk management.


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> It doesn't mean "biological sex" *only*.
> That's been repeated multiple times in this and other threads.
> 
> No definitions have been "changed"
> Don't confuse the misuse of proper terms with "changing definitions"
> 
> Your source linked only defines "trans".
> You should have also used them to define "gender":
> 
> http://www.dictionary.com/browse/gender?s=t
> 
> 
> 
> Note the absence of the word "sex"


Bill Clinton repeated numerous times he never had sex with Monika. Problem is, must ordinary Americans call oral sex sex. See how it contains the word sex snd all. 

Repeating dribble means nothing to me.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> Interesting. Has nothing to do with me.


I'm not here to teach reading comprehension.(sound familiar?)

I figured people would know if it means them or not.
Evidently you felt defensive enough to start the denials


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Shine used them as a source to start a thread, and they defined gender is not directly related to biological sex.
> 
> It's funny how some want to believe what they say until it's pointed out what they *really* said


Don't you think that you should identify the whole paragraph rather than taking only the portion which supports your argument? [in red]

2. *No one is born with a gender. Everyone is born with a biological sex. Gender (an awareness and sense of oneself as male or female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective biological one. *No one is born with an awareness of themselves as male or female; this awareness develops over time and, like all developmental processes, may be derailed by a child&#8217;s subjective perceptions, relationships, and adverse experiences from infancy forward. People who identify as &#8220;feeling like the opposite sex&#8221; or &#8220;somewhere in between&#8221; do not comprise a third sex. They remain biological men or biological women.2,3,4

and

3. *A person&#8217;s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking.* When an otherwise healthy biological boy believes he is a girl, or an otherwise healthy biological girl believes she is a boy, an objective psychological problem exists that lies in the mind not the body, and it should be treated as such. These children suffer from gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria (GD), formerly listed as Gender Identity Disorder (GID), is a recognized mental disorder in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-V).5 The psychodynamic and social learning theories of GD/GID have never been disproved.2,4,5


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> Bill Clinton repeated numerous times he never had sex with Monika. Problem is, must ordinary Americans call oral sex sex. See how it contains the word sex snd all.
> 
> *Repeating dribble means nothing to me*.


That's why I hardly read what you post anymore.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Don't you think that you should identify the whole paragraph rather than taking only the portion which supports your argument? [in red]
> 
> 2. *No one is born with a gender. Everyone is born with a biological sex. Gender (an awareness and sense of oneself as male or female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective biological one. *No one is born with an awareness of themselves as male or female; this awareness develops over time and, like all developmental processes, may be derailed by a childâs subjective perceptions, relationships, and adverse experiences from infancy forward. People who identify as âfeeling like the opposite sexâ or âsomewhere in betweenâ do not comprise a third sex. They remain biological men or biological women.2,3,4


I've done that many times.
Don't you think you should practice what you preach for a change?

Don't whine about others cherry picking with your sticky red fingers showing


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's why I hardly read what you post anymore.


It is clear to me that you do not like facts. No suprise you try yo ignore me. 

You want to define restroom access by gender. Gender is fluid and unproveable. 

I want to define restroom usage by sex. Sex is concrete. You are male or female. Period. 

Notice how my numerous mentions of yhe political process go unanswered. Your "fundamentsl reality" can be outvoted. That reality, I bet, disturbs you.


----------



## farmrbrown

farmrbrown said:


> So explain to me, if you can, the purpose and meaning of the word "trans" in the term transgender...........if gender doesn't mean "sex"?
> 
> http://www.dictionary.com/browse/trans-





Bearfootfarm said:


> It doesn't mean "biological sex" *only*.
> That's been repeated multiple times in this and other threads.
> 
> No definitions have been "changed"
> Don't confuse the misuse of proper terms with "changing definitions"
> 
> Your source linked only defines "trans".
> You should have also used them to define "gender":
> 
> http://www.dictionary.com/browse/gender?s=t
> 
> 
> 
> Note the absence of the word "sex"




OK, then tell me your definition of *trans-gender*, if it DOESN'T mean "change-sex"?


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> I've done that many times.
> Don't you think you should practice what you preach for a change?
> 
> Don't whine about others cherry picking with your sticky red fingers showing


And the next paragraph says what?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> Don't you think that you should identify the whole paragraph rather than taking only the portion which supports your argument? [in red]
> 
> 2. *No one is born with a gender. Everyone is born with a biological sex. Gender (an awareness and sense of oneself as male or female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective biological one. *No one is born with an awareness of themselves as male or female; this awareness develops over time and, like all developmental processes, may be derailed by a childâs subjective perceptions, relationships, and adverse experiences from infancy forward. People who identify as âfeeling like the opposite sexâ or âsomewhere in betweenâ do not comprise a third sex. They remain biological men or biological women.2,3,4
> 
> and
> 
> 3. *A personâs belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking.* When an otherwise healthy biological boy believes he is a girl, or an otherwise healthy biological girl believes she is a boy, an objective psychological problem exists that lies in the mind not the body, and it should be treated as such. These children suffer from gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria (GD), formerly listed as Gender Identity Disorder (GID), is a recognized mental disorder in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-V).5 The psychodynamic and social learning theories of GD/GID have never been disproved.2,4,5


Which is so unlike thinking that an imaginary figure watches over everyone from an imaginary place in the sky? An imaginary figure that is talked to and sometimes talks back? 

Why is one called faith and completely normal and the other is a mental illness? Can you explain?


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> Which is so unlike thinking that an imaginary figure watches over everyone from an imaginary place in the sky? An imaginary figure that is talked to and sometimes talks back?
> 
> Why is one called faith and completely normal and the other is a mental illness? Can you explain?


84% vs. .3%?


----------



## Heritagefarm

farmrbrown said:


> 84% vs. .3%?


If 80% of people believed the earth was flat, it wouldn't mean the earth was indeed flat. It would just mean 80% of people were in err.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> Which is so unlike thinking that an imaginary figure watches over everyone from an imaginary place in the sky? An imaginary figure that is talked to and sometimes talks back?
> 
> Why is one called faith and completely normal and the other is a mental illness? Can you explain?


By your own admission, God is not real. I want to point out that God is banned as a reason for public policy. Are you arguing transgender and God are the same fallacy? By extension, transgender has no place in public policy.


----------



## thericeguy

farmrbrown said:


> OK, then tell me your definition of *trans-gender*, if it DOESN'T mean "change-sex"?


I have no reason to define anything. This is not about words. This is about eho pees and showers where. Penis right. Vagina left. See how much simpler that is?


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> I have no reason to define anything. This is not about words. This is about eho pees and showers where. Penis right. Vagina left. See how much simpler that is?


Our constitution does not allow laws based on sex.


----------



## thericeguy

farmrbrown said:


> OK, then tell me your definition of *trans-gender*, if it DOESN'T mean "change-sex"?


And for thevrecord, transgender has nothing to do with changing sex. Even transgender people ssy that. That is why they coined the term "gender identity". 

Msle is XY. Female is XX. Are you saying transgender are something else?


----------



## DEKE01

Irish Pixie said:


> I know, religion isn't recognized as a mental illness even tho the symptoms are the similar to transgenderism. What's up with that? Has to be bias, right?
> 
> I've already said why it's discrimination and I'm not repeating myself. Can you drop it now or will you continue to harass me in nearly every post?
> 
> ETA: Think of the dueling opinions in this discussion as expert information in a court trial, who's information is more credible?


There go those control issues again.

If I missed your answer, please point it out to me and I apologize for over looking it, it is a long thread. But don't just point me to where you and Obama insist it is discrimination. I understand that that is your position. I'm looking for an explanation of why it is discrimination and what are the adverse consequences involved, such as loss of job opportunities, etc, as I have explained before. 

But I keep asking about the topic of the thread, discrimination. Does it become harassment at a certain number of posts on the subject? Why do you continue to harass others about religion? You made your point, we know where you stand on the issue, and religion is irrelevant to this thread. AFA my stance, I am anti-bigotry and anti-discrimination. So if someone can explain the discrimination, I might be swayed. 

As to whose info is more credible? Dr McHugh made a life of study and educational leadership on the subject. You cast everything that doesn't support your position as bigoted and anti-LGBT, including him. I think any fair person would have to say he is far more credible.

ETA: I know I said I would give you the last word on McHugh, but in all fairness, you did ask me a question and I thought it only polite to answer it.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> Our constitution does not allow laws based on sex.


If the constitution cannot define sex, how can it protect individuals from discrimination based on sex, s fundamental constitutional guarantee? Wow, read the constitution sometime.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> If the constitution cannot define sex, how can it protect individuals from discrimination based on sex, s fundamental constitutional guarantee? Wow, read the constitution sometime.


Did , I say the constitution can't define sex? Maybe you should stick to what I actually said.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> Our constitution does not allow laws based on sex.


Can you explain to me why certain government contracts are reserved for preferencial trestment to minority groups and women? Are you saying those laws are unconstitutional?


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> Did , I say the constitution can't define sex? Maybe you should stick to what I actually said.


Maybe you should answer my previous post. Laws are based on sex. I proved it. You are wrong.


----------



## thericeguy

And just to complicate things, should I be able to file under those procurement laws to be considered a woman because I say I am?


----------



## DEKE01

painterswife said:


> Did , I say the constitution can't define sex? Maybe you should stick to what I actually said.



The constitution has allowed for sex differentiated laws since it was written. We probably agree that some of those differences were wrong, like women's suffrage. The male only draft has been allowed. I disagree with that one as well, but no one has seen fit to put me on SCOTUS.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> Maybe you should answer my previous post. Laws are based on sex. I proved it. You are wrong.


You keep demanding things. I answer when and what I want to. You have proven nothing and it is getting pretty repetitive.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> By your own admission, God is not real. I want to point out that God is banned as a reason for public policy. Are you arguing transgender and God are the same fallacy? By extension, transgender has no place in public policy.


How did you come up with that? :facepalm: No. I said nothing about public policy, and nothing about the government. 

Sigh. The OP has said many times that transgender is a mental illness, if it is than so is anyone that believes in god. 

Do you understand now?


----------



## painterswife

DEKE01 said:


> The constitution has allowed for sex differentiated laws since it was written. We probably agree that some of those differences were wrong, like women's suffrage. The male only draft has been allowed. I disagree with that one as well, but no one has seen fit to put me on SCOTUS.


Until someone takes them to court and they get thrown out.


----------



## DEKE01

thericeguy said:


> Can you explain to me why certain government contracts are reserved for preferencial trestment to minority groups and women? Are you saying those laws are unconstitutional?


Hey, hey, hey. Don't let facts get in the way of an erroneous opinion. This whole topic would have ended 1000 messages ago if we only considered facts and valid opinions.


----------



## Irish Pixie

DEKE01 said:


> There go those control issues again.
> 
> If I missed your answer, please point it out to me and I apologize for over looking it, it is a long thread. But don't just point me to where you and Obama insist it is discrimination. I understand that that is your position. I'm looking for an explanation of why it is discrimination and what are the adverse consequences involved, such as loss of job opportunities, etc, as I have explained before.
> 
> But I keep asking about the topic of the thread, discrimination. Does it become harassment at a certain number of posts on the subject? Why do you continue to harass others about religion? You made your point, we know where you stand on the issue, and religion is irrelevant to this thread. AFA my stance, I am anti-bigotry and anti-discrimination. So if someone can explain the discrimination, I might be swayed.
> 
> As to whose info is more credible? Dr McHugh made a life of study and educational leadership on the subject. You cast everything that doesn't support your position as bigoted and anti-LGBT, including him. I think any fair person would have to say he is far more credible.
> 
> ETA: I know I said I would give you the last word on McHugh, but in all fairness, you did ask me a question and I thought it only polite to answer it.


Do you think that I somehow owe it to you to do anything? :hysterical: I personally don't care if you believe me, are swayed by anything, nor care if you think the information I provide is credible. 

If you want to know what I've posted read the thread.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> How did you come up with that? :facepalm: No. I said nothing about public policy, and nothing about the government.
> 
> Sigh. The OP has said many times that transgender is a mental illness, if it is than so is anyone that believes in god.
> 
> Do you understand now?


Then do not be suprised at a push to treat them. I am tired, again, of the eillful dodging. Notice painter suddenly exercised his/her right to silence when sbsolutrly busted as wrong. 

Time to take the kids swimming.


----------



## DEKE01

painterswife said:


> Until someone takes them to court and they get thrown out.


I wish you were right, that in court all racial and sex based preferences were ruled unconstitutional. Unfortunately it just aint so. But I'm glad you are coming around to my way of thinking, welcome to the right wing.


----------



## painterswife

DEKE01 said:


> I wish you were right, that in court all racial and sex based preferences were ruled unconstitutional. Unfortunately it just aint so. But I'm glad you are coming around to my way of thinking, welcome to the right wing.


I am not right wing and never thought fighting discrimination at any level was one side or the other. The constitution does not allow it and each of those laws gets struck down when they get taken to Scotus.


----------



## DEKE01

Irish Pixie said:


> Do you think that I somehow owe it to you to do anything? :hysterical: I personally don't care if you believe me, are swayed by anything, nor care if you think the information I provide is credible.
> 
> If you want to know what I've posted read the thread.


My oh my, I feel harassed by that post. I think you are trying to control my posts again. 

To the best of my memory and knowledge, you have never described how it is discrimination nor have you given any adverse consequences of the supposed discrimination. In 1000+ messages about a policy that is supposedly about discrimination, not one of the pro-men-in-the-girl's-locker-room contingent, has seen fit to describe the adverse consequences beyond a girl not being happy that the world doesn't believe she is a boy. 

You apparently want to persuade others as to your belief, or you wouldn't have spent all the time on this thread. It seems very important to you, so I don't understand why you don't want to describe the actual discrimination. It really is the crux of your argument. If you are willing to bash religion and those who believe, why are you not willing to describe the discrimination when you stated in msg#3 "A definite win against discrimination." 

I don't care that you don't care what I think. I'm content to be amused by hypocritical double standards and the utter lack of intellectual effort being put into defending this new policy.


----------



## Irish Pixie

DEKE01 said:


> My oh my, I feel harassed by that post. I think you are trying to control my posts again.
> 
> To the best of my memory and knowledge, you have never described how it is discrimination nor have you given any adverse consequences of the supposed discrimination. In 1000+ messages about a policy that is supposedly about discrimination, not one of the pro-men-in-the-girl's-locker-room contingent, has seen fit to describe the adverse consequences beyond a girl not being happy that the world doesn't believe she is a boy.
> 
> You apparently want to persuade others as to your belief, or you wouldn't have spent all the time on this thread. It seems very important to you, so I don't understand why you don't want to describe the actual discrimination. It really is the crux of your argument. If you are willing to bash religion and those who believe, why are you not willing to describe the discrimination when you stated in msg#3 "A definite win against discrimination."
> 
> I don't care that you don't care what I think. I'm content to be amused by hypocritical double standards and the utter lack of intellectual effort being put into defending this new policy.


Yer a hoot. :hysterical:


----------



## DEKE01

painterswife said:


> I am not right wing and never thought fighting discrimination at any level was one side or the other. The constitution does not allow it and each of those laws gets struck down when they get taken to Scotus.


You are taking a very right wing position, that there should be no racial or sex based preference programs. Welcome to the right wing. 

But you are wrong, the constitution does allow for some bona fide sex and race based preferences. Playboy and your local stripper bar do not have to hire fat ugly men for the center fold or dancers. A movie maker can advertise for and hire only black men to play the roles of male slaves. 

Here is a link to SCOTUS in a 2005 ruling that race based preference programs can be constitutional if they address an industry specific case of disparate impact. https://www.hklaw.com/GovConBlog/Federal-Court-Declares-8A-Program-Unconstitutional-as-Applied-to-Military-Simulation-and-Training-Contracts-08-20-2012/

It remains to be seen if SCOTUS will find the rights and safety of children are sufficient to justify sex separated bathrooms. I think child safety is a compelling gov't interest.


----------



## DEKE01

Irish Pixie said:


> Yer a hoot. :hysterical:


{In his best awe shucks, ma'am voice} why, thank yee, little lady. :kiss:


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> Yer a hoot. :hysterical:


A few dead supreme court justices and you will be toast. Fair trade. You refuse to admit that your fundamental constitutional rights depend on white males who decide what is fundamental. 

Put boys in the girl showers and you will have Democrats voting Republican. Thank you.


----------



## painterswife

DEKE01 said:


> You are taking a very right wing position, that there should be no racial or sex based preference programs. Welcome to the right wing.
> 
> But you are wrong, the constitution does allow for some bona fide sex and race based preferences. Playboy and your local stripper bar do not have to hire fat ugly men for the center fold or dancers. A movie maker can advertise for and hire only black men to play the roles of male slaves.
> 
> Here is a link to SCOTUS in a 2005 ruling that race based preference programs can be constitutional if they address an industry specific case of disparate impact. https://www.hklaw.com/GovConBlog/Federal-Court-Declares-8A-Program-Unconstitutional-as-Applied-to-Military-Simulation-and-Training-Contracts-08-20-2012/
> 
> It remains to be seen if SCOTUS will find the rights and safety of children are sufficient to justify sex separated bathrooms. I think child safety is a compelling gov't interest.


It is my postion and I am not right wing. That would be our biggest political problem in this country. The need to put an opinion in a box based on sides.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> It is my postion and I am not right wing. That would be our biggest political problem in this country. The need to put an opinion in a box based on sides.


So when everything we say is called bias opinion, would that be part of the problem?

Remember days ago when I tried to have a rational discussion with you? Do you mean that kind of polarizing?


----------



## Elevenpoint

Not sure about existing..but when I bid on a small commercial project today the project manager was real clear when I asked him about the bathrooms with one toilet only..no stall..no urinal.
We are building to have no problem with the **** crowd.
Already ahead of the curve.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> So when everything we say is called bias opinion, would that be part of the problem?
> 
> Remember days ago when I tried to have a rational discussion with you? Do you mean that kind of polarizing?


You sure seem to work hard trying to put down how people post instead of only discussing the topic at hand by adding insults to most posts.

I have decided that I will no longer engage with you after this when you use that tactic. Have fun.


----------



## arabian knight

thericeguy said:


> A few dead supreme court justices and you will be toast. Fair trade. You refuse to admit that your fundamental constitutional rights depend on white males who decide what is fundamental.
> 
> Put boys in the girl showers and you will have Democrats voting Republican. Thank you.


Ya they will get their come-up-ins one of these days. And it sure will be a happier country and happier time for the rest of the population. These progressive think they own this, and want every single contain picken thing is for them and then along, forgetting there are 300+ Million Others in this country that do not think in their fantasy world of utopia living.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> A few dead supreme court justices and you will be toast. Fair trade. You refuse to admit that your fundamental constitutional rights depend on white males who decide what is fundamental.
> 
> Put boys in the girl showers and you will have Democrats voting Republican. Thank you.


A few dead Supreme Court Justices, do you mean just the women? Or the women and Clarence Thomas (he's male but not white). Is this something you're planning or just a wish?


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> I know, religion isn't recognized as a mental illness even tho the symptoms are the similar to transgenderism. What's up with that? Has to be bias, right?
> 
> I've already said why it's discrimination and I'm not repeating myself. Can you drop it now or will you continue to harass me in nearly every post?
> 
> ETA: Think of the dueling opinions in this discussion as expert information in a court trial, who's information is more credible?


Court case??? Sure.

Witness: You Honor, it is my contention that this person is a male.
Female Wannabe: You Honor, I am not, I have been living as a woman for over 20 years, I only dress as a woman, I talk like a woman and I do woman things.
Judge: Witness, how do you come by your contention that this person is a male?
Witness: Heck, he was on the high school football team, I know that he is a male.
Judge: How does that make this person male?
Witness: Well your Honor, I don't know any women that have one of those things... Ask him...
Judge: How is it that you claim to be a female?
Female Wannabe: My doctor says that I am a female in a male's body.
Judge: Have you been tested to prove that you are, in fact, a female?
Female Wannabe: No, I have not, the doctor didn't test me.
Judge: Have you had any surgery to change into a woman?
Female Wannabe: No, I don't have enough money to pay for the surgery and the insurance does not cover it.
Judge: Case Closed, From here on forward until the surgical alterations have been completed, you are a male.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> You sure seem to work hard trying to put down how people post instead of only discussing the topic at hand by adding insults to most posts.
> 
> I have decided that I will no longer engage with you after this when you use that tactic. Have fun.


You seem to have decided not to engage numerous times. 

1) when in our discussion we got to current laws about public indecency, and you saw a problem implementing your goal, you duddenly decided to be quiet. 

2) when you got busted telling that absolute lie that laws cannot be based on sex, you decided to be quiet

Again, nothing shocking here. I guess you think I am wrong when I say Democrats will abandon you in masse as soon as you tell them girls will be showering with boys. If you think Obama made a mess of things with Republicans taking control of state govts and both houses, wait til little girls come home and tell momma Johnny has a big XXXX, and they know that cause he was showering in the next stall. Thank you, again.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> A few dead Supreme Court Justices, do you mean just the women? Or the women and Clarence Thomas (he's male but not white). Is this something you're planning or just a wish?


No, I mean a few dead justices that believe in a flexible constitution to support social justice. Nice try to paint me as someone plotting murder. A real Christian would not commit murder. Life is a fundamental right, unlike bathroom access.


----------



## oneraddad

Someone should of let the girls swim a little longer instead of wasting more time on the internet.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> OK, then tell me your definition of *trans-gender*, if it DOESN'T mean "change-sex"?


You're asking questions that have been answered repeatedly.
Scroll back and read if you're still confused


----------



## mreynolds

thericeguy said:


> Can you explain to me why certain government contracts are reserved for preferencial trestment to minority groups and women? Are you saying those laws are unconstitutional?


So, as a man, I can say I am really a woman and get minority government construction jobs AND use the woman's bathroom? 

I say this tongue in cheek but I can see this happening. Its never cut and dried. There is always fall out and the shortsighted cant see it at first. 

Lets do it NOW and think about it later. 

Now being in construction all my life I have seen the phase in of the ADA laws. If *anyone* needed accessibility it was them. It took years to THINK about and implement and even revise. Why the rush now? If Transgender has been with us for thousands of years a few more wont make much difference to THINK about it. 

It would cost less money and _certainly_ less time to build one (or two even) single stall restroom to accommodate. Just my opinion.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> And the next paragraph says what?


It says it's a "mental disorder", much like a study I posted which said the same about religious beliefs, but you claim that is "real"

One is a definition of a word, and the other is a heavily biased opinion

Why run in these same circles again when it's clear you didn't listen the first
(and many subsequent) time(s)


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> By your own admission, God is not real. I want to point out that God is banned as a reason for public policy. Are you arguing transgender and God are the same fallacy? By extension, transgender has no place in public policy.


Religion is what is "banned"
"Transgender" isn't a religion.


----------



## mreynolds

Bearfootfarm said:


> It says it's a "mental disorder", much like a study I posted which said the same about religious beliefs, but you claim that is "real"
> 
> One is a definition of a word, and the other is a heavily biased opinion
> 
> Why run in these same circles again when it's clear you didn't listen the first
> (and many subsequent) time(s)


Maybe its a peer pressure or lack of knowledge disorder. Would people who thought the world was flat be a mental disorder too? 

What you said can go many ways. Some not what you might like them to. 

Just saying.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> And just to complicate things, should I be able to file under those procurement laws to be considered a woman because I say I am?


You are free to come out of the closet any time you like.
At that time you will be entitled to all those privileges


----------



## Bearfootfarm

mreynolds said:


> Maybe its a peer pressure or lack of knowledge disorder.
> 
> *Would people who thought the world was flat be a mental disorder too? *
> 
> What you said can go many ways. Some not what you might like them to.
> 
> Just saying.


No, that was simply ignorance based on a lack of science and education.
Those who *still* think that are mentally ill.

No one is going to change their opinions on this topic, and many are just trying to argue anyway since it's clear they aren't really reading what's been posted.

I'm done with it, and y'all can run in circles without me
(Which I'm sure will generate a lot of replies that will just be wasted effort on their parts)


----------



## mreynolds

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, that was simply ignorance based on a lack of science and education.
> Those who *still* think that are mentally ill.
> 
> No one is going to change their opinions on this topic, and many are just trying to argue anyway since it's clear they aren't really reading what's been posted.
> 
> I'm done with it, and y'all can run in circles without me
> (Which I'm sure will generate a lot of replies that will just be wasted effort on their parts)


I actually agree with you on what you say. But wouldn't both sides of this argument be solved with a single bathroom separate from the public one? 

Isn't that something we could all agree on?


----------



## mreynolds

I mean heck, I would prefer one myself. I really hate that guy next stall over that has to hum when I just want to get done with my own business. I don't need to hear Willie Nelson _Georgia on My Mind _in that state.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> Court case??? Sure.
> 
> Witness: You Honor, it is my contention that this person is a male.
> Female Wannabe: You Honor, I am not, I have been living as a woman for over 20 years, I only dress as a woman, I talk like a woman and I do woman things.
> Judge: Witness, how do you come by your contention that this person is a male?
> Witness: Heck, he was on the high school football team, I know that he is a male.
> Judge: How does that make this person male?
> Witness: Well your Honor, I don't know any women that have one of those things... Ask him...
> Judge: How is it that you claim to be a female?
> Female Wannabe: My doctor says that I am a female in a male's body.
> Judge: Have you been tested to prove that you are, in fact, a female?
> Female Wannabe: No, I have not, the doctor didn't test me.
> Judge: Have you had any surgery to change into a woman?
> Female Wannabe: No, I don't have enough money to pay for the surgery and the insurance does not cover it.
> Judge: Case Closed, From here on forward until the surgical alterations have been completed, you are a male.


I'm sorry you didn't understand what I said. Again. Sigh.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> No, I mean a few dead justices that believe in a flexible constitution to support social justice. Nice try to paint me as someone plotting murder. A real Christian would not commit murder. Life is a fundamental right, unlike bathroom access.


So a christian doesn't care if the justices are dead as long as it leaves enough white men do their bidding? You'd think a christian would care about the justices's families rather than wish for their deaths... I guess not. You'd think a real christian would anyway.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> So a christian doesn't care if the justices are dead as long as it leaves enough white men do their bidding? You'd think a christian would care about the justices's families rather than wish for their deaths... I guess not. You'd think a real christian would anyway.


It might be very upsetting to you to have to face that reality eye to eye and that reality not budge. But the fact is, these fundamental rights that are so sacred that noone can tell a trans what bathroom to use are not fundamental rights at all. They are privileges granted by society. Privileges can and do change. 

They can change through the political process. They can change as technology changes. They can change for various reasons. 

The idealogical makeup of the supreme court will matter quite a lot to the outcome of this brand new topic. When the first girls decided they wanted to play football, they were given access. BUT, when it came time for any disrobing, locker rooms were emptied and secured for safety. There was no fundamental right to shower with the boys, only to shower. 

Trans people have the need for a bathroom. Two of the three available to them cause no disturbance within society. Its the same two choices I have. I can use the room that matches my sex or the unisex/family room. 

So when statements are made like "you or noone can tell a trans where to pee", I just disagree with that. Even if the current system rules against my beliefs, that does not mean it must stay that way forever. Things change, and they can change in both directions.

I give you the 18th and 21st amendments of just how far and fast contitutional rights can change. Fairly unlikely the supreme court would try to rule the constitution unconstitutional.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> It might be very upsetting to you to have to face that reality eye to eye and that reality not budge. But the fact is, these fundamental rights that are so sacred that noone can tell a trans what bathroom to use are not fundamental rights at all. They are privileges granted by society. Privileges can and do change.
> 
> They can change through the political process. They can change as technology changes. They can change for various reasons.
> 
> The idealogical makeup of the supreme court will matter quite a lot to the outcome of this brand new topic. When the first girls decided they wanted to play football, they were given access. BUT, when it came time for any disrobing, locker rooms were emptied and secured for safety. There was no fundamental right to shower with the boys, only to shower.
> 
> Trans people have the need for a bathroom. Two of the three available to them cause no disturbance within society. Its the same two choices I have. I can use the room that matches my sex or the unisex/family room.
> 
> So when statements are made like "you or noone can tell a trans where to pee", I just disagree with that. Even if the current system rules against my beliefs, that does not mean it must stay that way forever. Things change, and they can change in both directions.
> 
> I give you the 18th and 21st amendments of just how far and fast contitutional rights can change. Fairly unlikely the supreme court would try to rule the constitution unconstitutional.


What does this have to do with my post? Pontificate much? Dang.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> What does this have to do with my post? Pontificate much? Dang.


Why do you keep posting about how people post instead of the content of the posts? Is it a control issue? Is it a method to ignore post content?

It has to do with your posts because you have stated many times this issue in centered on constitutional rights. Rights that noone can take away. I was showing you how the political process can and does change what fundamental rights are. The constitution itself even gets altered to define what rights are. 

The constitution has been used to promote some pretty terrible behaviour over the history of this country. It has also been used to stop terrible behaviour. What is seen by society as good or bad changes over time. A win for any opinion is never a forever win as seen by the 18th and 21st. 

You also mentioned females and minorities on the court. Last time I checked, the senate is an exclusive club of rich old white men. They decide who sits on the court, thus shaping and exerting great control and power over it. To me, that makes the court the same views as rich old white men. 

My point is that our rights, agree or disagree, are defined through three branches of government combined with state and local influence. 

It is incorrect to say, as has been said, noone gets to tell trans where to use the restroom. That is factually false. The entire system of government will tell us all who gets to do what, where, and when. That includes your opinion and my opinion in that shaping of that fundamental right which is not really a fundamental right at all.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Nope.


----------



## arabian knight

Sure it is control. When a person only can attack the messenger, rather then THE MESSAGE, they have already lost their stance on the subject. Their cause already has lost the battle when only that takes place.


----------



## JJ Grandits

Irish Pixie said:


> Do you judge all people on their looks, or just LGBT?
> 
> Delusion? You call transgender delusional when you worship an imaginary person that tells you how to live your life? Seriously? Plus your brand of imaginary figure is better than the thousands of other imaginary figures and you (collective you) go to war over who's imaginary figure is better. But transgender people are delusional... Unbelievable.


You seem to take great pride in using every chance there is to insult someone's religion. Especially if that person disagrees with you on a social issue. 
Is this an argumentative strategy or a personal fault?

I did use a unisex bathroom the other day at a college campus I was visiting. It was no big deal, but then again, I had four daughters.
I then talked with a very nice young communist who was defending his master's thesis. I found out later that my wife also talked with him. Her opinion was the same as mine. It was a pleasant afternoon in the land of the politically correct. I spent a lot of time laughing or shaking my head.
What was interesting is that in this bastion of liberal thought the on campus crime rate was through the roof and security was very high yet ineffective.
Im sure boy/girl bathrooms will solve that problem.


----------



## Irish Pixie

JJ Grandits said:


> You seem to take great pride in using every chance there is to insult someone's religion. Especially if that person disagrees with you on a social issue.
> Is this an argumentative strategy or a personal fault?
> 
> I did use a unisex bathroom the other day at a college campus I was visiting. It was no big deal, but then again, I had four daughters.
> I then talked with a very nice young communist who was defending his master's thesis. I found out later that my wife also talked with him. Her opinion was the same as mine. It was a pleasant afternoon in the land of the politically correct. I spent a lot of time laughing or shaking my head.
> What was interesting is that in this bastion of liberal thought the on campus crime rate was through the roof and security was very high yet ineffective.
> Im sure boy/girl bathrooms will solve that problem.


I suggest you read the entire thread.


----------



## farmrbrown

Heritagefarm said:


> If 80% of people believed the earth was flat, it wouldn't mean the earth was indeed flat. It would just mean 80% of people were in err.


Indeed.
Unfortunately, I'm, pretty sure that more than 80% believe it is spherical.......and they are right.

Facts are facts and even when something cannot be proven as a fact, a majority's consensus isn't _necessarily_ considered to be irrelevant.
Such is the reasoning behind society's laws, correct?




Irish Pixie said:


> How did you come up with that? :facepalm: No. I said nothing about public policy, and nothing about the government.
> 
> Sigh. The OP has said many times that transgender is a mental illness, if it is than so is anyone that believes in god.
> 
> Do you understand now?



I understood from many moons ago.
You believe most of the world is mentally ill, except for a small minority.........that the rest of us shake our collective heads at.
:bored:


----------



## Heritagefarm

farmrbrown said:


> Indeed.
> Unfortunately, I'm, pretty sure that more than 80% believe it is spherical.......and they are right.
> 
> Facts are facts and even when something cannot be proven as a fact, a majority's consensus isn't _necessarily_ considered to be irrelevant.
> Such is the reasoning behind society's laws, correct?


I would say so. After all, the consensus argument is something I drag up all the time in climate change discussions. When most everyone agrees on something, it just means it has social acceptance. Otherwise, it's the bandwagon logical fallacy. The public believing the earth is round has no more grounds (haha) than someone saying they're the opposite gender. What matters are the facts; we know from numerous pictures and common sense the earth is round, not because people say so. We also know some people get weird ideas into their head. Honestly, I feel sorry for them. They have to live their lives in constant fear of the "Check sex Male or Female" box.


----------



## Irish Pixie

farmrbrown said:


> Indeed.
> Unfortunately, I'm, pretty sure that more than 80% believe it is spherical.......and they are right.
> 
> Facts are facts and even when something cannot be proven as a fact, a majority's consensus isn't _necessarily_ considered to be irrelevant.
> Such is the reasoning behind society's laws, correct?
> 
> I understood from many moons ago.
> You believe most of the world is mentally ill, except for a small minority.........that the rest of us shake our collective heads at.
> :bored:


Dang. I'll answer you this once because you have it completely and totally wrong. Which I have a feeling you've done on purpose, yet again. 

*IF* transgenders are mentally ill because their gender cannot be proven, than anyone that believes in god is mentally ill as well because god cannot be proven to exist. This is what I've been saying since the whole transgender/mentally illness was brought up. Just where have I said that the "most of the world is mentally ill" can you point it out? 

Do you understand now?


----------



## Heritagefarm

Irish Pixie said:


> Dang. I'll answer you this once because you have it completely and totally wrong. Which I have a feeling you've done on purpose, yet again.
> 
> *IF* transgenders are mentally ill because their gender cannot be proven, than anyone that believes in god is mentally ill as well because god cannot be proven to exist. This is what I've been saying since the whole transgender/mentally illness was brought up. Just where have I said that the "most of the world is mentally ill" can you point it out?
> 
> Do you understand now?


It's not quite the same. The religious have actually more solid footing. They've got a long history of people saying their religion is correct, an extensive of people like them to bounce their beliefs off (confirmation bias), and a book basically handwritten by God. I've yet to see a trans prophet, but I'm sure one will crop up.


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> Dang. I'll answer you this once because you have it completely and totally wrong. Which I have a feeling you've done on purpose, yet again.
> 
> *IF* transgenders are mentally ill because their gender cannot be proven, than anyone that believes in god is mentally ill as well because god cannot be proven to exist. This is what I've been saying since the whole transgender/mentally illness was brought up. Just where have I said that the "most of the world is mentally ill" can you point it out?
> 
> Do you understand now?


Yes, I understand.
Your belief of me is that I am mentally ill because I DO believe in God and I DO believe transgenders have a form of mental illness.
This mentally ill person that believes in God has a remarkable capacity to understand many things about many subjects.

Now, you haven't EXACTLY said that most of the world is mentally ill - yet.
Once I can post a link (one of which I already have) that 84% of the world believes in a Deity (an imaginary a sky figure, to use your words) AND I post the majority of the world's view that a transgender person is likely mentally ill - THEN you can decide whether or not you wish to make that exact statement......





> "most of the world is mentally ill"


----------



## Irish Pixie

farmrbrown said:


> Yes, I understand.
> Your belief of me is that I am mentally ill because I DO believe in God and I DO believe transgenders have a form of mental illness.
> This mentally ill person that believes in God has a remarkable capacity to understand many things about many subjects.
> 
> Now, you haven't EXACTLY said that most of the world is mentally ill - yet.
> Once I can post a link (one of which I already have) that 84% of the world believes in a Deity (an imaginary a sky figure, to use your words) AND I post the majority of the world's view that a transgender person is likely mentally ill - THEN you can decide whether or not you wish to make that exact statement......


You are admitting I never said that "most of the world is mentally ill", right? That you made it up to what, make a point? 

Thank you, and goodbye.


----------



## greg273

thericeguy said:


> But the fact is, these fundamental rights that are so sacred that noone can tell a trans what bathroom to use are not fundamental rights at all. They are privileges granted by society. Privileges can and do change. .


 How do you propose to enforce such a law mandating people use the bathrooms that correspond to their 'birth sex'? Are you volunteering to check peoples privates before they walk into the bathroom?


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> You are admitting I never said that "most of the world is mentally ill", right? That you made it up to what, make a point?
> 
> Thank you, and goodbye.


Yes ma'am.
I never argue with a fact.
I also have come to realize that many people think, what they will never say outright in public.
I'm just not one of those people.
:happy2:


I'll give you an example, remember this thread?

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/specialty-forums/general-chat/548458-your-brains-god-spot.html

There are many on here that wholeheartedly agree that people who believe in a Deity, have brain damage or a brain disease.
When pressed to actually make that statement, they will refuse to do it publicly.
But the obvious is not usually needed to be confirmed with an actual written statement, is it?


----------



## thericeguy

greg273 said:


> How do you propose to enforce such a law mandating people use the bathrooms that correspond to their 'birth sex'? Are you volunteering to check peoples privates before they walk into the bathroom?


The same way all other laws are enforced. When sommeone is caught and reported, the authorities will investigate. 

Recall the photo posted earlier of the trans hottie? Unless they went into the ladies room and stood to pee, noone would know, noone would care, and nothing would ever happen. 

We have a law against speeding. That does not mean people do not speed. It does not mean the government installed secret tracking devices on cars to monitor speed. 

Laws tell a society how individuals and organizations are to behave. If you do not, you are subject to prosecution. 

It seems you are trying to imply that people who want sex defined bathrooms want to behave like the other photo posted with someone looking under a stall. 

I do not understand the basis of your question. 

How do you enforce a murder law? Stalking law? Trespass law? Loitering law? All the same. When suspition of a crime is seen, call authorities. 

So, if you are sporting boobs in the mens room, that might be considered suspicious activity. Simple really to me.


----------



## greg273

thericeguy said:


> The same way all other laws are enforced. When sommeone is caught and reported, the authorities will investigate.
> .


 Kind of like that guy who claims to be a woman creeping into the ladies room to do bad things that you're so worried about. ALthough strangely, you dont seem worried about the shemale who is attracted to men using the mens room. What about the young boys??? Don't you care about them?? This whole uproar is ridiculous and overblown.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm sorry you didn't understand what I said. Again. Sigh.


You asked what evidence would stand up best in court. I provided a quick little blurb to illustrate that a man standing before a judge with male equipment would have a difficult time convincing a judge who has sworn to uphold the law that he is something that he is not. 

I am sorry that you reneged on your question.


----------



## Nevada

greg273 said:


> This whole uproar is ridiculous and overblown.


Well sure. We agreed pages ago that bathroom perversion was very rare.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> You asked what evidence would stand up best in court. I provided a quick little blurb to illustrate that a man standing before a judge with male equipment would have a difficult time convincing a judge who has sworn to uphold the law that he is something that he is not.
> 
> I am sorry that you reneged on your question.


So you think your little "blurb" was _expert information_ provided by people that are knowledgeable in their field? LOL



Irish Pixie said:


> Think of the dueling opinions in this discussion as expert information in a court trial, who's information is more credible?


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> I know, religion isn't recognized as a mental illness even tho the symptoms are the similar to transgenderism. What's up with that? Has to be bias, right?
> 
> I've already said why it's discrimination and I'm not repeating myself. Can you drop it now or will you continue to harass me in nearly every post?
> 
> *ETA: Think of the dueling opinions in this discussion as expert information in a court trial, who's information is more credible?*


That of course would depend on WHOM the Judge is....... 
I guess one day we'll all know whether that "imaginary" Judge is real.....or not.


----------



## Heritagefarm

farmrbrown said:


> Yes ma'am.
> I never argue with a fact.
> I also have come to realize that many people think, what they will never say outright in public.
> I'm just not one of those people.
> :happy2:
> 
> 
> I'll give you an example, remember this thread?
> 
> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/specialty-forums/general-chat/548458-your-brains-god-spot.html
> 
> There are many on here that wholeheartedly agree that people who believe in a Deity, have brain damage or a brain disease.
> When pressed to actually make that statement, they will refuse to do it publicly.
> But the obvious is not usually needed to be confirmed with an actual written statement, is it?


I'm willing to contend that religion is a human construct. I'd be willing to make that statement in public, but it would make all the church goers mad.


----------



## JJ Grandits

Irish Pixie said:


> I suggest you read the entire thread.


I have. I just like throwing out random thoughts. It's my day off.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> So you think your little "blurb" was _expert information_ provided by people that are knowledgeable in their field? LOL


Not sure as you did not provide a retort as to how you might convince a Judge that a man is a woman. What evidence would you use?


----------



## farmrbrown

Shine said:


> Not sure as you did not provide a retort as to how you might convince a Judge that a man is a woman. What evidence would you use?


Evidence and credibility are funny things when facing the Judge and ultimate Truth, aren't they?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> Not sure as you did not provide a retort as to how you might convince a Judge that a man is a woman. What evidence would you use?


I give up. You win. Your blurb is _exactly_ what would happen if two Psychiatrists were on on the witness stand giving expert information about transgenders. Word for word, spot on, good job.  

That was sarcasm for those so impaired.


----------



## Irish Pixie

farmrbrown said:


> Evidence and credibility are funny things when facing the Judge and ultimate Truth, aren't they?


Judge Judy, right? The woman is an ultimate Truth machine. :happy2:


----------



## logbuilder

Irish Pixie said:


> Judge Judy, right? The woman is an ultimate Truth machine. :happy2:


Judge Judy is a joke in terms of following the law. I'm a Judge Marilyn Milian (People's Court) fan.


----------



## thericeguy

It is a long standing legal principle that an individuals clear rights end when public rights start. You have free speech, but not all speech is protected. You cannot cry fire in a crowded theater. The logic is simple. Rational people assume the panic following that speech would endanger the safety of the public. Notice that is a "what if" scenario. It has been said several times in this thread that certain individuals do not "do" what if scenarios. But there is one right in the middle of constitutional law. Why? Because reasonable people should be able to determine with acceptable accuracy how one event/ruling will affect the future. What if. 

So this makes it completely constitutional to consider public safety if gender identity is the threshold to determine access to public places where people are vulnerable, particularly children. 

Regardless if it is right to allow true transgender people into a restroom is right or wrong, it must be weighed against competing interests, namely public safety. One would have to prove the act of giving such access does or does not affect public safety. 

I, and others, have demonstrated a real concern for public safety, not harm from trans, but from pedophiles and other sexual predators. All those concerns have been dismissed as "what if". 

Well, if "what if" is good enough for the supreme court, it is good enough for me. It should be good enough for a debate on HT.


----------



## Irish Pixie

logbuilder said:


> Judge Judy is a joke in terms of following the law. I'm a Judge Marilyn Milian (People's Court) fan.


She's good, but no ultimate Truth machine like JJ.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> I give up. You win. Your blurb is _exactly_ what would happen if two Psychiatrists were on on the witness stand giving expert information about transgenders. Word for word, spot on, good job.
> 
> That was sarcasm for those so impaired.


So, you don't have a retort? Which side has the best Psychiatrists anyway?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> So, you don't have a retort? Which side has the best Psychiatrists anyway?


Sigh. :facepalm:


----------



## Shine

Thought so.


----------



## thericeguy

logbuilder said:


> Could you please restate this question a little more clearly. I'll work on answering it but I want to make sure I understand the question first.


Yes sir, I will restate it more clearly. 

How would you write a law that will hold up to supreme court review that would allow trandgender people access to the restroom of their choosing that would also not allow anyone of any sex into any restroom of their choosing?

In other words, how will you accomodate the needs of transgender people without allowing, for example, a fully heterosexual man into a female restroom?


----------



## Elevenpoint

How does a man wake up in the morning...shower...clean his genitals..then put on makeup..hair..do his nails...womens clothing...and go out in public and use a ladies bathroom?
Silliness.
Then under the same umbrella...call same sex marriage...each other husband and wife?
Plain silly.
Woman calls another woman husband?
Silly.
Man calls another man wife_
Silly.
Cross dressers can use any bathroom...still silly.
You have male genitals in the morning in the shower..and want to use the ladies room because you think your a lady?
Sounds pretty sick to me.
Nobody that I know really cares.
But the discussion lately based upon the demands with others I know..
Just a bunch of wackos....


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

It's a mixed up world except for Lola.

[YOUTUBE]gaMS_5i0Bbs[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> They have the right to enter the bathroom of the gender they identify. You do as well. They don't have more rights than you.


This part confuses me. It is said by those in favor or trans bathroom access that this does not give access to all men to the ladies room, yet this says I also have access to the bathroom of any gender I identify. Confusing, since I could be male on all Mondays and Thursdays, but female the rest of the time. It happens in my mind and I reserve the right to change my mind.


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> I'm a heterosexual male. Are you saying all I have to do is throw on a dress to use the women's restroom?
> 
> 
> 
> Humans are hard wired through evolution to be heterosexual. Deviant behavior exists everywhere, of course.


No. You do not have to throw on a dress. I have never seen a bathroom with a dress code. Either men, all men, can go in a bathroom or not. Anything less sounds like discrimination.


----------



## thericeguy

Nevada said:


> Well sure. We agreed pages ago that bathroom perversion was very rare.


Is that because there are no bathroom perverts, or because the climate had been such that they cannot act on their perversions?


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's no "right to privacy" in a school locker room


This statement seems to imply that it would be OK to film naked teenage girls taking a shower in a school locker room since there is no expectation of privacy allowed.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> Better not shop at Target if you're afraid that you'll somehow be offended by seeing a transgender person washing their hands in the bathroom.
> 
> "Target Corp said on Tuesday that transgender employees and customers can now use the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity, becoming the first big retailer to weigh in on an issue at the center of a heated national debate."
> 
> http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/04/...-transgender-people-use-bathroom-their-choice


It would seem that quite a few people took your advice. Even investors. 

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/05...-target-boycott-blows-past-one-million-335313


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm sorry, I can't help you. I suggest you do some research on LGBT and perhaps you'll understand. Oh, and also on the fact that drugs and pedophilia are illegal while being LGBT is not.


The only difference is a group of lawmakers decided it was illegal to have sex with minors. No fundamental truth to be found in this logic. It would be just as easy to pass a law that states it illegal for a biological male to think of himself as a woman. Would you then support that law because it was illegal behaviour?


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope, it's not. A slave was a viable human being, a fetus is not viable until at least 21 weeks.


Do you know that abortions happen to viable fetuses'? They use a pair of tongs to reach in and crush the skull so that it can be removed. Doesnt seem to be a good reasoning to me.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> If people didn't think their gender identification was all in their head, and use it as a weapon to hurt and mock, perhaps there wouldn't be a high rate of suicide among LGBT?
> 
> You will never understand that gender is not the same as sex as I will never understand how anyone can believe that an imaginary figure somehow has control over lives, and has somehow magically provided a guide to live by if only one believes...
> 
> There is really nothing left to discuss, is there?


I agree with you for once. Gender is not the same as sex. I want bathrooms assigned by sex.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> "For many people, the terms âgenderâ and âsexâ are used interchangeably, and thus incorrectly. This idea has become so common, particularly in western societies, that it is rarely questioned. We are born, assigned a sex, and sent out into the world. For many people, this is cause for little, if any dissonance. Yet biological sex and gender are different; gender is not inherently nor solely connected to oneâs physical anatomy."
> 
> From: https://www.genderspectrum.org/quick-links/understanding-gender/


Again, I agree. Thinking you are a man does not make you a man. Biology does not change. Anatomical males in the mens room please.


----------



## sammyd

> Originally Posted by Irish Pixie
> "For many people, the terms &#8220;gender&#8221; and &#8220;sex&#8221; are used interchangeably, and thus incorrectly. This idea has become so common, particularly in western societies, that it is rarely questioned. We are born, assigned a sex, and sent out into the world. For many people, this is cause for little, if any dissonance. Yet biological sex and gender are different; gender is not inherently nor solely connected to one&#8217;s physical anatomy."


That's fine if you believe it.
I personally don't. And am sick to death of having to treat every mentally unstable group as something that is normal and acceptable.


----------



## JJ Grandits

Irish Pixie said:


> She's good, but no ultimate Truth machine like JJ.


Thank you Irish Pixie, that was very kind of you!

Especially because typing it must have been like chewing mental tin foil.

But to be totally honest my humble comments merely point out the truths that are self evident, but ignored by those suffering from cephalo/rectal inclusion.


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're asking questions that have been answered repeatedly.
> Scroll back and read if you're still confused


I'm not confused and there's no need to scroll back, and no, the question has not been answered by those that say gender does not equal sex.




> OK, then tell me your definition of trans-gender, if it DOESN'T mean "change-sex"?




I'll take the canned response given as an admission that you can't answer the question honestly and with one line definitions like Webster's dictionary can.
The literal definition of transgender means "change sex", that goes all the way back to Latin and therefore if trans = change, then gender = sex.
Any other definition is thus just a figment of someone's overactive imagination.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> *I'm not confused* and there's no need to scroll back, and no, the question has not been answered by those that say gender does not equal sex.
> 
> I'll take the canned response given as an admission that *you can't answer the question honestly and with one line definitions like Webster's dictionary can.*
> The literal definition of transgender means "change sex", that goes all the way back to Latin and therefore if trans = change, then gender = sex.
> Any other definition is thus just a figment of someone's overactive imagination.


If you don't already know the answer, you are confused

I already posted the definition of "gender" from the same source you used, and it didn't mention "sex"

You can keep parroting the word "sex" forever and it won't change one thing.



> Any other definition is thus *just a figment of someone's overactive imagination*.


Just like mystical, mythical beings


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> If you don't already know the answer, you are confused
> 
> I already posted the definition of "gender" from the same source you used, and it didn't mention "sex"
> 
> You can keep parroting the word "sex" forever and it won't change one thing.
> 
> 
> Just like mystical, mythical beings


Again, I'm not confused, I KNOW the definition, and have quoted it.

And I also knew the next canned response would be about your derision of God and believers when I intentionally used the word "imagination".
One day we will ALL discover what is myth and what is truth, that's a guarantee.

You are very predictable as well.
:bored:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> Again, I'm not confused, I KNOW the definition, and have quoted it.
> 
> And I also knew the next canned response would be about your derision of God and believers when *I intentionally used the word "imagination".*
> One day we will ALL discover what is myth and what is truth, that's a guarantee.
> 
> You are very predictable as well.
> :bored:


So you're just trolling
You're predictable also.

But I'm not playing your silly game again because you just want to get the thread locked.

See ya!!


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> It would seem that quite a few people took your advice. Even investors.
> 
> http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/05...-target-boycott-blows-past-one-million-335313





thericeguy said:


> The only difference is a group of lawmakers decided it was illegal to have sex with minors. No fundamental truth to be found in this logic. It would be just as easy to pass a law that states it illegal for a biological male to think of himself as a woman. Would you then support that law because it was illegal behaviour?





thericeguy said:


> Do you know that abortions happen to viable fetuses'? They use a pair of tongs to reach in and crush the skull so that it can be removed. Doesnt seem to be a good reasoning to me.





thericeguy said:


> I agree with you for once. Gender is not the same as sex. I want bathrooms assigned by sex.





thericeguy said:


> Again, I agree. Thinking you are a man does not make you a man. Biology does not change. Anatomical males in the mens room please.


Five cherry picked posts and some from pages ago. Should I feel honored or stalked? :happy2:


----------



## arabian knight

No feel that you are VERY wrong and are outnumbered in your thinking. LOL


----------



## Irish Pixie

arabian knight said:


> No feel that you are VERY wrong and are outnumbered in your thinking. LOL


Post of the day award. LOL


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> If you don't already know the answer, you are confused
> 
> I already posted the definition of "gender" from the same source you used, and it didn't mention "sex"
> 
> You can keep parroting the word "sex" forever and it won't change one thing.
> 
> 
> Just like mystical, mythical beings


You might want to look again, the definition of "Gender" does list sex.

From Merriam-Webster:
* Medical Definition of gender *





_1_*:* sex 1
_2_*:* the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

So, now the argument becomes which definition is the most proper?

I did not see the Psychological Category where one might find what Gender means Psychologically. 

"However, the major expansion in the use of gender followed its adoption by feminists to distinguish the social and cultural aspects of differences between men and women (gender) from biological differences (sex). "

http://haiggroup.oeb.harvard.edu/pu...e-sex-social-change-academic-titles-1945-2001

The premise of the Transgendered person being sane was pushed by the Third Wave of Feminism in the '90s for the Transgendered persons to be accepted as legitimate.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> Five cherry picked posts and some from pages ago. Should I feel honored or stalked? :happy2:


I think that the identified poster should be reported to the Thought Police for saying words that offended another person, That would be most apt.


----------



## oneraddad

Getting offended over the internet must be a mental disorder.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> I think that the identified poster should be reported to the Thought Police for saying words that offended another person, That would be most apt.


Which words did you find offensive?


----------



## Shine

Don't know, you posted a bit about not knowing what to do, to be safe, maybe he should be reported so that you are protected.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

This thread needs more Cow Bell.


----------



## thericeguy

I find it rather telling that the people who make many decisions for "the public" do not live in the public. 

When a federal judge makes a ruling, and the end result of that ruling is that criminals are set free on society, the judge knows darn well that sex offender will not be moving in next door. Exclusive wealthy neighborhoods have perks. 

When the supreme court rules that a boy can shower and change next to a girl in school, it will not affect them. Their children will be in exclusive private schools with the other children of millionaires and billionaires.

I have never seen a photograph taken by a patron of Walmart, Taco Bell, or a gas station of a supreme court justice next to them. I am left with the impression they do not even participate in the same society we do. How easy does it become to make such rulings given this situation. 

In Texas, we have laws intended to protect the people with regard to released secual predators. A partial list would include registering, public database, cant live certain distances from schools, and things like that. 

I have often argued we only need to change all that to one rule. They MUST live within 1 mile of a federal judge. I bet the incentive to keep them in jail shows up quickly when it is their wife or daughter the flasher is exposing himself toward. Or their mother who is raped in her home at 3am by someone with 3 prior convictions. 

It is very easy to tell people what they must endure when you know it will not apply to you or yours.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> Don't know, you posted a bit about not knowing what to do, to be safe, maybe he should be reported so that you are protected.


What on earth are you talking about?


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> I find it rather telling that the people who make many decisions for "the public" do not live in the public.
> 
> When a federal judge makes a ruling, and the end result of that ruling is that criminals are set free on society, the judge knows darn well that sex offender will not be moving in next door. Exclusive wealthy neighborhoods have perks.
> 
> When the supreme court rules that a boy can shower and change next to a girl in school, it will not affect them. Their children will be in exclusive private schools with the other children of millionaires and billionaires.
> 
> I have never seen a photograph taken by a patron of Walmart, Taco Bell, or a gas station of a supreme court justice next to them. I am left with the impression they do not even participate in the same society we do. How easy does it become to make such rulings given this situation.
> 
> In Texas, we have laws intended to protect the people with regard to released secual predators. A partial list would include registering, public database, cant live certain distances from schools, and things like that.
> 
> I have often argued we only need to change all that to one rule. They MUST live within 1 mile of a federal judge. I bet the incentive to keep them in jail shows up quickly when it is their wife or daughter the flasher is exposing himself toward. Or their mother who is raped in her home at 3am by someone with 3 prior convictions.
> 
> It is very easy to tell people what they must endure when you know it will not apply to you or yours.


How would you know what a supreme court justice does or has done in their lifetime? Needing a picture to prove to you that they have lived ordinary lives is bizarre.


----------



## AmericanStand

painterswife said:


> How would you know what a supreme court justice does or has done in their lifetime? Needing a picture to prove to you that they have lived ordinary lives is bizarre.



No. 
Think how often celebraties show up in. Random 
Pictures. The supreams should too.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> How would you know what a supreme court justice does or has done in their lifetime? Needing a picture to prove to you that they have lived ordinary lives is bizarre.


It was stated earlier in the thread a picture of God was needed to have proof of existence. Double standard. I didnt see you tell them anything. 

I have come to expect this from you. Was it you who said to me that I ignore what people say and focus on how they say it. Double standard?

Well, its rather accepted that cameras are everywhere. Police departments shooting people are learning this tough lesson now. It really should be beyond debate at this point. That said, if these people were out and about in the society in which we live, wouldnt it be reasonable that someone, anyone, would have a FB photo up, or instagram?

Quite reasonable to conclude they, in fact, live in a seperate society segregated by wealth and power. Just exactly like the midfle class lives segregated from the daily violence endured by people in poverty in "slums". 

Or do you wish to argue that the middle class reality is the same as a welfare recipient in the projects?


----------



## painterswife

AmericanStand said:


> No.
> Think how often celebraties show up in. Random
> Pictures. The supreams should too.


Hilarious. Celebrities make a living by getting in pictures.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> It was stated earlier in the thread a picture of God was needed to have proof of existence. Double standard. I didnt see you tell them anything.
> 
> I have come to expect this from you. Was it you who said to me that I ignore what people say and focus on how they say it. Double standard?
> 
> Well, its rather accepted that cameras are everywhere. Police departments shooting people are learning this tough lesson now. It really should be beyond debate at this point. That said, if these people were out and about in the society in which we live, wouldnt it be reasonable that someone, anyone, would have a FB photo up, or instagram?
> 
> Quite reasonable to conclude they, in fact, live in a seperate society segregated by wealth and power. Just exactly like the midfle class lives segregated from the daily violence endured by people in poverty in "slums".
> 
> Or do you wish to argue that the middle class reality is the same as a welfare recipient in the projects?


Pictures were never the standard. Proof is the standard, pictures could just be one item that is proof.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> Pictures were never the standard. Proof is the standard, pictures could just be one item that is proof.


Well, no need to waste time typing words to you. You never respond to the content. Questions asked there go unanswered. 

Oh, this is where you will respond with you having free will and answering however you like, and my objection to that merely demonstrates my control issues. Well, based on all previous conversation with you at least.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> Well, no need to waste time typing words to you. You never respond to the content. Questions asked there go unanswered.
> 
> Oh, this is where you will respond with you having free will and answering however you like, and my objection to that merely demonstrates my control issues. Well, based on all previous conversation with you at least.


Why is it that you have to keep telling people what they should or not do? I exercise me free will to ignore when you go off on tangents.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> What on earth are you talking about?


You said that it is possible that someone on this board is stalking you, better safe than sorry, right?

Of course, I might have misunderstood and it is possible that you were not genuine in your voiced concern...


----------



## Shine

painterswife said:


> Why is it that you have to keep telling people what they should or not do? I exercise me free wheel to ignore when you go off on tangents.


Standard fare these days..


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> You said that it is possible that someone on this board is stalking you, better safe than sorry, right?
> 
> Of course, I might have misunderstood and it is possible that you were not genuine in your voiced concern...


I'm shocked that you could have misconstrued the large green smilie at the end of the sentence. ( :happy2: )

What is much more likely that you are just trolling to get things stirred up. I guess you'll have to try harder next time.


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> Well, no need to waste time typing words to you. You never respond to the content. Questions asked there go unanswered.
> 
> Oh, this is where you will respond with you having free will and answering however you like, and my objection to that merely demonstrates my control issues. Well, based on all previous conversation with you at least.


It might have something to do with the fact that sometimes you appear to explore all five corners of a square in a single post.


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> It might have something to do with the fact that sometimes you appear to explore all five corners of a square in a single post.


If you are struggling to keep up with my thoughts, I can put them in seperate posts. Could you identify a post of mine that confused you? I will do my best to clarify it.


----------



## logbuilder

thericeguy said:


> Yes sir, I will restate it more clearly.
> 
> How would you write a law that will hold up to supreme court review that would allow trandgender people access to the restroom of their choosing that would also not allow anyone of any sex into any restroom of their choosing?
> 
> In other words, how will you accomodate the needs of transgender people without allowing, for example, a fully heterosexual man into a female restroom?


I've not forgotten this post, I've just been pondering it.

I don't think we need any new law one way or the other. Just keep doing what has probably been going on for a long time. If you look like a female, go into the female restroom. If you look like a guy, go in the guy's room. You cause any problems, you are subject to existing laws. That has to cut both ways. If someone causes another harm or harassment, they need to be accountable too.


----------



## haypoint

With over 1200 individual comments, it is no doubt a divisive topic. Complex, too.

Let me add to it.

When a child/student (any age) decides they want to self identify (new word for the public to understand) as one of several choices other than what their birth certificate has on it, this is/can be done without parental knowledge. The schools are not communicating with the parents or other legal guardians. 

When I was in high school, every student had Phys Ed. Every day, for a couple years. Following an hour of intense physical activity, we all took showers in a big group shower room, nude.
When I try to relate to what is going on, I assume the locker room is a bunch of guys and a bunch of public nudity. 
But, today, many schools are different. Students aren't taking P.E.. Those that do, aren't taking showers. Those that do take showers have individual shower stalls. 

As a guy, I'm not too concerned over a male-acting woman using a shower stall or toilet stall in a formerly men's room. I do know of numerous assaults or bullying of weaker boys in locker rooms. I suspect manly girls will be similarly victimized. Sort of like stepping out into traffic because pedestrians have the right of way. Law or no law, it is high risk behavior.

You can pass any law you want. But any time a guy, short of Katelyn Jenner, steps into a ladies room, the gals are going to be raising a big, loud, fuss.


----------



## thericeguy

logbuilder said:


> I've not forgotten this post, I've just been pondering it.
> 
> I don't think we need any new law one way or the other. Just keep doing what has probably been going on for a long time. If you look like a female, go into the female restroom. If you look like a guy, go in the guy's room. You cause any problems, you are subject to existing laws. That has to cut both ways. If someone causes another harm or harassment, they need to be accountable too.


I share this same position and have stated it many times.


----------



## thericeguy

haypoint said:


> With over 1200 individual comments, it is no doubt a divisive topic. Complex, too.
> 
> Let me add to it.
> 
> When a child/student (any age) decides they want to self identify (new word for the public to understand) as one of several choices other than what their birth certificate has on it, this is/can be done without parental knowledge. The schools are not communicating with the parents or other legal guardians.
> 
> When I was in high school, every student had Phys Ed. Every day, for a couple years. Following an hour of intense physical activity, we all took showers in a big group shower room, nude.
> When I try to relate to what is going on, I assume the locker room is a bunch of guys and a bunch of public nudity.
> But, today, many schools are different. Students aren't taking P.E.. Those that do, aren't taking showers. Those that do take showers have individual shower stalls.
> 
> As a guy, I'm not too concerned over a male-acting woman using a shower stall or toilet stall in a formerly men's room. I do know of numerous assaults or bullying of weaker boys in locker rooms. I suspect manly girls will be similarly victimized. Sort of like stepping out into traffic because pedestrians have the right of way. Law or no law, it is high risk behavior.
> 
> You can pass any law you want. But any time a guy, short of Katelyn Jenner, steps into a ladies room, the gals are going to be raising a big, loud, fuss.


They raise that fuss because it has been a society norm that men are not allowed there. Remove that norm, let time pass, and the fuss disappears. I have also stated that many times. I do not want to see the fuss go away. 

To support my claim I bring up car alarms. When first introduced people would stop and look around when one went off. Fuss. Now, after hearing 1000 false alarms, noone even blinks. A car alarm, IMO, is no longer a thing to fear for a car thief as it no longer draws attention.


----------



## painterswife

DOJ says that transgender discrimination laws are illegal. Just announced on Fox news.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> DOJ says that transgender discrimination laws are illegal. Just announced on Fox news.


And that is just an opinion of the Executive branch. It means nothing. Judges decide these things. You know that.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> And that is just an opinion of the Executive branch. It means nothing. Judges decide these things. You know that.


Fine, it's not illegal, but if not removed federal funding will stop to NC public schools. The DOJ can stop federal funding. You know that. 

Better?


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> And that is just an opinion of the Executive branch. It means nothing. Judges decide these things. You know that.


Yes, judges do, when the DOJ takes them to court.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> Fine, it's not illegal, but if not removed federal funding will stop to NC public schools. The DOJ can stop federal funding. You know that.
> 
> Better?


They have THREATENED to remove funding. Do you not think an emergency injunction will be filed with a request for immediate redress at the supreme court? You know how these things happen, right?


----------



## thericeguy

When the Republicans threatened to shut down the govt, and did it, how did that work out for them?

Closing the schools will carry some significant backlash. I bet Obama paid attention.


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> Yes, judges do, when the DOJ takes them to court.


Removing federal funding to public schools should do the trick and quick.


----------



## Nevada

haypoint said:


> With over 1200 individual comments, it is no doubt a divisive topic. Complex, too.


Well yeah. And after 1200 comments nobody has mentioned where Linux system administrators have to pee. Given a choice, I'm not real sure that ANYONE wants us. :happy2:

Then there's my neighbor, who has a bumper sticker similar to this:










I don't know if that's legal, but I know that I don't want to be alone in the men's room with him.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> Removing federal funding to public schools should do the trick and quick.


You are right, and I hope that happens. Who gets blamed will be a tossup. Lets take it to the boiling point straight away. A knife will not do when we have bazookas.


----------



## thericeguy

But if it goes against you, your goals are set back 50 years. Thats how IN YOUR FACE goes. The other person either walks away a coward or decks you.


----------



## thericeguy

Maybe they will end welfare to keep schools open. This has real promise.


----------



## thericeguy

Nevada said:


> Well yeah. And after 1200 comments nobody has mentioned where Linux system administrators have to pee. Given a choice, I'm not real sure that ANYONE wants us. :happy2:
> 
> Then there's my neighbor, who has a bumper sticker similar to this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if that's legal, but I know that I don't want to be alone in the men's room with him.


Sorry. We cannot let you. You have access to root. You could sudo in. If you tried, I would be forced to /bin/bash you


----------



## thericeguy

Nevada, I used to own a vanity domain wherearethelinuxchiks.org. When I eould telnet or log in to a shell, usually owned by a friend, I would get contacted by a sysadmin asking if there was a website. Whats the program called again? Talk?

Who doesnt want a linux chick, right?


----------



## Heritagefarm

Irish Pixie said:


> Removing federal funding to public schools should do the trick and quick.


Sadly, that may not actually lower the education level for some of them.


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> Fine, it's not illegal, but if not removed federal funding will stop to NC public schools. The DOJ can stop federal funding. You know that.
> 
> Better?



Good, the sooner the better.




Heritagefarm said:


> Sadly, that may not actually lower the education level for some of them.



How true.
At this point a few dollars isn't going to change the education, or lack of it, in this state or in this country.
:huh:


----------



## DEKE01

painterswife said:


> DOJ says that transgender discrimination laws are illegal. Just announced on Fox news.


Maybe you are making progress. Did DOJ explain how it is discrimination since no one in HT can do so?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

DEKE01 said:


> Maybe you are making progress. *Did DOJ explain* how it is discrimination since no one in HT can do so?


Yes, quite clearly


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, quite clearly


It is quite legal to discriminate so long as due process has been given.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> It is quite legal to discriminate so long as due process has been given.


The Governor will be happy to learn his problems are solved
You should E-Mail him the good news with a CC to the DOJ


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> The Governor will be happy to learn his problems are solved
> You should E-Mail him the good news with a CC to the DOJ


It has yet to be determined if due process has been given. Why would I email the governor? He will not be speaking to the supreme court. The state attorney general will. Wait. Did you know that? If you didn't, that's what will happen. They might choose to hire a lawyer experienced is supreme court presentation, but very very unlikely to be the governor.


----------



## thericeguy

I understand why you came here excited about the news story. It feels like a win. I probably would have done the same thing. I dont fault you for that. 

But the reality is that letter means nothing. It is the Obama administration using the bully pulpit to fight a public battle. They are hoping to flood the state reps with letters, e-mails, and calls from concerned parents that schools might close. Its a pressure campaign to make people accept something they would not otherwise accept. It is thuggery.


----------



## painterswife

I posted news relevant to a story that is being discussed. You are the one assigning feelings to that post.


----------



## thericeguy

Furthermore, it is logical to conclude that the Obama administration may be hoping to aboid a high court ruling. As soon as one state law is ruled constitutional, then everyone knows what legal jargon, what angle, what tactic works. They are then free to craft their own law. States are watching this unfold. 

It might be considered far better to get them to repeal the law than to duke it out in court. Thats why the childish threat. To avoid a decision.


----------



## Shine

I wonder, if a person somehow thought that they were actually quadrupedal, would anyone care if they had surgery to replace their arms and hands with legs and feet? 

No, I really think that everyone would allow for it if this person passed sanity tests.

Now, after the surgery is completed, is that the time for them to sue the government to change things so that quadrupeds have the ability to live in this world without difficulty? I mean they could force the government to alter the government locations so that they could open doors, etc. with their "feet", require schools to provide them with a means of performing as if they were a normal student and other such nonsense...

Oh, but wait, what if they are only in transition? Can we set up the new rules now?


----------



## thericeguy

Shine said:


> I wonder, if a person somehow thought that they were actually quadrupedal, would anyone care if they had surgery to replace their arms and hands with legs and feet?
> 
> No, I really think that everyone would allow for it if this person passed sanity tests.
> 
> Now, after the surgery is completed, is that the time for them to sue the government to change things so that quadrupeds have the ability to live in this world without difficulty? I mean they could force the government to alter the government locations so that they could open doors, etc. with their "feet", require schools to provide them with a means of performing as if they were a normal student and other such nonsense...
> 
> Oh, but wait, what if they are only in transition? Can we set up the new rules now?


I think those decisions might revolve around their religious beliefs. If they were Christian, no way. If atheist, 3 trillion seems a fair and reasonable accommodation.


----------



## wr

Shine said:


> I wonder, if a person somehow thought that they were actually quadrupedal, would anyone care if they had surgery to replace their arms and hands with legs and feet?
> 
> No, I really think that everyone would allow for it if this person passed sanity tests.
> 
> Now, after the surgery is completed, is that the time for them to sue the government to change things so that quadrupeds have the ability to live in this world without difficulty? I mean they could force the government to alter the government locations so that they could open doors, etc. with their "feet", require schools to provide them with a means of performing as if they were a normal student and other such nonsense...
> 
> Oh, but wait, what if they are only in transition? Can we set up the new rules now?


I'm not sure that you're aware that transgender people are required to go through rigorous evaluations before any physical transformations are done so it's really not a matter of waking up one morning, making a claim and having it accepted.


----------



## DEKE01

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, quite clearly


So why can't you describe it? LOL

What a hopelessly lost group.


----------



## thericeguy

wr said:


> I'm not sure that you're aware that transgender people are required to go through rigorous evaluations before any physical transformations are done so it's really not a matter of waking up one morning, making a claim and having it accepted.


No examination is being required to grant access intonmy daughters restroom or shower. Seems the govt needs to talk with the surgeons.


----------



## Nevada

thericeguy said:


> Nevada, I used to own a vanity domain wherearethelinuxchiks.org. When I eould telnet or log in to a shell, usually owned by a friend, I would get contacted by a sysadmin asking if there was a website. Whats the program called again? Talk?
> 
> Who doesnt want a linux chick, right?


Are you asking what terminal program I use? There are a few good ones, but I happen to use PuTTY. I normally administrate Linux remotely from a Windows 10 workstation. PuTTY works well with Windows.

We no longer enable telnet for terminal access on a server. The problem with telnet is that it's not encrypted, so there is a risk that a hacker might intercept login credentials in plain text using a packet sniffer. Instead, we use the SSH protocol (short for Secure SHell), which is basically encrypted telnet.

But there are still a few legitimate uses for telnet clients. For example, telnet is the preferred method for auditing an email server handshake for problems.

No Linux chick in my life. I used to meet them at the annual Defcon conference, but registration fees went through the roof. Today, nobody I know personally here in Las Vegas understands what I do or how I do it. But I'm used to it. In my pre-Internet life I was a ChemE working in the oil refining industry. Friends & neighbors knew that I worked for an oil company, but they didn't have a clue what I did there.


----------



## Shine

wr said:


> I'm not sure that you're aware that transgender people are required to go through rigorous evaluations before any physical transformations are done so it's really not a matter of waking up one morning, making a claim and having it accepted.


Yes, I understand what you are saying. For the Surgery, it is quite rigorous I am seeing, and really, if a male makes their selves into a female via surgical and legal means then regrettably, if I am still opposed then that onus is on me for the conduct and care of me and mine. 

The law or directive or whatever they call it is not requiring much of anything to grant these new accesses to people who might or might not be the targeted group though.

And, it is this new "proto-group" who might not even be a candidate(s) for the Surgical progression onto another "sex" that are to be granted these new and unheard of accesses that are now placed before everyone to tow the line to...


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, quite clearly


Yup.


----------



## DEKE01

Irish Pixie said:


> Yup.


But you can't describe it. . Funny how you and others are so willing to argue every point of the supposed discrimination, the definition of gender, insinuate anyone who is not with you is a bigot, put down anyone of faith, you are even willing to yell harassment when questioned, but you can't even describe the discrimination in 1000+ messages. 

This whole thread is a big joke. Well done. :sly:


----------



## painterswife

It has been described plenty. That you don't agree with the description is not our problem.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> It has been described plenty. That you don't agree with the description is not our problem.


The only description I have seen is "the govt said".


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> The only description I have seen is "the govt said".


Not an unexpected statement from you.


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> Not an unexpected statement from you.


Oh snap.


----------



## farmrbrown

thericeguy said:


> I understand why you came here excited about the news story. It feels like a win. I probably would have done the same thing. I dont fault you for that.
> 
> But the reality is that letter means nothing. It is the Obama administration using the bully pulpit to fight a public battle. They are hoping to flood the state reps with letters, e-mails, and calls from concerned parents that schools might close. Its a pressure campaign to make people accept something they would not otherwise accept. It is thuggery.





thericeguy said:


> Furthermore, it is logical to conclude that the Obama administration may be hoping to aboid a high court ruling. As soon as one state law is ruled constitutional, then everyone knows what legal jargon, what angle, what tactic works. They are then free to craft their own law. States are watching this unfold.
> 
> It might be considered far better to get them to repeal the law than to duke it out in court. Thats why the childish threat. To avoid a decision.




Sometimes it's good to look at a team's record before placing any bets.......... 


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ation-lost-two-thirds-of-cases-duri/?page=all


*"President Obama celebrated the Supreme Court&#8217;s decisions Wednesday on gay marriage, but overall it has been a rocky term before the court for his administration, winning just more than a third of the cases in which it was involved.

Lawyers said the government traditionally averages about a 70 percent winning percentage before the high court. Its advantages are so great that the Justice Department&#8217;s chief Supreme Court attorney, the solicitor general, is dubbed the &#8220;10th Justice.&#8221;

"Ilya Somin, a constitutional law professor at George Mason University, said it is striking to take into account the number of times the Obama administration has been on the losing end of unanimous decisions.

&#8220;When the administration loses significant cases in unanimous decisions and cannot even hold the votes of its own appointees &#8212; Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan &#8212; it is an indication that they adopted such an extreme position on the scope of federal power that even generally sympathetic judges could not even support it,&#8221; said Mr. Somin, adding that presidents from both parties have a tendency to make sweeping claims of federal power. &#8220;This is actually something that George W. Bush and Obama have in common.&#8221;




"Relaying Mr. Obama&#8217;s reaction, White House spokesman Jay Carney said the president described the DOMA ruling as &#8220;historic&#8221; and the Proposition 8 ruling as a &#8220;tremendous victory.&#8221;

The rulings, though, were not complete victories for Mr. Obama&#8217;s stances. The court did not decide whether same-sex marriage is a constitutional right or address whether the California law is unconstitutional."
*


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

And in other Transgender news today..
Caitlyn Jenner to pose nude for Sports Illustrated cover.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/caitlyn-jenner-to-pose-nude-for-sports-illustrated-cover/


----------



## thericeguy

Many years ago National Geographic embraced the metric system. All articles were printed in hectares and meters. Subscriptions took a very big hit.


----------



## mrsgcpete

thericeguy said:


> No examination is being required to grant access intonmy daughters restroom or shower. Seems the govt needs to talk with the surgeons.


you havent been worried about the pedophiles in the mens' room for the last few centuries and you guys dont always even have stalls.


----------



## thericeguy

mrsgcpete said:


> you havent been worried about the pedophiles in the mens' room for the last few centuries and you guys dont always even have stalls.


There is a difference. A difference noone yet has been willing to discuss. Up to this point in our nations history, any man entering a ladies room would be greeted by purses to the head and screams to alert everyone an unacceptable thing is happening. 

We are now being told that anyone claiming to be a female on the inside is indeed a female and can use any restroom they please. See?

Do you want me in your shower? Would that be acceptable to you? How about any child you might have? Grandkids?

This isnt pretend land.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> It has yet to be determined if due process has been given. *Why would I email the governor?* He will not be speaking to the supreme court. The state attorney general will. Wait. Did you know that? If you didn't, that's what will happen. They might choose to hire a lawyer experienced is supreme court presentation, but very very unlikely to be the governor.


If you have to ask, it's not worth the effort to explain
The Atty General thinks it's a stupid law too


----------



## haypoint

Everyone should get their own category.
Once upon a time there were mostly just heterosexuals and a few spinsters and bachelor farmers. 
Then we became enlightened by recognizing homosexuals. Then we switched from child molesters to pedophiles, so it sounds like an illness. We even gave weirdo men that dress up like women their own term, cross dressers. That's guys that wear nylons and bras but still are intimate with women. Next, we divided up the lesbians into their feminine and butch categories. We shouldn't forget those attracted to everyone, without regard to their genitalia, bi-sexual.

Next would be Drag Queens, loosely defined as male cross dressing homosexuals.

With the program of hormones, electrolysis, implants and penis inversion, we get transsexuals and that creates a whole spectrum, dictated by the stages of their progress.

More recently in the news, transgenders, people that identify as the opposite sex they were born with but still use the parts they were born with. Generally, to the casual observer, they would be homosexuals.

But, with the recent announcement from the new Katelyn Jenner, we have come to realize that a person, born as a man, can identify as a female, get implants and wig and makeup to look like a woman but still have a sexual relationship with a woman. I guess that in the foreplay portion of an encounter, they would appear to be lesbians, transforming into a heterosexual consummation of the sex act.

There have also been interviews with people that do not identify as man or woman or any other current categories. They are non-sexual. 

There is a case where a woman, enrolled into an all female university, made a claim that because she now self-identifies as a man, is demanding that the university install men's restrooms to accommodate her. 

I'm sure I've forgotten a few categories or sub-categories, plus I suspect that once this craze gets rolling, we'll have a bunch more.

If you pass for a woman, change your name to a woman's name and head for the ladies toilet stall. 

Perhaps we need to build a building with nothing but restrooms and a classroom at the end of the hall?


----------



## Shine

mrsgcpete said:


> you havent been worried about the pedophiles in the mens' room for the last few centuries and you guys dont always even have stalls.


That is a very foolish statement. Your implication is a slap in the face to any decent person reading your words. 

Pedophiles do not make themselves known especially where a father is in close location and I did not send my children into the bathrooms alone until they were old enough to practice safe awareness.

You should be ashamed at such a suggestion to anyone.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

DEKE01 said:


> So why can't you describe it? LOL
> 
> What a hopelessly lost group.


If you can't read it and comprehend it, why should I waste my time rehashing?
Scroll back


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> That is a very foolish statement. Your implication is a slap in the face to any decent person reading your words.
> 
> Pedophiles do not make themselves known especially where a father is in close location and I did not send my children into the bathrooms alone until they were old enough to practice safe awareness.
> 
> You should be ashamed at such a suggestion to anyone.


You should be ashamed to call people "sick perverted sinners", but you don't seem to mind that at all.

When you can't refute the message, you attack the messenger.


----------



## mrsgcpete

Shine said:


> That is a very foolish statement. Your implication is a slap in the face to any decent person reading your words.
> 
> Pedophiles do not make themselves known especially where a father is in close location and I did not send my children into the bathrooms alone until they were old enough to practice safe awareness.
> 
> You should be ashamed at such a suggestion to anyone.


i am absolutely not ashamed. Isnt the whole problem that folks have with transgender people in the bathrooms of their choice is that they are going to be men in dresses taking sexual advantage of young children? that is the definition of pedophelia. there are young people that are unsupervised and vulnerable in both bathrooms, why would a man bother to put on a dress?


----------



## thericeguy

mrsgcpete said:


> i am absolutely not ashamed. Isnt the whole problem that folks have with transgender people in the bathrooms of their choice is that they are going to be men in dresses taking sexual advantage of young children? that is the definition of pedophelia. there are young people that are unsupervised and vulnerable in both bathrooms, why would a man bother to put on a dress?


Why do people keep saying this? Why would they have to put on a dress? Transgender happens in the mind, not the wardrobe. Women wear jeans and a tshirt plenty. There is no bathroom dress code. A biker man in full leather with a beard can stroll into a womans room once this standard becomes a standard. No dresses required.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> You should be ashamed to call people "sick perverted sinners", but you don't seem to mind that at all.
> 
> When you can't refute the message, you attack the messenger.


Whatever, I have not called an individual such and I'll be that you cannot prove that I have. To say that we are not watching out for our children is not only a lie, but it is distasteful.

You play whatever game you want so that you can act as if you are pristine, we know different.

Pot, meet Mr. Kettle


----------



## Shine

mrsgcpete said:


> i am absolutely not ashamed. Isnt the whole problem that folks have with transgender people in the bathrooms of their choice is that they are going to be men in dresses taking sexual advantage of young children? that is the definition of pedophelia. there are young people that are unsupervised and vulnerable in both bathrooms, why would a man bother to put on a dress?


You must come from another planet with presumptions such as this. And, if you had read the previous postings, at the very least, my postings, you would know that the answer to the question that you are attempting to build your straw man argument for has a false basis. No one here is suggesting that transgendered people are the problem as there have been few to no reported instances. So, now you want to try to tell us that we have a problem with transgendered people because "we" think that they are pedophiles? That is your supposition, not ours. Don't try to pin that on us. Pay attention.

So yes, you are in the wrong here.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Whatever,* I have not called an individual such* and* I'll be that you cannot prove that I have*. To say that we are not watching out for our children is not only a lie, but it is distasteful.
> 
> You play whatever game you want so that you can act as if you are pristine, we know different.
> 
> Pot, meet Mr. Kettle


You most certainly have, and have never protested when others did the same.



> I'll be that you cannot prove that I have


1000 posts back you also denied having previously discussed your transgender friends. 

Do you really want me to look for the evidence of your past statements about "sinners, perverts, or mentally ill"?


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> You most certainly have, and have never protested when others did the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 1000 posts back you also denied having previously discussed your transgender friends.
> 
> Do you really want me to look for the evidence of your past statements about "sinners, perverts, or mentally ill"?


I do. While your doing that, locate that mysterious unfindable post that tells us all what discrimination there is in saying males in the mens room.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Shine said:


> You must come from another planet with presumptions such as this. And, if you had read the previous postings, at the very least, my postings, you would know that the answer to the question that you are attempting to build your straw man argument for has a false basis. No one here is suggesting that transgendered people are the problem as there have been few to no reported instances. So, now you want to try to tell us that we have a problem with transgendered people because "we" think that they are pedophiles? That is your supposition, not ours. Don't try to pin that on us. Pay attention.
> 
> So yes, you are in the wrong here.


"The problem... with transgender people... bathroom of their choice... men in dress... definition of pedophilia."

This was also an example of false-cause logical fallacy.


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> You should be ashamed to call people "sick perverted sinners", but you don't seem to mind that at all.
> 
> When you can't refute the message, you attack the messenger.









> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Shine View Post
> Whatever, I have not called an individual such and I'll be that you cannot prove that I have.






thericeguy said:


> I do. While your doing that, locate that mysterious unfindable post that tells us all what discrimination there is in saying males in the mens room.



Don't hold your breath waiting for the "proof".

I was curious, because I've seen that same accusation before, several times and from more than one person, so I searched for it.
:umno:
Each time, those very words were in the accuser's post, but not Shine's.
The closest he ever came was a post about how we ALL are sinners and a Christian's obligation to point it out and expecting the same correction when we err ourselves.

There was also one reference in the same-sex wedding cake topic that the bakers were being forced to comply with a biblical "abomination".

Other posters did use some of the language Shine has been accused of using, but not him. In order for some people to justify their actions, they have to shift the blame and guilt to someone else.
It's just human nature.


----------



## DEKE01

painterswife said:


> It has been described plenty. That you don't agree with the description is not our problem.


I guess you are not willing to admit the truth because in the long thread it is not obvious you have failed to answer my question. I'll keep repeating it as long as you falsely claim to have answered it. What discrimination occured and what were the adverse consequences other than the mentally ill girl not getting other people to agree to a lie? 

The loony left has for so long argued that up is down that they no longer recognize the simple truth that no matter how much a person may want to be the opposite gender, it will never be so.


----------



## DEKE01

Bearfootfarm said:


> If you can't read it and comprehend it, why should I waste my time rehashing?
> Scroll back


A lie is a lie. 

Perhaps you can't read and comprehend the question because you haven't answered ir. You are afraid to try. Because you can't.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> I do. While your doing that, locate that mysterious unfindable post that tells us all what discrimination there is in saying males in the mens room.


It's not my fault you can't find it


----------



## Bearfootfarm

DEKE01 said:


> *A lie is a lie.*
> 
> Perhaps you can't read and comprehend the question because you haven't answered ir. You are afraid to try. Because you can't.


It was answered before you asked.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> *Don't hold your breath waiting for the "proof".*
> 
> I was curious, because I've seen that same accusation before, several times and from more than one person, so I searched for it.
> :umno:
> Each time, those very words were in the accuser's post, but not Shine's.
> The closest he ever came was a post about how we ALL are sinners and a Christian's obligation to point it out and expecting the same correction when we err ourselves.
> 
> There was also one reference in the same-sex wedding cake topic that the bakers were being forced to comply with a biblical "abomination".
> 
> *Other posters did use some of the language* Shine has been accused of using, but not him. In order for some people to justify their actions, they have to shift the blame and guilt to someone else.
> It's just human nature.


It may well have been in a deleted post or thread, but I'm sure I've seen it.
There's been no shortage of such terms used, as you admitted above

We're still waiting for your proof of someone "celebrating" Finicum's death.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> That is a very foolish statement. Your implication is a slap in the face to any decent person reading your words.
> 
> Pedophiles do not make themselves known especially where a father is in close location and I did not send my children into the bathrooms alone until they were old enough to practice safe awareness.
> 
> You should be ashamed at such a suggestion to anyone.


Mrsgcpete's statement absolutely true. There are far more pedophiles than there are transgenders but the bathroom police is worried about seeing a transgender woman washing her hands and touching up her makeup in a woman's bathroom.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bearfootfarm said:


> It was answered before you asked.


Some people, even online, try to use control to force people to do what they want. It's a type of head game, and I think they derive an odd sort of satisfaction from it, especially when they ask repeatedly. It's probably a psychological issue that stems from no control in their personal life. But that's just a guess on my part.


----------



## DEKE01

Some people on line resort to lies when their arguments are so weak and empty they have nothing else to add.


----------



## painterswife

Just because you don't like the answer does not mean it is a lie.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> Mrsgcpete's statement absolutely true. There are far more pedophiles than there are transgenders but the bathroom police is worried about seeing a transgender woman washing her hands and touching up her makeup in a woman's bathroom.





Irish Pixie said:


> Some people, even online, try to use control to force people to do what they want. It's a type of head game, and I think they derive an odd sort of satisfaction from it, especially when they ask repeatedly. It's probably a psychological issue that stems from no control in their personal life. But that's just a guess on my part.


Some people, even online , try to use denial to force people to do what they want. It's a type of legal game, and I think they derive an odd sort of satisfaction from it, especially when they deny reality repeatedly. It's probably a psychological issue that stems from a suspended reality in their personal life. But that's just a guess on my part.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael...ansgendered-men-dont-become-women-they-become
End of story.


----------



## Txsteader

One has to wonder what liberals consider as perverted/deviant behavior these days.


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> One has to wonder what liberals consider as perverted/deviant behavior these days.


There are lots of things that I think are perverted/deviant behaviour that men and women do together. Guess what, it does not matter as long as they are both willing and don't involve me in it.

Transgender are not involving you in what you think is perverted. They just want to use the facilities in peace. They don't want to rape or sexually assult. They don't want to peek at your private parts or flash theirs.

Discriminating against them because you are scared someone who does want to commit a crime will use this is against our constitution and will be struck down in the long run.


----------



## thericeguy

Txsteader said:


> One has to wonder what liberals consider as perverted/deviant behavior these days.


If this gets adopted, the next group up will be the Man Boy Love Society, telling us we have to reverse all child molestation laws so they can practice their lifestyle freely.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> There are lots of things that I think are perverted/deviant behaviour that men and women do together. Guess what, it does not matter as long as they are both willing and don't involve me in it.
> 
> Transgender are not involving you in what you think is perverted. They just want to use the facilities in peace. They don't want to rape or sexually assult. They don't want to peek at your private parts or flash theirs.
> 
> Discriminating against them because you are scared someone who does want to commit a crime will use this is against our constitution and will be struck down in the long run.


Using that same constitutional logic, can you explain why cocaine is illegal in the US?


----------



## greg273

thericeguy said:


> If this gets adopted, the next group up will be the Man Boy Love Society, telling us we have to reverse all child molestation laws so they can practice their lifestyle freely.


 And they will be shot down, but you knew that.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

thericeguy said:


> If this gets adopted, the next group up will be the Man Boy Love Society, telling us we have to reverse all child molestation laws so they can practice their lifestyle freely.


I believe that is next in the game plan.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> Using that same constitutional logic, can you explain why cocaine is illegal in the US?


I don't think it should be illegal. Just like alcohol, pot, smoking etc. I have no problem with restrictions. We all know that these laws are being fought and changing as we speak.


----------



## Txsteader

painterswife said:


> There are lots of things that I think are perverted/deviant behaviour that men and women do together. Guess what, it does not matter as long as they are both willing and don't involve me in it.
> 
> Transgender are not involving you in what you think is perverted. They just want to use the facilities in peace. They don't want to rape or sexually assult. They don't want to peek at your private parts or flash theirs.
> 
> Discriminating against them because you are scared someone who does want to commit a crime will use this is against our constitution and will be struck down in the long run.


Can you tell the difference between a transgender and a pervert based only on appearance?

Look up the definition of 'transgender'. Notice the term self-identification in that definition.


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> Can you tell the difference between a transgender and a pervert based only on appearance?
> 
> Look up the definition of 'transgender'. Notice the term self-identification in that definition.


Why does it matter? Can you tell who is going to sexual assault someone by looking?


----------



## dixiegal62

Txsteader said:


> Can you tell the difference between a transgender and a pervert based only on appearance?
> 
> Look up the definition of 'transgender'. Notice the term self-identification in that definition.


That's easy.. 
obvious man dressed in drag = good person with only good intentions for all
man dressed as a man = bad guy 

:nanner:


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> I don't think it should be illegal. Just like alcohol, pot, smoking etc. I have no problem with restrictions. We all know that these laws are being fought and changing as we speak.


Ok, fair enough, but you did not answer my question. Why have billionaire drug cartels not been able to find a single lawyer able to convince the supreme court this law is unconstitutional?


----------



## Irish Pixie

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael...ansgendered-men-dont-become-women-they-become
> End of story.


Sigh. Dr. Paul R. McHugh has an extreme and obvious bias against LGBT and he has been discussed ad nauseam. Please try to keep up.


----------



## thericeguy

dixiegal62 said:


> That's easy..
> obvious man dressed in drag = good person with only good intentions for all
> man dressed as a man = bad guy
> 
> :nanner:


So its ok to discriminate based on clothing? That seems unconstitutional in light of the fact people are arguing we cannot discriminate based on unknowable self proclaimed truths and realities.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> Ok, fair enough, but you did not answer my question. Why have billionaire drug cartels not been able to find a single lawyer able to convince the supreme court this law is unconstitutional?


I did answer your question. Pretty clearly as well. No wonder you keep thinking people have not answered your questions you keep moving the bar.


----------



## Irish Pixie

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> I believe that is next in the game plan.


You really think that pedophilia will become legal? Why? Do you support it? I don't, and no one I know does.


----------



## painterswife

Irish Pixie said:


> You really think that pedophilia will become legal? Why? Do you support it? I don't, and no one I know does.


Neither does the constitution.


----------



## thericeguy

greg273 said:


> And they will be shot down, but you knew that.


20 years ago, everyone *KNEW* men would never be allowed in a ladies room. The government would never stand for it. 

Slippery slope arguments are false, unless it really is slippery.


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> I did answer your question. Pretty clearly as well. No wonder you keep thinking people have not answered your questions you keep moving the bar.



Winner winner chicken dinner. 

And when they don't like the answer they simply say it was never answered and use that as their mantra.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> One has to wonder what liberals consider as perverted/deviant behavior these days.


What do conservatives consider perverted and/or deviant these days?


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> I did answer your question. Pretty clearly as well. No wonder you keep thinking people have not answered your questions you keep moving the bar.


You shared your PERSONAL views on the legality of cocaine. I did not ask you for your PERSONAL views on the legality of cocaine. I asked you why cocaine is illegal and the laws banning it have never been ruled unconstitutional. You answered a question, just not the one I asked. I await your answer to my question, still.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

Irish Pixie said:


> Sigh. Dr. Paul R. McHugh has an extreme and obvious bias against LGBT and he has been discussed ad nauseam. Please try to keep up.


No need to be rude. I don't belive I have shown you disrespect. 
40 years experience at JH. Doesn't count..


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> 20 years ago, everyone *KNEW* men would never be allowed in a ladies room. The government would never stand for it.
> 
> Slippery slope arguments are false, unless it really is slippery.


And 150+ years ago everyone considered blacks to be sub-human. It took legislation to force some Americans to treat them as equals. Same thing with LGBT now. It's sad that people have to be legally forced to treat others like human beings, isn't it?


----------



## dixiegal62

thericeguy said:


> So its ok to discriminate based on clothing? That seems unconstitutional in light of the fact people are arguing we cannot discriminate based on unknowable self proclaimed truths and realities.


I think you missed the dancing banana 
People who support this any bathroom for anyone would have you believe that anyone dressed as a woman is good and anyone dressed as their real sex is questionable. They would have you teach your sons and daughters never to question that creepy man trying to look like a woman because its not PC.
They would be taught to ignore their instincts but only in that case, ignoring the fact that bad comes in all forms and dress.


----------



## Irish Pixie

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> No need to be rude. I don't belive I have shown you disrespect.
> 40 years experience at JH. Doesn't count..


Dr. Hughes experience at Johns Hopkins counts but his obvious bias against LGBT does as well. 

I apologize. Dr. Hughes has been discussed many times on this thread alone and I assumed you were ignoring the information that proves his bigotry.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> And 150+ years ago everyone considered blacks to be sub-human. It took legislation to force some Americans to treat them as equals. Same thing with LGBT now. It's sad that people have to be legally forced to treat others like decent human beings, isn't it?


Laws did not change people. People changed people. If laws forced people to treat each other a certain way, there would be no murder, rape, incest, or discrimination. 

You have to win the minds of people. I dare say I think your personal approach in that is seriously flawed. You are alienating people.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

Thank you. I just read the article before I posted it.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> Dr. Hughes experience at Johns Hopkins counts but his obvious bias against LGBT does as well.
> 
> I apologize. Dr. Hughes has been discussed many times on this thread alone and I assumed you were ignoring the information that proves his bigotry.


So the suicide rate among transgenders is not higher than other groups of people? That is bias?


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> You shared your PERSONAL views on the legality of cocaine. I did not ask you for your PERSONAL views on the legality of cocaine. I asked you why cocaine is illegal and the laws banning it have never been ruled unconstitutional. You answered a question, just not the one I asked. I await your answer to my question, still.


I guess then you will have to be clearer on what you are asking. You keep having to clarify in subsequent posts because people don't answer the way you want. It is a pattern. No wonder you think people don't answer you.

it is illegal because not enough people have cared enough to fight the bad laws. My personal view as what this discussion is all about.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> Laws did not change people. People changed people. If laws forced people to treat each other a certain way, there would be no murder, rape, incest, or discrimination.
> 
> You have to win the minds of people. I dare say I think your personal approach in that is seriously flawed. You are alienating people.


That's your opinion and it is certainly not universal. My opinion is there would still be segregation if the government didn't make it illegal. 

You are using blatantly illegal acts, they've always been illegal and they always will be illegal in the US. Totally differently than the government being forced to enact legislation to stop discrimination against other American citizens.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> I guess then you will have to be clearer on what you are asking. You keep having to clarify in subsequent posts because people don't answer the way you want. It is a pattern. No wonder you think people don't answer you.
> 
> it is illegal because not enough people have cared enough to fight the bad laws. My personal view as what this discussion is all about.


With millions of people having served or serving drug sentences, with liberal Presidents coming and going, never once has anyone thought this might be unconstitutional? I am sorry, but that is an obsurd notion. 

If you feel it in unconstitutional, why are you not championing the cause to free all those people in jail for drug charges? There are WAY more of them than trans, so a far larger injustice. 

I will venture a guess. You know it is constitutional to outlaw cocaine. Everyone does, that is why it is a non issue. That restriction on our personal right to freedom can and is legal, just like countless other restrictions. And it is constitutional to restrict bathroom access in the same exact way on the same exact legal principles. The correct words only need to be written down as law. 

I think THAT is why you didnt answer the question. I think that is why you try to divert attention away from you avoiding the question and onto me by accusing me of a "pattern on behaviour". Your moves are very transparent to me.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> That's your opinion and it is certainly not universal. My opinion is there would still be segregation if the government didn't make it illegal.
> 
> You are using blatantly illegal acts, they've always been illegal and they always will be illegal in the US. Totally differently than the government being forced to enact legislation to stop discrimination against other American citizens.


Laws do not make things constitutional. Slavery was blatantly legal, was it not? So you argue the existence of a law decides if it is constitutional or not? Then how does the court strike down laws? Bad bad argument. 

Rights supercede laws.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> With millions of people having served or serving drug sentences, with liberal Presidents coming and going, never once has anyone thought this might be unconstitutional? I am sorry, but that is an obsurd notion.
> 
> If you feel it in unconstitutional, why are you not championing the cause to free all those people in jail for drug charges? There are WAY more of them than trans, so a far larger injustice.
> 
> I will venture a guess. You know it is constitutional to outlaw cocaine. Everyone does, that is why it is a non issue. That restriction on our personal right to freedom can and is legal, just like countless other restrictions. And it is constitutional to restrict bathroom access in the same exact way on the same exact legal principles. The correct words only need to be written down as law.
> 
> I think THAT is why you didnt answer the question. I think that is why you try to divert attention away from you avoiding the question and onto me by accusing me of a "pattern on behaviour". Your moves are very transparent to me.


Where did I say anything about the constitution with regards to laws about cocaine? Moving that bar everytime you post will never get you the answer you want.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> Where did I say anything about the constitution with regards to laws about cocaine? Moving that bar everytime you post will never get you the answer you want.


You did not mention anything about the constitution and cocaine, I did, in the wuestion you do not answer because you can only give an answer that destroys the assumption you made if your original post. Transparent.


----------



## thericeguy

And we both know nothing would get an answer 

You cannot give one while maintaining your position


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> You did not mention anything about the constitution and cocaine, I did, in the wuestion you do not answer because you can only give an answer that destroys the assumption you made if your original post. Transparent.


I answered. I am not your puppet. Don't care if you don't like how or what I answered. You don't control me.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> Laws do not make things constitutional. Slavery was blatantly legal, was it not? So you argue the existence of a law decides if it is constitutional or not? Then how does the court strike down laws? Bad bad argument.
> 
> Rights supercede laws.


Nonsensical and fallacious, and I never said that laws make "things" constitutional.


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> It may well have been in a deleted post or thread, but I'm sure I've seen it.
> There's been no shortage of such terms used, as you admitted above
> 
> We're still waiting for your proof of someone "celebrating" Finicum's death.



Then it will be a loooooooooooooooooong wait. :happy2:
I'm not going back there with you again, you're on your own.

The real question (and it will somehow never be answered) is.........
Out of ALL the people on planet earth, including those doing life sentences in prison, are there NO "sick, perverts or sinners" in the crowd?

I assume you and your cohorts who make lots of statements about bigots and those religious people you believe are mentally ill, have never heard anything that *you WOULD* consider "sick, perverted or sinful"?
Right?
Because only bad people use those terms, not nice tolerant, enlightened, educated ones, isn't that true?
After all what that man does with that other person (even if that person is someone's little boy or girl) is "none of my business".
Actually putting that label on those actions is absolutely verboten is this brave new world, correct?




Txsteader said:


> One has to wonder what liberals consider as perverted/deviant behavior these days.


You don't have to wonder for long. 



Irish Pixie said:


> You really think that pedophilia will become legal? Why? Do you support it? I don't, and no one I know does.





painterswife said:


> Neither does the constitution.


Of course not. No one on this forum knows anything of the sort.
The only thing we know is that people who believe in God have brain damage and use bad words to describe those among us who are just "different", that's all.
Shame on those bad, brain damaged/mentally ill people. Someone needs to take away their freedom at least long enough to enlighten and educate them, before we allow them back into our tolerant society again - a place with no judgment and where everything is ok to be who you are and do whatever you want.
:soap:


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> I answered. I am not your puppet. Don't care if you don't like how or what I answered. You don't control me.


Fine, I will answer it myself for the benefit of anyone else who cares. 

We are granted rights in this country. Technically speaking, we granted them to ourselves since we wrote the framework for those rights. We also wrote the framework for when and how the government can legally deny us those rights we granted to ourselves. 

Most Americans are familiar with the phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". But this is not an unqualified right. The government is given power to restrict those rights so as to prevent anarchy where anything that makes someone happy becomes a right granted. 

Life. The government performs executions. It has been challenged numerous times at the supreme court. Since it still exists to this day, we must conclude it is constitutional for the government to deprive its citizens of a thing as fundamental as life itself.

Liberty. The government places people in jails and prisons. Once there, you lose all control to decide where you will be, what you will eat, how you will dress, even when you can speak. All liberties are stripped. Since this has been a practice long held in our country, one must conclude it is constitutional or it would have been struck down ages ago. 

The pursuit of happiness. Jail makes a fine example here as well, but since cocaine came up, I will use the choice to use cocain as a personal pursuit of happiness. A person using cocaine effects noone else. That act harms noone except possibly the person themselves, and used responsibly, will not even harm the user. Yet the government restricts the right to use cocaine. Many drug cases have gone before the high court. There were countless opportunities for the court to strike down this restriction. It never has once. So even this restriction of an act that harms noone is constitutional. 

Why? How can the government have the power to place these, and many more, restrictions on our lives? Legislation. The power to write and enforce laws by duly elected officials who represent the will of the people. 

If the government can strap you down and inject you with medications to cause your death, I find it to be a suspension of fact and reality that same government cannot tell you which room you must pee in. 

Power to the people!


----------



## painterswife

farmrbrown said:


> Of course not. No one on this forum knows anything of the sort.
> The only thing we know is that people who believe in God have brain damage and use bad words to describe those among us who are just "different", that's all.
> Shame on those bad, brain damaged/mentally ill people. Someone needs to take away their freedom at least long enough to enlighten and educate them, before we allow them back into our tolerant society again - a place with no judgment and where everything is ok to be who you are and do whatever you want.
> :soap:


I don't think people that believe in god are brain damaged but nor do I believe that transgender people are brain damaged. That is the point. How can you believe one is but not the other using the criteria you do to get to one decision.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> I don't think people that believe in god are brain damaged but nor do I believe that transgender people are brain damaged. That is the point. How can you believe one is but not the other using the criteria you do to get to one decision.


Both could be wrong. The trans might not really be a woman and there might not be a God. There is no legal or moral restriction in choosing to believe something that is wrong. If there was a movement to try and commit trans people as insane, I would oppose it. 

It boils down to making other people believe it. Our government is banned from forcing you to believe in any particular God, which includes no God. That is a stance I agree with. 

You are arguing, in essence, that I have to believe that is not a man/boy next to my daughter in the shower. That is a woman trapped in a mans body by a mistake at conception. 

For the same reasons I would defend you against a govt telling you to pledge faith to a God, I say nope, that's a man standing there. Arrest them please for indecent exposure.


----------



## flewism

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael...ansgendered-men-dont-become-women-they-become
> End of story.





Irish Pixie said:


> Sigh. Dr. Paul R. McHugh has an extreme and obvious bias against LGBT and he has been discussed ad nauseam. Please try to keep up.


Dr. Hughes only disagrees in the medical treatment of transgender youth which currently is promoting their desires to identify with the opposite sex .
I find nothing in his statements against lesbian, gay, bisexual, persons.

There seems to be quite a cottage industry developing to service their wish to change sexual identity.


----------



## farmrbrown

painterswife said:


> I don't think people that believe in god are brain damaged but nor do I believe that transgender people are brain damaged. That is the point. How can you believe one is but not the other using the criteria you do to get to one decision.


And I have provided an answer to that several pages ago, unlike some posters, a few typewritten words is not a monumental task for me, deserving a condescending remark, to go back and read it again.

My answer?

84% vs. .3%.

The number of people worldwide who DO believe in a god of some kind versus the number of people that believe they were born in the wrong body.
One is a large majority and the other is a tiny minority.

Given the odds of probability (math not emotion) which of the two has the greater chance of being considered a suspected result of mental illness, the 84% or the .3%?


----------



## Heritagefarm

Irish Pixie said:


> Mrsgcpete's statement absolutely true. There are far more pedophiles than there are transgenders but the bathroom police is worried about seeing a transgender woman washing her hands and touching up her makeup in a woman's bathroom.


About 3-4% of people are inclined to pedophilia versus 0.3% transgender, yes?

Yes, the false-cause correlation logical fallacy works very nicely for this one.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> *You are arguing, in essence, that I have to believe that is not a man/boy next to my daughter in the shower.* That is a woman trapped in a mans body by a mistake at conception.
> 
> For the same reasons I would defend you against a govt telling you to pledge faith to a God, I say nope, that's a man standing there. Arrest them please for indecent exposure.


Not I am not arguing that. You don't have to believe anything. You just don't get to decide what they believe and how they live their lives.


----------



## Heritagefarm

farmrbrown said:


> And I have provided an answer to that several pages ago, unlike some posters, a few typewritten words is not a monumental task for me, deserving a condescending remark, to go back and read it again.
> 
> My answer?
> 
> 84% vs. .3%.
> 
> The number of people worldwide who DO believe in a god of some kind versus the number of people that believe they were born in the wrong body.
> One is a large majority and the other is a tiny minority.
> 
> Given the odds of probability (math not emotion) which of the two has the greater chance of being considered a suspected result of mental illness, the 84% or the .3%?


Did anyone ever say they actually thought religion was a mental illness? I don't remember that, so your argument gets the red herring logical fallacy award.

You also get the special pleading logical fallacy award:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading


----------



## Irish Pixie

Heritagefarm said:


> About 3-4% of people are inclined to pedophilia versus 0.3% transgender, yes?
> 
> Yes, the false-cause correlation logical fallacy works very nicely for this one.
> 
> https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause


Can you explain please?


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> Both could be wrong. The trans might not really be a woman and there might not be a God. There is no legal or moral restriction in choosing to believe something that is wrong. If there was a movement to try and commit trans people as insane, I would oppose it.
> 
> It boils down to making other people believe it. Our government is banned from forcing you to believe in any particular God, which includes no God. That is a stance I agree with.
> 
> You are arguing, in essence, that I have to believe that is not a man/boy next to my daughter in the shower. That is a woman trapped in a mans body by a mistake at conception.
> 
> For the same reasons I would defend you against a govt telling you to pledge faith to a God, I say nope, that's a man standing there. Arrest them please for indecent exposure.


I couldn't detect a logical fallacy here. I think you have a point. It seems like people are trying to change people's minds by creating new little micro-laws. Someone told me it's illegal, in the NY subway, for men to sit normal with their legs spread even slightly, because it could be interpreted they're advertising their "wares." WTH?
You don't have to believe them. But it seems like they'd like acceptance.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Irish Pixie said:


> Can you explain please?


The rate of pedophilia is much higher than the rate of transgerism. There are probably some pedophile trans, and some trans pedophiles. "Elephants are grey things, but not all grey things are elephants."
Since correlation is not causation, we can't with certainty say transgender people are pedophiles. Therefore, I think it's fair to say the false-cause fallacy works good.


----------



## arabian knight

*Widespread Mental Illness Taking Over America, One Bathroom at a Time*

By Megan Fox May 5, 2016 
chat 64 comments 
https://pjmedia.com/parenting/2016/...-bathroom-at-a-time/?singlepage=true#comments


----------



## dixiegal62

arabian knight said:


> *Widespread Mental Illness Taking Over America, One Bathroom at a Time*
> 
> By Megan Fox May 5, 2016
> chat 64 comments
> https://pjmedia.com/parenting/2016/...-bathroom-at-a-time/?singlepage=true#comments


 From the article:
" The reason transgendered people want to use the bathroom of their choice is to avoid the opposite sex, am I right? So now, they can't anymore, either! Now, a transgendered woman may have to get undressed in front of a Joe Sixpack who wants to take photos on his phone to upload to some porn channel somewhere. Great. Now we all suffer."

Exactly!


----------



## Irish Pixie

Heritagefarm said:


> The rate of pedophilia is much higher than the rate of transgerism. There are probably some pedophile trans, and some trans pedophiles. "Elephants are grey things, but not all grey things are elephants."
> Since correlation is not causation, we can't with certainty say transgender people are pedophiles. Therefore, I think it's fair to say the false-cause fallacy works good.


That isn't what I said. I said that although there are many more pedophiles than transgenders the bathroom police are more worried about the transgender woman washing her hands at the sink than the pedophile that has been using the men's bathroom with their sons for decades. 

Where is the causation fallacy?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> Can you tell the difference between a transgender and a pervert based only on appearance?
> 
> Look up the definition of 'transgender'. Notice the term self-identification in that definition.


Can you tell the difference in a priest and a pervert based only on appearance?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> *Laws did not change people.* People changed people. If laws forced people to treat each other a certain way, there would be no murder, rape, incest, or discrimination.
> 
> You have to win the minds of people. I dare say I think your personal approach in that is seriously flawed. You are alienating people.


Then these laws won't change anyone either.
There will be no increase in crime, and in a couple of months it will be largely forgotten



> You are alienating people


So are you.
You'll get over it


----------



## farmrbrown

Heritagefarm said:


> Did anyone ever say they actually thought religion was a mental illness? I don't remember that, so your argument gets the red herring logical fallacy award.
> 
> You also get the special pleading logical fallacy award:
> 
> https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading


No, they won't actually put that precise thought in print.
Among the members that have posted their thoughts on this is that meddlesome little word "if" that they will put in bold letters if I were to quote their posts here, to offer "proof".
As long as they use the word "if" in their comments aimed at believers in God, they have a bullet proof alibi.

The claim is that they know exactly how we feel about others, but they are immune to this ability to read between the lines.
:bored:

I wonder if my many false assumptions, include the "logical fallacy" of using the mathematical laws of probability?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> Then it will be a loooooooooooooooooong wait. :happy2:
> I'm not going back there with you again, you're on your own.
> 
> The real question (and it will somehow never be answered) is.........
> Out of ALL the people on planet earth, including those doing life sentences in prison,* are there NO "sick, perverts or sinners" in the crowd?*
> 
> I assume you and your cohorts who make lots of statements about bigots and those religious people you believe are mentally ill, *have never heard anything that you WOULD consider "sick, perverted or sinful"?
> Right?*
> Because only bad people use those terms, not nice tolerant, enlightened, educated ones, isn't that true?
> After all what that man does with that other person (even if that person is someone's little boy or girl) is "none of my business".
> Actually putting that label on those actions is absolutely verboten is this brave new world, correct?
> 
> You don't have to wonder for long.
> 
> Of course not. No one on this forum knows anything of the sort.
> The only thing we know is that people who believe in God have brain damage and use bad words to describe those among us who are just "different", that's all.
> Shame on those bad, brain damaged/mentally ill people. Someone needs to take away their freedom at least long enough to enlighten and educate them, before we allow them back into our tolerant society again - a place with no judgment and where everything is ok to be who you are and do whatever you want.
> :soap:


I didn't say they didn't exist.

I clearly said many here have used those terms to describe those with whom they disagree while at the same time using bible verses as a weapon.

There's an entire thread started by Shine trying to convince everyone transgenders are mentally ill.



> *have never heard anything that you WOULD consider "sick, perverted or sinful"?
> Right?*


I have no control of what you *claim* to have "heard" since you quite often overlook things right in front of you. 

I don't consider much of anything "sinful" since that's a religious term and too arbitrary to pin down. 

Even sinners can't agree on what it means since they both complain and commit at the same time



> In a religious context, sin is the act of violating God's will. Sin can also be viewed as anything that violates the ideal relationship between an individual and God; or as any diversion from the perceived ideal order for human living. To sin has been defined as "to miss the mark".


----------



## Heritagefarm

Irish Pixie said:


> That isn't what I said. I said that although there are many more pedophiles than transgenders the bathroom police are more worried about the transgender woman washing her hands at the sink than the pedophile that has been using the men's bathroom with their sons for decades.
> 
> Where is the causation fallacy?


My argument for fallacy was aimed at someone a while back, like that mscrjhyf person, not you. Do you detect a fallacy within your own argument? This would be highly enlightened thinking - most cannot accept fallacies within their own arguments.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

arabian knight said:


> *Widespread Mental Illness Taking Over America, One Bathroom at a Time*
> 
> By Megan Fox May 5, 2016
> chat 64 comments
> https://pjmedia.com/parenting/2016/...-bathroom-at-a-time/?singlepage=true#comments


Which stall has a transgender, since what you see in the picture is what you'll see when they use the facilities


----------



## Irish Pixie

Nope. I misunderstood.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> Not I am not arguing that. You don't have to believe anything. You just don't get to decide what they believe and how they live their lives.


I proved quite potently that the government does get to decide how you live your life. You are correct as far as I, personally, do not get to write the rulebook, but to deny the reality that the government, the will of the people, does write that rulebook is a suspension in reality. 

That is a man beside my daughter naked. Arrest them pls.


----------



## DEKE01

painterswife said:


> Just because you don't like the answer does not mean it is a lie.


Correct. It is a lie because it is a lie told by liars. The answer has not been given because there are those who are too embarrassed to admit they don't have one. There is no discrimination or adverse consequences beyond a mentally ill person not being happy with life. 

Here's the problem for 3 folks in particular. We can argue this and other topics and have differing honest opinions. But now the 3 have shown that honest debate is not possible because they will just lie rather than admit a failing in logic.


----------



## TripleD

thericeguy said:


> I proved quite potently that the government does get to decide how you live your life. You are correct as far as I, personally, do not get to write the rulebook, but to deny the reality that the government, the will of the people, does write that rulebook is a suspension in reality.
> 
> That is a man beside my daughter naked. Arrest them pls.


Just because we don't get to write the rules doesn't mean we have to follow ALL of them..... Its our choice.


----------



## DEKE01

Irish Pixie said:


> Sigh. Dr. Paul R. McHugh has an extreme and obvious bias against LGBT and he has been discussed ad nauseam. Please try to keep up.


The IP definition of bias...anyone who holds a position I don't like


----------



## painterswife

DEKE01 said:


> Correct. It is a lie because it is a lie told by liars. The answer has not been given because there are those who are too embarrassed to admit they don't have one. There is no discrimination or adverse consequences beyond a mentally ill person not being happy with life.
> 
> Here's the problem for 3 folks in particular. We can argue this and other topics and have differing honest opinions. But now the 3 have shown that honest debate is not possible because they will just lie rather than admit a failing in logic.


Has it really?


----------



## Irish Pixie

DEKE01 said:


> Correct. It is a lie because it is a lie told by liars. The answer has not been given because there are those who are too embarrassed to admit they don't have one. There is no discrimination or adverse consequences beyond a mentally ill person not being happy with life.
> 
> Here's the problem for 3 folks in particular. We can argue this and other topics and have differing honest opinions. But now the 3 have shown that honest debate is not possible because they will just lie rather than admit a failing in logic.


There you have it, folks. There is no discrimination and there will be no more discussion because the three people that disagreed with him and refused to play his control game are liars. All transgender (gay too?) people are mentally ill simply on his say so. It must be true, right? 

Bwahaha. Thank you, I truly needed a laugh today.


----------



## thericeguy

TripleD said:


> Just because we don't get to write the rules doesn't mean we have to follow ALL of them..... Its our choice.


Correct. You can choose to murder another citizen. You would suffer a consequence. Public policy defines the rulebook and the consequences. Seems simple to me.


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> I didn't say they didn't exist.
> 
> I clearly said many here have used those terms to describe those with whom they disagree while at the same time using bible verses as a weapon.
> 
> There's an entire thread started by Shine trying to convince everyone transgenders are mentally ill.


True, and I recall one started that offered evidence that a belief in God corresponded to a traumatic brain injury, it was a study of disabled military vets.
I'm sure you recall that one.






> I have no control of what you *claim* to have "heard" since you quite often overlook things right in front of you.
> 
> I don't consider much of anything "sinful" since that's a religious term and too arbitrary to pin down.
> 
> Even sinners can't agree on what it means since they both complain and commit at the same time


Well, a dodge and and a partial answer (1 out of 3) ain't bad in this case.
Perhaps one day you'll tell us if* you've* ever heard of anything you would consider "perverted or sick"?

:huh:


----------



## Txsteader

Bearfootfarm said:


> *There will be no increase in crime*, and in a couple of months it will be largely forgotten


How do you know that for certain? How do you know that horny teenage boys aren't going to 'identify' as female & use the women's restroom @ Target, just for kicks? How do you know that women aren't going to be molested by _perverts_ that use the law as justification for being in the women's restroom in the first place?


----------



## Bubba1358

Txsteader said:


> How do you know that for certain? How do you know that horny teenage boys aren't going to 'identify' as female & use the women's restroom @ Target, just for kicks? How do you know that women aren't going to be molested by _perverts_ that use the law as justification for being in the women's restroom in the first place?


This has already been asked and unanswered. After it was shown that it's already happening.

I'm starting to think that the ideology at play doesn't mind sacrificing a few virgins (rhetorically speaking) in the name of "progress."


----------



## DEKE01

Irish Pixie said:


> And 150+ years ago everyone considered blacks to be sub-human. It took legislation to force some Americans to treat them as equals. Same thing with LGBT now. It's sad that people have to be legally forced to treat others like human beings, isn't it?


If everyone considered blacks to be sub human, who passed the legislation to change that? Whoops, some one generalized again. Were you not the one who has said at least twice that generalizations make you look foolish? Boy were you right. 

And how is it that within the context of this thread we are treating LGBT as something less that human? I'm arguing for equal treatment for all. You are arguing for a special class for trans. 

You seem to be confused. Think about it and get back to me. :beer:


----------



## DEKE01

Irish Pixie said:


> There you have it, folks. There is no discrimination and there will be no more discussion because the three people that disagreed with him and refused to play his control game are liars. All transgender (gay too?) people are mentally ill simply on his say so. It must be true, right?
> 
> Bwahaha. Thank you, I truly needed a laugh today.


More lies. More illogic. More distraction from the fact that your wine is made from sour grapes.


----------



## Irish Pixie

DEKE01 said:


> If everyone considered blacks to be sub human, who passed the legislation to change that? Whoops, some one generalized again. Were you not the one who has said at least twice that generalizations make you look foolish? Boy were you right.
> 
> And how is it that within the context of this thread we are treating LGBT as something less that human? I'm arguing for equal treatment for all. You are arguing for a special class for trans.
> 
> You seem to be confused. Think about it and get back to me. :beer:


Sigh. LOL. Of course not everyone thought blacks were sub human, where did you get that? If everyone thought that they'd still be slaves. Not a generalization, I over estimated the ability to grasp the concept...

You (and others) seem to be confused by the comparison between the discrimination of black and LGBT. Both groups (women and the disabled as well) were discriminated against because of their difference. All American citizens are supposed to be equal, if others refuse to acknowledge that truth on their own the government will force it by adding the group to it's protected class. It's sad, but there are citizens that truly think they are superior. US v. Windsor effectively added LGBT to the protected class. If you don't think there is discrimination argue with SCOTUS. 

Are you as a man allowed to use the men's restroom? Yes. The transgender man, the black man, the Asian man, etc. has as much right to use it as you do, and it doesn't matter if you like it or agree. LGBT has the same rights as every other American citizen. 

Did that help? Are there any lies?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Irish Pixie said:


> There you have it, folks. There is no discrimination and there will be no more discussion because the three people that disagreed with him and refused to play his control game are liars. All transgender (gay too?) people are mentally ill simply on his say so. It must be true, right?
> 
> Bwahaha. Thank you, I truly needed a laugh today.





DEKE01 said:


> More lies. More illogic. More distraction from the fact that your wine is made from sour grapes.


My opinion- does that make your feelers all better? LOL. 

Have a wonderful day. :happy2:


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> Sigh. LOL. Of course not everyone thought blacks were sub human, where did you get that? If everyone thought that they'd still be slaves. Not a generalization, I over estimated the ability to grasp the concept...
> 
> You (and others) seem to be confused by the comparison between the discrimination of black and LGBT. Both groups (women and the disabled as well) were discriminated against because of their difference. All American citizens are supposed to be equal, if others refuse to acknowledge that truth on their own the government will force it by adding the group to it's protected class. It's sad, but there are citizens that truly think they are superior. US v. Windsor effectively added LGBT to the protected class. If you don't think there is discrimination argue with SCOTUS.
> 
> Are you as a man allowed to use the men's restroom? Yes. The transgender man, the black man, the Asian man, etc. has as much right to use it as you do, and it doesn't matter if you like it or agree. LGBT has the same rights as every other American citizen.
> 
> Did that help? Are there any lies?


Ty. Now show me anywhere a male transgenger (having a penis) is being said that they cannot enter the mens room. 

Handicapped people could not even physically enter any restroom. Bad argument. Does it take a special restroom to pull down pantyhose?

Trans have not one, but often two redtrooms. The sexed one and family room. You insult the challenge handicapped people faced with your zealoutry.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> Sigh. LOL. Of course not everyone thought blacks were sub human, where did you get that? If everyone thought that they'd still be slaves. Not a generalization, I over estimated the ability to grasp the concept...
> 
> You (and others) seem to be confused by the comparison between the discrimination of black and LGBT. Both groups (women and the disabled as well) were discriminated against because of their difference. All American citizens are supposed to be equal, if others refuse to acknowledge that truth on their own the government will force it by adding the group to it's protected class. It's sad, but there are citizens that truly think they are superior. US v. Windsor effectively added LGBT to the protected class. If you don't think there is discrimination argue with SCOTUS.
> 
> Are you as a man allowed to use the men's restroom? Yes. The transgender man, the black man, the Asian man, etc. has as much right to use it as you do, and it doesn't matter if you like it or agree. LGBT has the same rights as every other American citizen.
> 
> Did that help? Are there any lies?


You have argued numerous timed that LGBTSSVJ will one day be added to the protected list. Now they already are? There is a fantasy here somewhere, and it growing like a fishing story.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> You most certainly have, and have never protested when others did the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 1000 posts back you also denied having previously discussed your transgender friends.
> 
> Do you really want me to look for the evidence of your past statements about "sinners, perverts, or mentally ill"?


[cut and pasted so that you don't complain about not having the capability to respond in kind]

"You most certainly have, and have never protested when others did the same."

What other people say is not going to be counted against me.

"1000 posts back you also denied having previously discussed your transgender friends. "

Nope, incorrect, I never denied that I had previously spoken about the transgendered people that I know. I actually said that I had. You twisted what I said to make it SEEM like this was the case when it was not. I am not jumping on that merry go round with you again.

"Do you really want me to look for the evidence of your past statements about "sinners, perverts, or mentally ill"?"

If you think that you can find an instance where I said that this specific person [called them out by name] was a person that fit the description then sure. I believe that you will find that I was citing a behavior and not a person.


----------



## Shine

Heritagefarm said:


> "The problem... with transgender people... bathroom of their choice... men in dress... definition of pedophilia."
> 
> This was also an example of false-cause logical fallacy.


Not understanding the message that you are conveying. Sorry.


----------



## logbuilder

I just listened to a podcast from the National Constitution Center. It discussed the constitutional considerations of the transgender debate. It was very thorough and discussed both sides of the debate. Well worth listening to if you are interested in the constitutional issues.

You don't have to be a podcast listener to hear it. The following link allows you to listen directly. The link also provides an overview of the issues and contains bio info on the speakers.

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/...-the-laws-regulating-bathroom-use-and-gender/


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> You have argued numerous timed that LGBTSSVJ will one day be added to the protected list. Now they already are? There is a fantasy here somewhere, and it growing like a fishing story.


Big sigh. Read it again, I said _effectively_ added due to US v. Windsor. Dang.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> Big sigh. Read it again, I said _effectively_ added due to US v. Windsor. Dang.


Nonsense. You are or are not. One cannot be partially added to a group. Yesterday you were confident they were not, but will be someday. Today they seem to be maybe are sorta I think added. 

Like I said, a growing fish story to me.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> Sigh. LOL. *Of course not everyone thought blacks were sub human, where did you get that?* If everyone thought that they'd still be slaves. Not a generalization, I over estimated the ability to grasp the concept...
> 
> Did that help? Are there any lies?


From Post #1325, you said: "And 150+ years ago everyone considered blacks to be sub-human. "


----------



## thericeguy

Reminds me of Bill. Say something to see who will believe it. I did not have sex with her.


----------



## Bubba1358

Irish Pixie said:


> ... All American citizens are supposed to be equal, ...


Of course. I think the difference here is that in my view (which I'm sure is shared), we are all ALREADY equal. Everyone has an equal right to use the restroom corresponding to their biology.

Allowing unrestricted use by criteria that is nebulous and unable to be proven does not equate (pun!) to being equal. In my view, that is being treated unequally.

The reason we don't think the comparison to the Civil Rights movement is valid is because skin color is discrete and provable, and has nothing to do with actions of the individual. Transgenderism is neither, and a transgender is required to take action to realize their condition.

The concerns we share over the open policies have absolutely nothing to do with transgenders. It has to do with the fact that *society is now supposed to allow unrestricted access into bathrooms and locker rooms to anyone who merely claims to belong there*.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> From Post #1325, you said: "And 150+ years ago everyone considered blacks to be sub-human. "


What's your point? I suppose I could change it to "most people" but you would just find something to else to nitpick. 

If sifting through my posts to find something to quibble about makes you happy, which it seems to, have at it. Everyone needs a hobby.


----------



## logbuilder

Irish Pixie said:


> What's your point? I suppose I could change it to "most people" but you would just find something to else to nitpick.
> 
> If sifting through my posts to find something to quibble about makes you happy, which it seems to, have at it. Everyone needs a hobby.


I think the more accurate statement would be that *most legislators* believed that. Unfortunately, what the legislators say the people want is not always what the majority of the populous actually wants.


----------



## JeffreyD

Irish Pixie said:


> What's your point? I suppose I could change it to "most people" but you would just find something to else to nitpick.
> 
> If sifting through my posts to find something to quibble about makes you happy, which it seems to, have at it. Everyone needs a hobby.


Sigh, lol. You said it, you own it! And, by the way, you do the same exact thing, sifting through old posts to make a point. You just don't like it when it's used against you. Victim mentality again.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> Nonsense. You are or are not. One cannot be partially added to a group. Yesterday you were confident they were not, but will be someday. Today they seem to be maybe are sorta I think added.
> 
> Like I said, a growing fish story to me.


I personally don't care what you think of my opinion, and I seriously don't care if you think any part of it is fishy. Yer a hoot. LOL


----------



## thericeguy

Please, if this happens, if the 9 (8) people rule that this must happen, please let it be the catslyst for a viable 3rd party. One that represents families, free of all the distractionary side issues. One that supports families in a quest to raise children, free from outside intrusion. 

Bubba for president!!!!!


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> I personally don't care what you think of my opinion, and I seriously don't care if you think any part of it is fishy. Yer a hoot. LOL


It has been clear to me for a while that you care about very little except supporting your LBGYTRF child. World be damned.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> It has been clear to me for a while that you care about very little except supporting your LBGYTRF child. World be damned.


The world is supporting LBGYTRF quite well. Does it bother you that you are in the minority?


----------



## Irish Pixie

JeffreyD said:


> Sigh, lol. You said it, you own it! And, by the way, you do the same exact thing, sifting through old posts to make a point. You just don't like it when it's used against you. Victim mentality again.


I did own it, I'm sorry that you seem to be incapable of comprehending it. 

What am I a victim of? Can you explain?


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> The world is supporting LBGYTRF quite well. Does it bother you that you are in the minority?


I do not care what the laws in Sweden or Germany are. I do not raise children there. I think NC disagrees with your assessment of American support of this idea. 

I suppose the good news is there might be many places to move to in order to fit in well as a trans.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> It has been clear to me for a while that you care about very little except supporting your *LBGYTRF* child. World be damned.


Ah. There's the proof of just how you feel about LGBT, I had a feeling that bigotry was lurking just below the surface.

Thank you for mocking them and outing your real feelings. The mocking says a lot about you.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> Ah. There's the proof of just how you feel about LGBT, I had a feeling that bigotry was lurking just below the surface.
> 
> Thank you for mocking them and outing your real feelings. The mocking says a lot about you.


In my lifetime, they have changed the terminology to refer to themselves so much I got tired of trying to figure out what all the letters mean. Just dont care anymore.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bubba1358 said:


> Of course. I think the difference here is that in my view (which I'm sure is shared), we are all ALREADY equal. Everyone has an equal right to use the restroom corresponding to their biology.
> 
> Allowing unrestricted use by criteria that is nebulous and unable to be proven does not equate (pun!) to being equal. In my view, that is being treated unequally.
> 
> The reason we don't think the comparison to the Civil Rights movement is valid is because skin color is discrete and provable, and has nothing to do with actions of the individual. Transgenderism is neither, and a transgender is required to take action to realize their condition.
> 
> The concerns we share over the open policies have absolutely nothing to do with transgenders. It has to do with the fact that *society is now supposed to allow unrestricted access into bathrooms and locker rooms to anyone who merely claims to belong there*.


You are discounting the fact that everyone has a gender. Gender may not match sex. Everyone has the right to their gender identity as well.


----------



## DEKE01

Irish Pixie said:


> Sigh. LOL. Of course not everyone thought blacks were sub human, where did you get that? If everyone thought that they'd still be slaves. Not a generalization, I over estimated the ability to grasp the concept...
> 
> You (and others) seem to be confused by the comparison between the discrimination of black and LGBT. Both groups (women and the disabled as well) were discriminated against because of their difference. All American citizens are supposed to be equal, if others refuse to acknowledge that truth on their own the government will force it by adding the group to it's protected class. It's sad, but there are citizens that truly think they are superior. US v. Windsor effectively added LGBT to the protected class. If you don't think there is discrimination argue with SCOTUS.
> 
> Are you as a man allowed to use the men's restroom? Yes. The transgender man, the black man, the Asian man, etc. has as much right to use it as you do, and it doesn't matter if you like it or agree. LGBT has the same rights as every other American citizen.
> 
> Did that help? Are there any lies?


Don't you read what you write? You said "everyone". I don't expect you to own your error. What I do expect is another lie but hope springs eternal. 

So you are saying there is discrimination again. I agree and that is why in my own small way I fought for gay rights in the early 90s by refusing to fire a gay man for being gay. That contributed to my own firing. So your ugly aspersions in a prior message are unfounded. But within the context on this thread, where is the discrimination and what are the adverse consequences? Nuance seems to escape you.


----------



## farmrbrown

Yes, that "mocking" thing tends to make a civil discussion deteriorate quickly, especially when accompanied with an insult or too.

The Great Physician recommends 2 tablespoons of repentance and call Him in the morning.
As the Sabbath approaches, sounds like excellent advice, for me as well.

:cowboy:


----------



## DEKE01

Irish Pixie said:


> I personally don't care what you think of my opinion, and I seriously don't care if you think any part of it is fishy. Yer a hoot. LOL


Why do you spend so much time responding to messages you don't agree with and so frequently tell people you don't care what they think? It might not be a lie if you are not willing to admit the truth to yourself. But it is self contradictory. You seem awfully confused today.


----------



## DEKE01

painterswife said:


> The world is supporting LBGYTRF quite well. Does it bother you that you are in the minority?


Factually incorrect.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> What's your point? I suppose I could change it to "most people" but you would just find something to else to nitpick.
> 
> If sifting through my posts to find something to quibble about makes you happy, which it seems to, have at it. Everyone needs a hobby.


Silly, you asked "Where did you get that from?" referring to someone that implied that Everyone thought blacks were sub human or some such nonsense, just thought you might have forgotten.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> You are discounting the fact that everyone has a gender. Gender may not match sex. Everyone has the right to their gender identity as well.


Yes. Now go read Title IX. It clearly bars discrimination based on sex. You just called them two different things. Even said they dont have to match.


----------



## Irish Pixie

DEKE01 said:


> Don't you read what you write? You said "everyone". I don't expect you to own your error. What I do expect is another lie but hope springs eternal.
> 
> So you are saying there is discrimination again. I agree and that is why in my own small way I fought for gay rights in the early 90s by refusing to fire a gay man for being gay. That contributed to my own firing. So your ugly aspersions in a prior message are unfounded. But within the context on this thread, where is the discrimination and what are the adverse consequences? Nuance seems to escape you.


Yes, I did say everyone and I meant many. My error, my bad, I'll do penance later. 

Unlike many, I apologize if I'm wrong.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> Silly, you asked "Where did you get that from?" referring to someone that implied that Everyone thought blacks were sub human or some such nonsense, just thought you might have forgotten.


Ah, you've went back, sifted through my posts, and picked out the bits you wanted. Was it fun?


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> Ah, you've went back, sifted through my posts, and picked out the bits you wanted. Was it fun?


Is there a time limit to the now permanent words?

Just read a news story about the parents of school girls filing federal suit. Here we go.


----------



## arabian knight

This equality argument is WAY OFF BASE.
And it should NEVER come into play when someone wants PRIVACY when taking a leak or a dump. PERIOD~!!!! Do what a person has ALWAYS done for the past 100+ years Go into the SIDE of which you where BORN AT. And quit this I am better then you so I deserve to go IN anywhere where I dern well please~!!!!!!


----------



## Txsteader

Could someone show an illustration where, up to this point, LGBT or self-identifiers have been denied the use of restrooms?

People act as if they've not been allowed to use restrooms, period. To my knowledge, there's been no discrimination. It's only now that progressives have declared that these people are being discriminated against, that they must be allowed to use the restroom they choose.

But I find it amusing that even those progressives who defend this latest 'injustice' are only accepting _to a point_. They're not quite ready to give these same people the right to use the locker/shower room according to their self-identification.

Why is that? Fair is fair, is it not? I mean, if we're going to do away with discrimination, then why not take it to it's fullest extent?


----------



## mreynolds

Txsteader said:


> Could someone show an illustration where, up to this point, LGBT or self-identifiers have been denied the use of restrooms?
> 
> People act as if they've not been allowed to use restrooms, period. To my knowledge, there's been no discrimination. It's only now that progressives have declared that these people are being discriminated against, that they must be allowed to use the restroom they choose.
> 
> But I find it amusing that even those progressives who defend this latest 'injustice' are only accepting _to a point_. They're not quite ready to give these same people the right to use the locker/shower room according to their self-identification.
> 
> Why is that? Fair is fair, is it not? I mean, if we're going to do away with discrimination, then why not take it to it's fullest extent?


And there's the rub. Its all ok _up to a point_. But who chooses that point?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> :snip nonsense:
> But I find it amusing that even those progressives who defend this latest 'injustice' are only accepting _to a point_. They're not quite ready to give these same people the right to use the locker/shower room according to their self-identification.
> 
> Why is that? Fair is fair, is it not? I mean, if we're going to do away with discrimination, then why not take it to it's fullest extent?


This is what I said:



Irish Pixie said:


> This is a gray area for me and I haven't decided how I feel about it yet. I need more information before I can make a decision.


I find it amusing, actually ridiculous is a better word, that some conservatives are worried that they might see a transgender woman washing her hands and touching up her makeup in a _public_ bathroom. 

I want to see if conservatives are actually going to use violence (one said they'd use a gun on a peeper in a bathroom) before I make a decision on locker rooms and showers. If they are that insane over stalls in a bathroom they are going to lose their minds over open showers. I can see beatings and worse from some conservatives...


----------



## JJ Grandits

I've read a lot of your posts I.P.
You see a lot of things that do not really exist.


----------



## Irish Pixie

JJ Grandits said:


> I've read a lot of your posts I.P.
> You see a lot of things that do not really exist.


Can you be specific? That's a rather broad brush.


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> This is what I said:





> This is a gray area for me and I haven't decided how I feel about it yet. I need more information before I can make a decision.





Irish Pixie said:


> I find it amusing, actually ridiculous is a better word, that some conservatives are worried that they might see a transgender woman washing her hands and touching up her makeup in a _public_ bathroom.
> 
> I want to see if conservatives are actually going to use violence (one said they'd use a gun on a peeper in a bathroom) before I make a decision on locker rooms and showers. If they are that insane over stalls in a bathroom they are going to lose their minds over open showers. I can see beatings and worse from some conservatives...




Huh.

When you made that statement about not having decided yet, I thought it was due to contemplating the extent of how far the transgender people should go.
It never occurred to me that the "information" you were waiting on was expected violence and brutality.

And they say us anti-goverment types are full of paranoia............:huh:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by Bubba1358
> Allowing unrestricted use by *criteria that is nebulous and unable to be proven* does not equate (pun!) to being equal. In my view, that is being treated unequally.


Again you describe the premise of* all *religions


----------



## Bearfootfarm

DEKE01 said:


> Why do you spend so much time responding to messages you don't agree with and so frequently tell people you don't care what they think? It might not be a lie if you are not willing to admit the truth to yourself. But it is self contradictory. You seem awfully confused today.


Ask yourself the same if you really want an answer


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Irish Pixie said:


> Ah, you've went back, sifted through my posts, and picked out the bits you wanted. Was it fun?


He whines when I do that to him, and says I'm mean, rude, obnoxious, attacking, etc.


----------



## mreynolds

Irish Pixie said:


> Yes, I did say everyone and I meant many. My error, my bad, I'll do penance later.
> 
> Unlike many, I apologize if I'm wrong.


Yes, you do, and I respect that about you too.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> He whines when I do that to him, and says I'm mean, rude, obnoxious, attacking, etc.


Thanks for the perfect example.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> This is what I said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it amusing, actually ridiculous is a better word, that some conservatives are worried that they might see a transgender woman washing her hands and touching up her makeup in a _public_ bathroom.
> 
> I want to see if conservatives are actually going to use violence (one said they'd use a gun on a peeper in a bathroom) before I make a decision on locker rooms and showers. If they are that insane over stalls in a bathroom they are going to lose their minds over open showers. I can see beatings and worse from some conservatives...


Do you truly believe childhood cruelty is reserved for conservatives? Do you even think children age 12 or 13 even have a political agenda of any form? Please, just for one post here, be sincere with me. 

Coed school showers. Junior high. The very first girl in her class to reach puberty and is now showing breasts enters. Do you think only the conservative boys are going to doing the whole "here come the tatas", look at those melons, hey baby can I check those out, free those puppies sweety. 

A situation that is already embarrassing for many is now gone off the charts for some. I dare say into crippling panic. There are girls embarrassed to undress in front of other girls. Now you tell her she has to do it in front of or near boys? Please, have some sympathy.


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> Do you truly believe childhood cruelty is reserved for conservatives? Do you even think children age 12 or 13 even have a political agenda of any form? Please, just for one post here, be sincere with me.
> 
> Coed school showers. Junior high. The very first girl in her class to reach puberty and is now showing breasts enters. Do you think only the conservative boys are going to doing the whole "here come the tatas", look at those melons, hey baby can I check those out, free those puppies sweety.
> 
> A situation that is already embarrassing for many is now gone off the charts for some. I dare say into crippling panic. There are girls embarrassed to undress in front of other girls. Now you tell her she has to do it in front of or near boys? Please, have some sympathy.


He has a point. Just because the kid says he's a girl doesn't (should t) give him access to the locker room. 

Meanwhile, there's this:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Thanks for *the perfect example*.


Yes, it was a perfect example of the way you complain about something in one post and then do it in another, as I've often pointed out.

Nothing new there


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> Could someone show an illustration where, up to this point, LGBT or self-identifiers have been denied the use of restrooms?
> 
> People act as if they've not been allowed to use restrooms, period. To my knowledge, there's been no discrimination. It's only now that progressives have declared that these people are being discriminated against, that they must be allowed to use the restroom they choose.
> 
> But I find it amusing that even those progressives who defend this latest 'injustice' are only accepting _to a point_. *They're not quite ready to give these same people the right to use the locker/shower room according to their self-identification.*
> 
> Why is that? Fair is fair, is it not? I mean, if we're going to do away with discrimination, then why not take it to it's fullest extent?


I believe that was covered in another thread. (More than one actually)
The ruling in *this *thread was about "bathrooms"

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/sp...ppeals-court-rules-transgender-bathrooms.html

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/appeals-court-rules-transgender-bathroom-rules-n558496

You seem to just be parroting the same arguments from 1000 posts ago.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> Please, if this happens, if the 9 (8) people rule that this must happen, please let it be the catslyst for a viable 3rd party. One that represents families, free of all the distractionary side issues. One that supports families in *a quest to raise children, free from outside intrusion*.
> 
> Bubba for president!!!!!


That's not what you advocate when you want to exert control over others based on your "religion" or "morals".

You are the "outside intrusion"


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's not what you advocate when you want to exert control over others based on your "religion" or "morals".
> 
> You are the "outside intrusion"


I have never done those things, but thats some nice strokes with that brush trying to paint a picture. You should know full well, as I have said it numerous times, my objection to men in restroom has nothing to do with transgenders in a restroom. 

You cannot allow one msn based on word alone without allowing all men. You, in effect, champion for coed restrooms nationwide. And coed lockerrooms as well. I do not support coed bathrooms or lockerrooms on grounds of public safety. You have told me numerous times noone is being raped in bathrooms now, so you saw, read, and understood my point, yet you still revert to your tired old lines about controlling people as a bad thing. 

Is a speed limit a bad thing?
Is criminalizing murder a bad thing?
Is criminalizing child sex a bad thing?

Each of those examples attempts to control the behaviour of people. Do you want to keep harping I cannot control people? You paint yourself with a brush that supports chilhood sex then. Read it a few times. It might make sense.


----------



## thericeguy

If you are an anarchist, just tell us. If you seek to reshape America into an anarchy where all behaviour of all people is allowed in order for freedom from control to flourish, just say that.


----------



## thericeguy

Next we will have to install litter boxes and fire hydrants in restrooms. 

http://www.mediaite.com/online/meet-the-20-year-old-norwegian-woman-who-identifies-as-a-cat/


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> I believe that was covered in another thread. (More than one actually)
> The ruling in *this *thread was about "bathrooms"
> 
> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/sp...ppeals-court-rules-transgender-bathrooms.html
> 
> http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/appeals-court-rules-transgender-bathroom-rules-n558496
> 
> You seem to just be parroting the same arguments from 1000 posts ago.


Rather than "parroting" a news media company's information about a particular court case, I prefer to look at the court's transcript.


http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/152056.P.pdf



While it is true this plaintiff only sought the use of the boys restroom, the Title IX regulation his appeal was based on, clearly encompasses restrooms, showers, locker rooms and all facilities in a school that receives federal funding.

IOW, the door is now open for exactly what was stated by others in this thread.


----------



## DEKE01

Bearfootfarm said:


> Ask yourself the same if you really want an answer


LOL. read IP's message and my response again. If you are still confused, you may ask for clarification.


----------



## JJ Grandits

It was in another post, maybe in this thread or one just like it that I stated this issue was about shifting our norms.
The trans-gender, trans-sexual thing is not really the issue. It is the vehicle being used to change those norms.
The liberal and progressive movement has slowly been advocating that our society should take on a "hive like" behavior. 
We are being socially devolved into an insect like behavior pattern to be governed by our most basic homogenous instincts as opposed to what was once known as moral standards.

Is anyone familiar with the novel "THX1138"?

We seem to be entering a precursor to that society.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mreynolds said:


> Yes, you do, and I respect that about you too.


Thank you.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bearfootfarm said:


> I believe that was covered in another thread. (More than one actually)
> The ruling in *this *thread was about "bathrooms"
> 
> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/sp...ppeals-court-rules-transgender-bathrooms.html
> 
> http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/appeals-court-rules-transgender-bathroom-rules-n558496
> 
> You seem to just be parroting the same arguments from 1000 posts ago.


That's why I snipped the nonsense in the post. It's just pot stirring, the OP seems to enjoy it. None of them seem to understand that the link in this thread is just about bathrooms. Odd.


----------



## thericeguy

Still working to craft that narrow argument and cram it in a bottle with a vaccuum. 

This thread is about anything people type in it, which sometimes is about invisible gods, conservative evils, mentally ill Christians, posters being controlling. 

A rancher gets a cow to walk to its funeral with a bucket of feed.


----------



## arabian knight

Ya really, I have hardly ever seen a entire thread go without thread drift. That is the nature of what goes on, on ANY message board, and always has, and always will. Some don't like it, quit posting then, in any shape or manner then. LOL


----------



## oneraddad

Seems 75% of the board I joined have stopped posting ?


----------



## DEKE01

Irish Pixie said:


> That's why I snipped the nonsense in the post. It's just pot stirring, the OP seems to enjoy it. None of them seem to understand that this thread is just about bathrooms. Odd.


factually incorrect. The DoED Title IX policy applies to locker rooms, so as many times as you try to avoid the issue by fraudulently stating it is just about going in a stall, all you are doing is further proving you can not defend the policy based on facts. 

It is similar to how you lost the battle based on being unable to defend the policy based on real discrimination and adverse consequences and have repeatedly prevaricated on that angle. 

So try as you might, you can't defend the policy based on truth or logic.

And your control issues are showing again as you try to limit the topic to just bathrooms instead of addressing the topic as gov't policy is written and enforced by the OP court decision.


----------



## Shine

Not many want to address the simple fact that this "law" will allow naked children of both sexes to shower together. The want to nip at the edges and show us how our concern is frivolous. They want to look down their noses at us and poo poo our concerns to push these changes into the common core of our civilization under the banner of equality.

Here is the only equality that should be in place: Males use the showers and restrooms designated for that sex. Females use the showers and restrooms designated for that sex.

If, by chance, a person completes the surgery necessary to alter their genitals to resemble the other sex, then they can be allowed to use the showers and restrooms of the sex that the surgery has caused them to resemble.

There - Equality - pure and simple, no door guards, no uproar.

You want to dress like a woman and use the woman's facilities - do so without making a big deal out of it, otherwise - you're on your own.


----------



## painterswife

Shine said:


> Not many want to address the simple fact that this "law" will allow naked children of both sexes to shower together. The want to nip at the edges and show us how our concern is frivolous. They want to look down their noses at us and poo poo our concerns to push these changes into the common core of our civilization under the banner of equality.
> 
> Here is the only equality that should be in place: Males use the showers and restrooms designated for that sex. Females use the showers and restrooms designated for that sex.
> 
> If, by chance, a person completes the surgery necessary to alter their genitals to resemble the other sex, then they can be allowed to use the showers and restrooms of the sex that the surgery has caused them to resemble.
> 
> There - Equality - pure and simple, no door guards, no uproar.
> 
> You want to dress like a woman and use the woman's facilities - do so without making a big dreal out of it, otherwise - you're on your own.


Please point out one person on HT that wants any children of opposite sexes to shower together.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> Rather than "parroting" a news media company's information about a particular court case, I prefer to look at the court's transcript.
> 
> http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/152056.P.pdf
> 
> While it is true* this plaintiff only sought the use of the boys restroom*, the Title IX regulation his appeal was based on, clearly encompasses restrooms, showers, locker rooms and all facilities in a school that receives federal funding.
> 
> IOW, the door is now open for exactly what was stated by others in this thread.


So you repeated what I said about the subject of *this* thread


----------



## Bearfootfarm

DEKE01 said:


> LOL. read IP's message and my response again. If you are still confused, you may ask for clarification.


Reading it again wouldn't change anything.
You still do exactly what you accuse her of doing.
There's nothing to be "confused" about


----------



## DEKE01

painterswife said:


> Please point out one person on HT that wants any children of opposite sexes to shower together.


You. Irish pixie. Bear foot farm. 

You can't even hide behind your gender argument. An unaltered transgender is still biologically his birth sex. A born male trans G will shower with girls. That is the official policy of DoED under title IX. 

You really stepped in it this time. LOL. 

It is amazing these people don't even know what they are arguing for.


----------



## painterswife

DEKE01 said:


> You. Irish pixie. Bear foot farm.
> 
> You can't even hide behind your gender argument. An unaltered transgender is still biologically his birth sex. A born male trans G will shower with girls. That is the official policy of DoED under title IX.
> 
> You really stepped in it this time. LOL.
> 
> It is amazing these people don't even know what they are arguing for.


You really should read before you post. You don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

DEKE01 said:


> You. Irish pixie. Bear foot farm.
> 
> You can't even hide behind your gender argument. An unaltered transgender is still biologically his birth *sex*. A born male trans G will shower with girls. That is the official policy of DoED under title IX.
> 
> You really stepped in it this time. LOL.
> 
> It is amazing these *people don't even know* what they are arguing for.


You still think "biological sex" is the same thing as "gender".

Repeating what the law says isn't proof anyone "wants" it.
I wasn't asked to vote for it, were you?


----------



## painterswife

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/ge...-males-female-shower-areas-7.html#post7584224

Post 254 & 256 & 258 for starters


----------



## Irish Pixie

Wrong link.


----------



## JeffreyD

Here's a fact, take it any way you want.
If a man goes into a woman's bathroom while my 7 year old daughter is in there, his wish to become a woman will come true in an instant.


----------



## wr

thericeguy said:


> No examination is being required to grant access intonmy daughters restroom or shower. Seems the govt needs to talk with the surgeons.



No examination was required before.


----------



## coolrunnin

JeffreyD said:


> Here's a fact, take it any way you want.
> If a man goes into a woman's bathroom while my 7 year old daughter is in there, his wish to become a woman will come true in an instant.


Hard to protect your daughter while you are incarcerated.


----------



## InvalidID

I love this issue. I gotten so many good laughs from this whole thing. 

My take is honestly, trans people have been using whichever bathroom they chose for a long time and none of you knew it was happening. This is just one more BS thing to fight about.
I mean, I personally see this the same as I see concealed carry. I don't care what you're packing so long as you don't whip it out and point it at me.


----------



## DEKE01

painterswife said:


> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/ge...-males-female-shower-areas-7.html#post7584224
> 
> Post 254 & 256 & 258 for starters


That is more weasel wording. You can point to a post where you don't want your child in group showers but you are advocating a policy where children will be forced to either forego sports or participate in mixed sex locker rooms.


----------



## painterswife

DEKE01 said:


> That is more weasel wording. You can point to a post where you don't want your child in group showers but you are advocating a policy where children will be forceds to either forego sports or participate in mixed sex locker rooms.


You are predictable. Proven wrong and every time that happens you refuse to admit it.


----------



## DEKE01

Bearfootfarm said:


> You still think "biological sex" is the same thing as "gender".
> 
> Repeating what the law says isn't proof anyone "wants" it.
> I wasn't asked to vote for it, were you?


Re-read my message. I specifically used words to use your definitions of sex and gender. If you weren't just giving knee-jerk responses, you might have noticed. 

And to be fair, maybe you don't want the policy you are advocating. Maybe you don't want the policy and are just trolling. Maybe you advocate for policies you don't want because you are mentally confused. Was I crediting you with more sincerity or intelligence than you deserve?


----------



## JeffreyD

coolrunnin said:


> Hard to protect your daughter while you are incarcerated.


No, it isnt. It's very, very easy! But if that's what it takes, so be it! Besides, I really don't think a jury will find me guility of anything but protecting my child.


----------



## thericeguy

I linked a news article about parents sueing the feds because their daughters are complaining about boys in the locker room. It is most definately linked. 

In essence, you are arguing that a defense to murder should be that you did not want them to die. You only wanted to put a hole in their body. 

Since showers and restrooms are linked by law, advocating for one is advocating for both. Your logic does not work morally or legally.


----------



## Shine

painterswife said:


> Please point out one person on HT that wants any children of opposite sexes to shower together.


You seem to advocate the total acceptance of transgendered people and their inclusion into our society as the opposite gender of their biological sex so that would seem to be pointing directly at you for the first selection.

Are you not aware of the ruling for the Chicago school system?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/03/us/illinois-school-district-transgender-ruling/


----------



## coolrunnin

JeffreyD said:


> No, it isnt. It's very, very easy! But if that's what it takes, so be it! Besides, I really don't think a jury will find me guility of anything but protecting my child.


Considering you live in LA I would think your daughter has already been in the restroom with a transgender, and you didn't even notice....lol


----------



## JeffreyD

thericeguy said:


> I linked a news article about parents sueing the feds because their daughters are complaining about boys in the locker room. It is most definately linked.
> 
> In essence, you are arguing that a defense to murder should be that you did not want them to die. You only wanted to put a hole in their body.
> 
> Since showers and restrooms are linked by law, advocating for one is advocating for both. Your logic does not work morally or legally.


Are you referring to my post?


----------



## oneraddad

I'm glad this will get all the bathroom perverts out of the men's room


----------



## painterswife

Shine said:


> You seem to advocate the total acceptance of transgendered people and their inclusion into our society as the opposite gender of their biological sex so that would seem to be pointing directly at you for the first selection.
> 
> Are you not aware of the ruling for the Chicago school system?
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/03/us/illinois-school-district-transgender-ruling/


Of course I am and I actually read the ruling. You can't discriminate against transgender children by making rules applying only to them but you also can not force any child to change or shower with other children no matter what sex or gender they are.


----------



## JeffreyD

coolrunnin said:


> Considering you live in LA I would think your daughter has already been in the restroom with a transgender, and you didn't even notice....lol


I DO live in Los Angeles, so i'm very aware of where she can go and can't. As far as being in the same bathroom as a deviant...it will never happen, i make sure of that. I pay attention, i have to, i'm a parent. Its something called "situational awareness". I care about my daughters well being, some may not care at all about their kids! ymmv.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

DEKE01 said:


> *Re-read my message*. I specifically used words to use your definitions of sex and gender. If you weren't just giving knee-jerk responses, you might have noticed.
> 
> And to be fair, maybe you don't want the policy you are advocating. Maybe you don't want the policy and are *just trolling*. Maybe you advocate for policies you don't want because you are *mentally confused*. Was I crediting you with more sincerity or intelligence than you deserve?


You say that in most every reply.
It won't change anything I said


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> So you repeated what I said about the subject of *this* thread


Yes. So?
I am pointing out that restrooms may be the only subject you want this thread to be about, but unfortunately, the 3 judge, federal court of appeals wrote the ruling, not you or I.




DEKE01 said:


> You. Irish pixie. Bear foot farm.
> 
> You can't even hide behind your gender argument. An unaltered transgender is still biologically his birth sex. A born male trans G will shower with girls. That is the official policy of DoED under title IX.
> 
> You really stepped in it this time. LOL.
> 
> It is amazing these people don't even know what they are arguing for.




That's because they probably didn't bother to read what the judges said. There were 2 in favor of the plaintiff ("GG" in the transcript) and one dissent.

Actually the ruling contains more than one issue, as there was a page of amicus briefs filed. 
There was a motion to change venues if it was sent back to the lower court, which was denied, and by winning the appeal that's exactly what will happen.
The case will go back, and the judge there will have to amend his ruling, which was in favor of the school's accommodations.


*"FLOYD, Circuit Judge:
G.G., a transgender boy, seeks to use the boys&#8217; restrooms
at his high school. After G.G. began to use the boys&#8217; restrooms with the approval of the school administration, the local school board passed a policy banning G.G. from the boys&#8217; restroom. G.G. alleges that the school board impermissibly discriminated against him in violation of Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. The district court dismissed G.G.&#8217;s Title IX claim and denied his request for a preliminary injunction. This appeal followed. Because we conclude the district court did not accord appropriate deference to the relevant Department of Education regulations, we reverse its dismissal of G.G.&#8217;s Title IX claim. Because we conclude that the district court used the wrong evidentiary standard in assessing G.G.&#8217;s motion for a preliminary injunction, we vacate its denial and remand for consideration under the correct standard. We therefore reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."*





thericeguy said:


> I linked a news article about parents sueing the feds because their daughters are complaining about boys in the locker room. It is most definately linked.
> 
> Since showers and restrooms are linked by law, advocating for one is advocating for both. Your logic does not work morally or legally.


That's all in the court ruling. This particular plaintiff had stopped going to P.E. and doesn't play on a team sport so the media article implies this allowance is for restrooms only, but the court clearly cites the Title IX regulation several times.
That was the federal law the plaintiff filed under and that's what he/she won, plain and simple.

The other thing that has been overlooked was the judges' concession (even the ones that ruled in favor of this case) that the courts had a real dilemma in this case because the only thing stating "gender" was a 2015 policy recommendation from DOE. The Title IX statutes all say "sex" in the law as it is still written. IOW, they haven't amended the law to state what has been alleged on this thread, that sex DOESN'T mean gender. According to Title IX statutes, that's all there is - male or female.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/152056.P.pdf



*"
I.
At the heart of this appeal is whether Title IX requires
schools to provide transgender students access to restrooms congruent with their gender identity. Title IX provides: &#8220;[n]o
5
person . . . shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.&#8221; 20 U.S.C. Â§ 1681(a). The Department of Education&#8217;s (the Department) regulations implementing Title IX permit the provision of &#8220;separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex, but such facilities provided for students of one sex shall be comparable to such facilities for students of the other sex.&#8221; 34 C.F.R. Â§ 106.33. In an opinion letter dated January 7, 2015, the Department&#8217;s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) interpreted how this regulation should apply to transgender individuals: &#8220;When a school elects to separate or treat students differently on the basis of sex . . . a school generally must treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity.&#8221; J.A. 55. Because this case comes to us after dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the facts below are generally as stated in G.G.&#8217;s complaint."
*





*We will not accord an agency&#8217;s interpretation of an
unambiguous regulation Auer deference. Thus, our analysis begins with a determination of whether 34 C.F.R. Â§ 106.33 contains an ambiguity. Section 106.33 permits schools to provide &#8220;separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex, but such facilities provided for students of one sex shall be comparable to such facilities provided for students of the other sex.&#8221; 34 C.F.R. Â§ 106.33.
&#8220;[D]etermining whether a regulation or statute is ambiguous presents a legal question, which we determine de novo.&#8221; Humanoids Grp. v. Rogan, 375 F.3d 301, 306 (4th Cir. 2004). We determine ambiguity by analyzing the language under the three- part framework set forth in Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337 (1997). The plainness or ambiguity of language is determined by reference to (1) the language itself, (2) the specific context in which that language is used, and (3) the broader context of the statute or regulation as a whole. Id. at 341.
&#65532;&#65532;&#65532;&#65532;&#65532;18
First, we have little difficulty concluding that the language itself&#8212;&#8220;of one sex&#8221; and &#8220;of the other sex&#8221;&#8212;refers to male and female students. Second, in the specific context of Â§ 106.33, the plain meaning of the regulatory language is best stated by the United States: &#8220;the mere act of providing separate restroom facilities for males and females does not violate Title IX . . . .&#8221; U.S. Br. 22 n.8. Third, the language &#8220;of one sex&#8221; and &#8220;of the other sex&#8221; appears repeatedly in the broader context of 34 C.F.R. Â§ 106 Subpart D, titled &#8220;Discrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Prohibited.&#8221;6 This repeated formulation indicates two sexes (&#8220;one sex&#8221; and &#8220;the other sex&#8221, and the only reasonable reading of the language used throughout the relevant regulatory section is that it references male and female. Read plainly then, Â§ 106.33 permits schools to provide separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities for its male and female students. By
For example, Â§ 106.32(b)(2) provides that &#8220;[h]ousing provided . . . to students of one sex, when compared to that provided to students of the other sex, shall be as a whole: proportionate in quantity . . . and [c]omparable in quality and cost to the student&#8221;; Â§ 106.37(a)(3) provides that an institution generally cannot &#8220;[a]pply any rule . . . concerning eligibility [for financial assistance] which treats persons of one sex differently from persons of the other sex with regard to marital or parental status&#8221;; and Â§ 106.41(b) provides that &#8220;where [an institution] operates or sponsors a team in a particular sport for members of one sex but operates or sponsors no such team for members of the other sex . . . members of the excluded sex must be allowed to try-out for the team offered . . . .&#8221;
&#65532;6
19
implication, the regulation also permits schools to exclude males from the female facilities and vice-versa.
Our inquiry is not ended, however, by this straightforward conclusion. Although the regulation may refer unambiguously to males and females, it is silent as to how a school should determine whether a transgender individual is a male or female for the purpose of access to sex-segregated restrooms. We conclude that the regulation is susceptible to more than one plausible reading because it permits both the Board&#8217;s reading&#8212; determining maleness or femaleness with reference exclusively to genitalia&#8212;and the Department&#8217;s interpretation&#8212;determining maleness or femaleness with reference to gender identity. Cf. Dickenson-Russell Coal Co. v. Sec&#8217;y of Labor, 747 F.3d 251, 258 (4th Cir. 2014) (refusing to afford Auer deference where the language of the regulation at issue was &#8220;not susceptible to more than one plausible reading&#8221; (citation and quotation marks omitted)).



It is not clear to us how the regulation would apply in a number of situations&#8212;even under the Board&#8217;s own &#8220;biological gender&#8221; formulation. For example, which restroom would a transgender individual who had undergone sex-reassignment surgery use? What about an intersex individual? What about an individual born with X-X-Y sex chromosomes? What about an individual who lost external genitalia in an accident? The Department&#8217;s interpretation resolves ambiguity by providing that
&#65532;&#65532;&#65532;20
in the case of a transgender individual using a sex-segregated facility, the individual&#8217;s sex as male or female is to be generally determined by reference to the student&#8217;s gender identity.
C.
Because we conclude that the regulation is ambiguous as
applied to transgender individuals, the Department&#8217;s interpretation is entitled to Auer deference unless the Board demonstrates that the interpretation is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation or statute. Auer, 519 U.S. at 461. *


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> That's why I snipped the nonsense in the post. *It's just pot stirring, the OP seems to enjoy it.* None of them seem to understand that the link in this thread is just about bathrooms. Odd.


I take offense to your statement. 

I don't post simply to stir the pot. Indeed, I daresay you consider any opposing or questioning posts as pot-stirring.

You seem to enjoy making snotty remarks.


----------



## Txsteader

painterswife said:


> Please point out one person on HT that wants any children of opposite sexes to shower together.


Apparently you (collective proponents) don't even know what you're supporting/defending. You (again, collective) need to do your research. You may be shocked.


----------



## Heritagefarm

InvalidID said:


> I love this issue. I gotten so many good laughs from this whole thing.
> 
> My take is honestly, trans people have been using whichever bathroom they chose for a long time and none of you knew it was happening. This is just one more BS thing to fight about.
> I mean, I personally see this the same as I see concealed carry. I don't care what you're packing so long as you don't whip it out and point it at me.


Really? How long have boys - ahem, excuse me, "transgender girls," been allowed in the girl's restroom?


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> Apparently you (collective proponents) don't even know what you're supporting/defending. You (again, collective) need to do your research. You may be shocked.


Please explain just what you mean. What are you saying that we support or defend that is not what we think we are defending. You should be able to clarify it since you have made the statement.


----------



## InvalidID

Heritagefarm said:


> Really? How long have boys - ahem, excuse me, "transgender girls," been allowed in the girl's restroom?


 I suppose that would depend on how you define allowed. If by allowed we we mean noone has stopped them, noone has questioned them, and they've entered, urinated, and left unimpeded... I'd say for a very long time. 

This is because so many trans people look like the sex they identify as. If some short slightly effeminate 'dude' is taking a leak at the urinal next to me I don't generally ask for ID or peak to see if he's really a 'dude'. Generally, I just shake and move on.
I assume the same is (was?) true for masculine women in the bathroom. If she's in her own stall taking a leak, I don't think anyone asks for ID or does a spot check for vaginal approval. If she looks like a woman and has to pee, then she's going to. Even if she's tirefire ugly.... :cow:
http://www.homesteadingtoday.com//www.pinterest.com/pin/create/extension/


----------



## Txsteader

painterswife said:


> Please explain just what you mean. What are you saying that we support or defend that is not what we think we are defending. You should be able to clarify it since you have made the statement.


While this particular thread is about restrooms, the issue itself does, indeed, go way beyond just restrooms. It includes showers and locker/changing rooms.

This article was posted in the other thread about self-identification. Note the federal government's stance.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/u...transgender-students-rights-us-says.html?_r=1



> In a letter sent Monday, the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education told the Palatine district that requiring a transgender student to use private changing and showering facilities was a violation of that studentâs rights under Title IX, a federal law that bans sex discrimination. The student, who identifies as female but was born male, should be given unfettered access to girlsâ facilities, the letter said.


So I wonder, does this change any minds/attitudes?


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> While this particular thread is about restrooms, the issue itself does, indeed, go way beyond just restrooms. It includes showers and locker/changing rooms.
> 
> This article was posted in the other thread about self-identification. Note the federal government's stance.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/u...transgender-students-rights-us-says.html?_r=1
> 
> 
> 
> So I wonder, does this change any minds/attitudes?


Please see post 1443 and posts before and after it. You will notice that I and others know exactly what we support and what we don't and are up to date on all the rulings and court cases.


----------



## DEKE01

Bearfootfarm said:


> You say that in most every reply.
> It won't change anything I said


If you weren't wrong so often, I wouldn't have to ask you to re-read my messages. Please try harder.


----------



## InvalidID

I'm curious. Are we worried that an manly girl will be too much for teenage boys to resist if they see her naked? I'm not sure who in that case needs more help.

Are we worried that a boy is going to dress like a girl, in public, come out as transgender, change his entire life and lose friends and family.... So he can see some boobies in the shower? I can't see it. I really can't.


----------



## thericeguy

There are certain individuals, in my opinion, within this thread who only seek to inflame, to increase emotion, for the purpose of creating the possibility of an excited individual to type a phrase or series of words in violation of forum rules and policy. This enables a reporting event where said infividual will be contacted by and censured by moderators. In my opinion, some have the goal to silence your thoughts, expression, and attitude by applying a rulebook. 

I watched one person announce as an enteting post to that time segments threads something to the tune of "right on que [sic], let the reporting begin. In a matter of hours, such contact from moderators was made with me. Lesson learned. 

I suggest to some, do not say you are wrong. Do not say you are stupid. Say, instead that some people are wrong. Some people are stupid. It is all legsl maneuvering at this point. Do not find yourself silenced. It would only serve their cause. 

Oh, and return said favor. Report all harrassing and offensive statements. Equality for all.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> There are certain individuals, in my opinion, within this thread who only seek to inflame, to increase emotion, for the purpose of creating the possibility of an excited individual to type a phrase or series of words in violation of forum rules and policy. This enables a reporting event where said infividual will be contacted by and censured by moderators. In my opinion, some have the goal to silence your thoughts, expression, and attitude by applying a rulebook.
> 
> I watched one person announce as an enteting post to that time segments threads something to the tune of "right on que [sic], let the reporting begin. In a matter of hours, such contact from moderators was made with me. Lesson learned.
> 
> I suggest to some, do not say you are wrong. Do not say you are stupid. Say, instead that some people are wrong. Some people are stupid. It is all legsl maneuvering at this point. Do not find yourself silenced. It would only serve their cause.
> 
> Oh, and return said favor. Report all harrassing and offensive statements. Equality for all.


Your posts seem to show all the attributes that are saying others do. If you believe their posts are a problem then your posts would also be a problem.


----------



## thericeguy

InvalidID said:


> I'm curious. Are we worried that an manly girl will be too much for teenage boys to resist if they see her naked? I'm not sure who in that case needs more help.
> 
> Are we worried that a boy is going to dress like a girl, in public, come out as transgender, change his entire life and lose friends and family.... So he can see some boobies in the shower? I can't see it. I really can't.


No. But the 53 year old pedophile that lives in the shadows and tries to hang out at the childrens section of your public library is probably watching this case closely. Think about him, and if he cares about lost friends to be next to your daughter in the restroom at Walmart.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> Your posts seem to show all the attributes that are saying others do. If you believe their posts are a problem then your posts would also be a problem.


I learned long ago to return favors given.


----------



## InvalidID

thericeguy said:


> No. But the 53 year old pedophile that lives in the shadows and tries to hang out at the childrens section of your public library is probably watching this case closely. Think about him, and if he cares about lost friends to be next to your daughter in the restroom at Walmart.


 This doesn't make him any less a problem. But I don't think it makes him any more a problem either, when, most pedo's fly under the radar as a matter of course. It's a lot harder to diddle kids if everyone is watching you...


----------



## Shine

InvalidID said:


> I'm curious. Are we worried that an manly girl will be too much for teenage boys to resist if they see her naked? I'm not sure who in that case needs more help.
> 
> Are we worried that a boy is going to dress like a girl, in public, come out as transgender, change his entire life and lose friends and family.... So he can see some boobies in the shower? I can't see it. I really can't.


All in all, it seems that transgendered people have not made much of a blip on the criminal radar screen. 

I and others here protest the broad language and the lack of some vetting process to insure that men/boys are not using the guidelines for nefarious means. 

Some on here are saying that there is no worry, there are laws to protect those that need protection and that they are willing to allow young boys into the locker rooms/showers with their young girls. I would offer that this is a bad idea. I am the father of two boys and while I believe that they would act as they should, I do not want them showering with girls their age unless they have long term plans. 

Until this country moves past the sexual irresponsibility stage, I am against allowing naked young boys in the same situations as naked young girls.

It is also about not having any tools to insure that it is only those of the transgender slant that are actually making use of the bathrooms/showers.

Those that have had the surgery are not the subject of this discussion, IMO.


----------



## painterswife

Pedophiles all ready have access to your children if you allow them to go into public bathrooms alone.


----------



## thericeguy

InvalidID said:


> This doesn't make him any less a problem. But I don't think it makes him any more a problem either, when, most pedo's fly under the radar as a matter of course. It's a lot harder to diddle kids if everyone is watching you...


But I do not react based on what you think. If anything happens to my daughter, it will not be you who holds her, tries to explain why people do bad things, and try to get her to sleep. Your "think" just means absolutely nothing to me.


----------



## InvalidID

Shine said:


> All in all, it seems that transgendered people have not made much of a blip on the criminal radar screen.
> 
> I and others here protest the broad language and the lack of some vetting process to insure that men/boys are not using the guidelines for nefarious means.
> 
> Some on here are saying that there is no worry, there are laws to protect those that need protection and that they are willing to allow young boys into the locker rooms/showers with their young girls. I would offer that this is a bad idea. I am the father of two boys and while I believe that they would act as they should, I do not want them showering with girls their age unless they have long term plans.
> 
> Until this country moves past the sexual irresponsibility stage, I am against allowing naked young boys in the same situations as naked young girls.
> 
> It is also about not having any tools to insure that it is only those of the transgender slant that are actually making use of the bathrooms.



Thank you. While I'm not sure I can completely agree, I can understand and do respect the reasoning.

Edit to add: As an afterthought. Would it not be easier to move us passed this sexual immaturity if we started mixing them at a young age? I mean, if it was simply a narmal thing the sexual component wouldn't be there.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> Pedophiles all ready have access to your children if you allow them to go into public bathrooms alone.


Tired argument discounted numerous times in this and another thread. How does a certain user say it? Scroll back.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> Tired argument discounted numerous times in this and another thread. How does a certain user say it? Scroll back.


Acurate argument. Fact. You talk alot about your daughter having something happen to her because of a man yet say nothing about a women doing the same thing to her or a man doing it to a son.


----------



## InvalidID

thericeguy said:


> But I do not react based on what you think. If anything happens to my daughter, it will not be you who holds her, tries to explain why people do bad things, and try to get her to sleep. Your "think" just means absolutely nothing to me.


 So you think it's ok to punish others based on your fear? Same mentality as the gun grabbers. They don't want you to have guns because they're afraid of what you might do.

Innocent people don't deserve to be discriminated against simply because you're afraid of what could happen.


----------



## thericeguy

InvalidID said:


> Thank you. While I'm not sure I can completely agree, I can understand and do respect the reasoning.
> 
> Edit to add: As an afterthought. Would it not be easier to move us passed this sexual immaturity if we started mixing them at a young age? I mean, if it was simply a narmal thing the sexual component wouldn't be there.


What you say is true. In EU, the female breast, oft exposed, is hardly a sexual stimulus anymore. So I cannot and will not say you are wrong. I only say I do not want to see our society get to "nudist beach" mentality in the mainstream. It is personal choice alone.


----------



## Shine

InvalidID said:


> Thank you. While I'm not sure I can completely agree, I can understand and do respect the reasoning.
> 
> Edit to add: As an afterthought. Would it not be easier to move us passed this sexual immaturity if we started mixing them at a young age? I mean, if it was simply a narmal thing the sexual component wouldn't be there.


I would have it that people take a naked body as a beautiful sight rather than something to be leered at. Yes, it might be a good thing to steer them towards a situation where they are desensitized to the sight of a naked body but I do not think that using the children to test this premise out is the best experiment.


----------



## thericeguy

InvalidID said:


> So you think it's ok to punish others based on your fear? Same mentality as the gun grabbers. They don't want you to have guns because they're afraid of what you might do.
> 
> Innocent people don't deserve to be discriminated against simply because you're afraid of what could happen.


Using that same premise, please argue for me for or against drunk driving. A short brief example will suffice.


----------



## Txsteader

InvalidID said:


> I'm curious. Are we worried that an manly girl will be too much for teenage boys to resist if they see her naked? I'm not sure who in that case needs more help.
> 
> Are we worried that a boy is going to dress like a girl, in public, come out as transgender, change his entire life and lose friends and family.... So he can see some boobies in the shower? I can't see it. I really can't.


Who says they have to dress like a girl or change his entire life? All they have to do is 'self-identify'; i.e. one has simply to _believe_ they are a different gender. I've seen nothing that says someone has to dress according to the gender they 'identify' as.


----------



## InvalidID

thericeguy said:


> Using that same premise, please argue for me for or against drunk driving. A short brief example will suffice.


 Ha! You're barking up the wrong tree with that line of thinking. I'm so Libertarian I don't think we should even be forced to have a drivers license. In my opinion, unless you present a clear and present danger, do as you will.


----------



## thericeguy

Txsteader said:


> Who says they have to dress like a girl or change his entire life? All they have to do is 'self-identify'; i.e. one has simply to _believe_ they are a different gender. I've seen nothing that says someone has to dress according to the gender they 'identify' as.


They do not even have to believe it. Only state it. It has been asked numerous times and ignored each time, who shall have the right to validate the validity of the claim?


----------



## InvalidID

Txsteader said:


> Who says they have to dress like a girl or change his entire life? All they have to do is 'self-identify'; i.e. one has simply to _believe_ they are a different gender. I've seen nothing that says someone has to dress according to the gender they 'identify' as.


 Interesting take. I guess I was taking a don't ask don't tell approach.


----------



## thericeguy

InvalidID said:


> Ha! You're barking up the wrong tree with that line of thinking. I'm so Libertarian I don't think we should even be forced to have a drivers license. In my opinion, unless you present a clear and present danger, do as you will.


You stated that based on my fears, I had no right to restrict access. While yours or mine personal beliefs may be further apart or closer than either of us suppose, my point was that our society is quite filled with constitutional laws which restrict our access to places, persons, and behaviors. Why is transgenderism being treated differently, as if it some holy grail of rights, unassailable by anyone for any reason?


----------



## InvalidID

thericeguy said:


> You stated that based on my fears, I had no right to restrict access. While yours or mine personal beliefs may be further apart or closer than either of us suppose, my point was that our society is quite filled with constitutional laws which restrict our access to places, persons, and behaviors. Why is transgenderism being treated differently, as if it some holy grail of rights, unassailable by anyone for any reason?


 Why do they let those uppity colored people use our bathrooms? 

While a thing maybe the law, it does not make it right.


----------



## Txsteader

painterswife said:


> Please see post 1443 and posts before and after it. You will notice that I and others know exactly what we support and what we don't and are up to date on all the rulings and court cases.


Here's what you said in the 'Illinois School' 
thread:
http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/7584258-post258.html




> As far as each individual wants it to go. *No child has to share the shower with someone else. *That will be and should be the next court case.


According to that story & Title IX, are you wrong?


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> Here's what you said in the 'Illinois School'
> thread:
> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/7584258-post258.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to that story & Title IX, are you wrong?


Why would I be wrong? Does tiltle IX force children to share showers if they do not wish too?


----------



## farmrbrown

Txsteader said:


> Here's what you said in the 'Illinois School'
> thread:
> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/7584258-post258.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to that story & Title IX, are you wrong?





painterswife said:


> Why would I be wrong? Does tiltle IX force children to share showers if they do not wish too?


I picked up on the nuance of what Painterswife said, Txsteader, when I went back to her post she linked on another thread.
It took me a few minutes to figure out her stance, because at first it does seem conflicted
Maybe she would explain it or maybe she expects you to see it without any help, but here is my take on what she is saying.........

Even if the court case on Title IX allows transgender students to go into communal showers and locker rooms, which it does, she reserves the right to keep her own child from using it at the same time or perhaps leave it up to their own decision based on what they are comfortable doing.

IOW, it's OK to segregate *yourselves*, but not for the *government* to do it by barring transgender students who want to use those facilities, whenever they want to.

(Did I get that right?)


----------



## painterswife

You got it right. 

No one is or should be required to expose themselves or be exposed to others in a state of undress. I have always had a problem with that be it a washroom, a shower or even a dressing room in a store. We should always have the choice of a private stall, shower or changing room.

Never did understand urinals and the concept of allowing your young boy to be exposed to other men in that way. Stalls should be the norm or urinals should have their own room and you choose to be less private. It is not forced on you.


----------



## Heritagefarm

InvalidID said:


> I suppose that would depend on how you define allowed. If by allowed we we mean noone has stopped them, noone has questioned them, and they've entered, urinated, and left unimpeded... I'd say for a very long time.
> 
> This is because so many trans people look like the sex they identify as. If some short slightly effeminate 'dude' is taking a leak at the urinal next to me I don't generally ask for ID or peak to see if he's really a 'dude'. Generally, I just shake and move on.
> I assume the same is (was?) true for masculine women in the bathroom. If she's in her own stall taking a leak, I don't think anyone asks for ID or does a spot check for vaginal approval. If she looks like a woman and has to pee, then she's going to. Even if she's tirefire ugly.... :cow:
> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com//www.pinterest.com/pin/create/extension/


Yes, but technically at the moment it seems like if all a boy has to is claim to be a girl... whether or not he actually believes it is beside the point.... then he would have access to the girl's bathroom. 
This issue is indeed overblown. Let's worry about corrupt government instead.
Using my criteria, I'd say there's very little risk from a woman entering the men's restroom. I'd just be something like, "Hm, whatever," and go on my merry way.


----------



## farmrbrown

painterswife said:


> You got it right.
> 
> No one is or should be required to expose themselves or be exposed to others in a state of undress. I have always had a problem with that be it a washroom, a shower or even a dressing room in a store. We should always have the choice of a private stall, shower or changing room.


The biggest obstacle there, as usual is $$$




> Never did understand urinals and the concept of allowing your young boy to be exposed to other men in that way. Stalls should be the norm or urinals should have their own room and you choose to be less private. It is not forced on you.



Ok, it's my turn to explain an apparent conflict of thought. :happy2:

There is an unspoken rule among men about urinals, taught to us as young as possible.............

"Hey! Eyes Front!"
:nanner:

What can I tell ya? It seems to work well.

(Even in establishments that think it's quaint or efficient to have one long trough, like a bathtub. Step right up, no waiting, lol)


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> There are certain individuals, in my opinion, within this thread who only seek to inflame, to increase emotion, for the purpose of creating the possibility of an excited individual to type a phrase or series of words in violation of forum rules and policy. This enables a reporting event where said infividual will be contacted by and censured by moderators. In my opinion, some have the goal to silence your thoughts, expression, and attitude by applying a rulebook.
> 
> I watched one person announce as an enteting post to that time segments threads something to the tune of "right on que [sic], let the reporting begin. In a matter of hours, such contact from moderators was made with me. Lesson learned.
> 
> I suggest to some, do not say you are wrong. Do not say you are stupid. Say, instead that some people are wrong. Some people are stupid. It is all legsl maneuvering at this point. Do not find yourself silenced. It would only serve their cause.
> 
> Oh, and return said favor. Report all harrassing and offensive statements. Equality for all.


As far as I know you are the only one who has reported any posts
You also appear to be the one most often going off topic and making personal remarks.

If you got any communication from a moderator, it was because of something *you* said, not something anyone else had any control over. Don't try to shunt the blame when it's you alone


----------



## InvalidID

farmrbrown said:


> The biggest obstacle there, as usual is $$$
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, it's my turn to explain an apparent conflict of thought. :happy2:
> 
> There is an unspoken rule among men about urinals, taught to us as young as possible.............
> 
> "Hey! Eyes Front!"
> :nanner:
> 
> What can I tell ya? It seems to work well.
> 
> (Even in establishments that think it's quaint or efficient to have one long trough, like a bathtub. Step right up, no waiting, lol)



Yep, I'd never know if a female dressed as a male was in the bathroom cause I'm programmed to keep my eyes on my own...lol
http://www.homesteadingtoday.com//www.pinterest.com/pin/create/extension/


----------



## InvalidID

So all, what about the original unisex bathroom? I mean, we've all pee'd on the same bushes for thousands of years... Haha


----------



## InvalidID

Heritagefarm said:


> Yes, but technically at the moment it seems like if all a boy has to is claim to be a girl... whether or not he actually believes it is beside the point.... then he would have access to the girl's bathroom.
> This issue is indeed overblown. Let's worry about corrupt government instead.
> Using my criteria, I'd say there's very little risk from a woman entering the men's restroom. I'd just be something like, "Hm, whatever," and go on my merry way.


 See, now we agree on this. And a point I made earlier I think carries over here fairly well.

As men we aren't worried about women in the mens room. We just don't care. 

Men in the womens room is a little more touchy (no pun intended). But we shouldn't be worried about it as much as people seem to think. There are more cases of Senators being charged with lewd behavior in public restrooms than trans people. We should ban them from public restrooms!

In the case of pedo's, how are you going to snatch a kid if everyone is looking at you? True trans people spend most of the time they are in public trying to not be 'noticed'. I think pedo's do the same. Walking into a womens room looking for a kid to snatch seems like the wrong way to go unseen. I'm more worried about the guy sitting alone near the park, sitting in his car for too long near the school, or the guy I don't even notice...


----------



## Heritagefarm

farmrbrown said:


> The biggest obstacle there, as usual is $$$
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, it's my turn to explain an apparent conflict of thought. :happy2:
> 
> There is an unspoken rule among men about urinals, taught to us as young as possible.............
> 
> "Hey! Eyes Front!"
> :nanner:
> 
> What can I tell ya? It seems to work well.
> 
> (Even in establishments that think it's quaint or efficient to have one long trough, like a bathtub. Step right up, no waiting, lol)


I either use a different restroom or find a stall if they have that. :umno:


----------



## painterswife

farmrbrown said:


> The biggest obstacle there, as usual is $$$
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, it's my turn to explain an apparent conflict of thought. :happy2:
> 
> There is an unspoken rule among men about urinals, taught to us as young as possible.............
> 
> "Hey! Eyes Front!"
> :nanner:
> 
> What can I tell ya? It seems to work well.
> 
> (Even in establishments that think it's quaint or efficient to have one long trough, like a bathtub. Step right up, no waiting, lol)


Then what is the problem. We should all just be taught, "eyes front" because then no one will ever abuse someone elses privacy and no one ever needs a private stall for anything.


----------



## Heritagefarm

InvalidID said:


> See, now we agree on this. And a point I made earlier I think carries over here fairly well.
> 
> As men we aren't worried about women in the mens room. We just don't care.
> 
> Men in the womens room is a little more touchy (no pun intended). But we shouldn't be worried about it as much as people seem to think. There are more cases of Senators being charged with lewd behavior in public restrooms than trans people. We should ban them from public restrooms!
> 
> In the case of pedo's, how are you going to snatch a kid if everyone is looking at you? True trans people spend most of the time they are in public trying to not be 'noticed'. I think pedo's do the same. Walking into a womens room looking for a kid to snatch seems like the wrong way to go unseen. I'm more worried about the guy sitting alone near the park, sitting in his car for too long near the school, or the guy I don't even notice...


That's true. And honestly most transgenders are so not-quite-either-sex they throw up a flag. I've seen some really ugly women, or were they good looking guys?:huh:


----------



## logbuilder

thericeguy said:


> Using that same premise, please argue for me for or against drunk driving. A short brief example will suffice.


Why do you persist in trying to derail the discussion? 


Isn't there some middle ground or do we have to just battle it out and then retreat to our corners saying to ourselves that we won? While, yet the judges have not spoken and potentially whatever they say will be the law of the land.

Here is my middle ground:



Look like a dude, go into the dude's room.
Look like a gal, go into the gal's room.
Use stalls or urinals as appropriate.
Schools, get curtains to allow private changing and showering.
If you have a concern that you escalate to authorities and it ends up being unfounded, you are subject to strict civil liability.

Do anything to harm another, you will face the charges. There are already plenty of laws to nail almost anyone that does questionable things.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> You got it right.
> 
> No one is or should be required to expose themselves or be exposed to others in a state of undress. I have always had a problem with that be it a washroom, a shower or even a dressing room in a store. We should always have the choice of a private stall, shower or changing room.
> 
> Never did understand urinals and the concept of allowing your young boy to be exposed to other men in that way. Stalls should be the norm or urinals should have their own room and you choose to be less private. It is not forced on you.


So when a school class allows 10 minutes to undress and redress, and that opposite sex person in your locker room uses 9 of those minutes, in order to exercise your freedom to not undress in front of them, what options are left available to you?

Dress in 1 minute, something no other student would appear even capable of doing. Accept daily discipline for being late. Do not participate in the activity at all. 

It seems to me the free access of one group is being trampled by the free access of another. 

Fine, every school build another locker room, required by law to be the same, so it too is open. All the students who oppose being undressed with another sex move there. One opposite sex student moves there too. 

So we build a fourth ....

It all seems retarded when it is solved by the addition of or creation of a unisex area. But that solution is rejected, CAUSE WE HAVE RIGHTS.


----------



## thericeguy

logbuilder said:


> Why do you persist in trying to derail the discussion?
> 
> 
> Isn't there some middle ground or do we have to just battle it out and then retreat to our corners saying to ourselves that we won? While, yet the judges have not spoken and potentially whatever they say will be the law of the land.
> 
> Here is my middle ground:
> 
> 
> 
> Look like a dude, go into the dude's room.
> Look like a gal, go into the gal's room.
> Use stalls or urinals as appropriate.
> Schools, get curtains to allow private changing and showering.
> If you have a concern that you escalate to authorities and it ends up being unfounded, you are subject to strict civil liability.
> 
> Do anything to harm another, you will face the charges. There are already plenty of laws to nail almost anyone that does questionable things.


Derail the discussion? It has often been stated that others have no right to tell anyone else where they pee. In each instance, I have pointed out numerous laws that restrict access to places or behaviours of people. Laws that, it seems, moone questions the legitimacy of as they are not a part of public debate. 

It has been said it is unconstitutional to tell anyone where they must pee. I have pointed out the government deprives people of life itself in the form of execution, which has been found numerous times to be constitutional. 

In this particular instance, a member stated I had no right to restrict bathroom access based on fear. Is not a law against drunk driving nothing but restricting access to an activity nothing but exercising a fear of an outcome, namely a wreck harming others. 

Do I need to point out a dozen other laws noone says are illegitimate or unconstitutional which are based solely on preventing an unwanted outcome?

I am sorry if you do not like having to draw parallels, and prefer thinking in single topics only, but that does not make what I say a derail at all. 

People are trying to craft a very narrow argument here, exclude all other variables, and pretend changes will not create further changes. 

As an example, bathroom predation history is often cited to nullify my opinion, andbthat my fear is unwarranted. So you use a history where men are not allowed and are not commonplace to predict the outcome of a time and place where men are allowed and will be commonplace. If you cannot see the falsity in that....

I directly refuted the claim of another member. In no way is that a derail. Your post about my post being a derail is FAR more of a derail than my post refuting a claim. How about that.


----------



## thericeguy

And it does not appear they desire any form of middle ground. It appears they want nothing short of reshaping the norms of or excluding every citizen in this nation so that a self proclaimed trans and any imposters can and will stand next to sn opposite sex person and there is nothing anyone can do about it. 

I hsve already been invited to leave the country if I do not like what they are asking. Just making sure you understand the positions here of your current administration and the party of which he is a member. They do not care about your middle ground or reasonable attitudes. 

It is called an agenda because it is an agenda.

A unisex restroom is already middle ground. A safe place to pee, free from persecution or fear of violence from those that wish them harm. Rejected.

It is not enough to have a place to pee. They want to pee THERE, next to you, so that you must see they are there and accept that you can do nothing about it. This has so little to do with taking a pee or changing clothes, I do not know why those words are even part of the debate. 

It is about acceptance. Why are we talking about urinals and showers and never about acceptance? Again, silly.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Why are we talking about urinals and showers and never about acceptance? Again, silly.


You could always start a thread about "acceptance" or a *lack* thereof.
This one is about bathrooms


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> So when a school class allows 10 minutes to undress and redress, and that opposite sex person in your locker room uses 9 of those minutes, in order to exercise your freedom to not undress in front of them, what options are left available to you?
> 
> Dress in 1 minute, something no other student would appear even capable of doing. Accept daily discipline for being late. Do not participate in the activity at all.
> 
> It seems to me the free access of one group is being trampled by the free access of another.
> 
> Fine, every school build another locker room, required by law to be the same, so it too is open. All the students who oppose being undressed with another sex move there. One opposite sex student moves there too.
> 
> So we build a fourth ....
> 
> It all seems retarded when it is solved by the addition of or creation of a unisex area. But that solution is rejected, CAUSE WE HAVE RIGHTS.


Free access is not a right. Being treated equally is a right.

You listing the pros and cons of every situation does not change the fact that discrimination is not allowed under our constitution.


----------



## thericeguy

thericeguy said:


> And it does not appear they desire any form of middle ground. It appears they want nothing short of reshaping the norms of or excluding every citizen in this nation so that a self proclaimed trans and any imposters can and will stand next to sn opposite sex person and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
> 
> I hsve already been invited to leave the country if I do not like what they are asking. Just making sure you understand the positions here of your current administration and the party of which he is a member. They do not care about your middle ground or reasonable attitudes.
> 
> It is called an agenda because it is an agenda.
> 
> A unisex restroom is already middle ground. A safe place to pee, free from persecution or fear of violence from those that wish them harm. Rejected.
> 
> It is not enough to have a place to pee. They want to pee THERE, next to you, so that you must see they are there and accept that you can do nothing about it. This has so little to do with taking a pee or changing clothes, I do not know why those words are even part of the debate.
> 
> It is about acceptance. Why are we talking about urinals and showers and never about acceptance? Again, silly.





painterswife said:


> Free access is not a right. Being treated equally is a right.
> 
> You listing the pros and cons of every situation does not change the fact that discrimination is not allowed under our constitution.


Correct. I agree with everything you stated. The argument/discussion/fights starts when we debate the criteria we use to base this theoretical equality upon. Our framework of laws lays out that criteris. Race, sex, religion. It has changed over time what criteria we use. 

What you do not accept, though I have mentioned it on several occasions, is that you and I are allies. We seek the same basic goals; a society where individuals are free to express themselves without persecution or fear of safety. To be accepted and valued as members of a society and a nation. Is this a good enough goal? It implies a fair and level playing field. A just and righteous rulebook. And someone (government) to enforce the rules of that rulebook. 

I raise my children to be as colorblind as possible. For the male members to understand that women do not exist for your sexual gratification or household income. That people are different and we should celebrate that difference. These principles apply to heterosexuald, homosexuals, bisexuals, trisexuals as soon as those lawsuits start, Christians, athiests, Jews, blacks, whites, hispanic, and Asians. 

But what happens here. You see two things about me; Christian and dares to disagree with you on this mattet. You whip out your Sharpie snd label me; bigot, racist, crazy, conservative, intolerant, and I am sure that list contains words unfit for public display. And then you treat me and talk to me according to those beliefs. I have probably done the same. 

Is it not better to create a society where a trans feels free of persecution than to live in a society where they have forced themselves into a location that clearly makes people uncomfortable? Creating enemies rarely makes friends. 

You say gender is a reason we cannot discriminate. I say sex. Our laws say sex. Our constitution says sex. See the debate properly framed now? It is NOT about whether we can discriminate. I have proven over and over we can and do. Every single person. Even you. It is about on what basis we allow that discrimination.


----------



## thericeguy

And as to your right to be treated equally, this is a theoretical notion. We do not treat all members of society equally. 

When a strip club for male clients hires a new dancer, do they have to consider male applicants? The supreme court says no. This is based solely on genetalia, is it not?

A movie theater charges you $8 to watch a movie and $5 for the child sitting next to you which watches the exact same movie occupying the same amount of space. Equal?

We do not live in an equal society. That is a utopian ideal which cannot exist in reality.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> Correct. I agree with everything you stated. The argument/discussion/fights starts when we debate the criteria we use to base this theoretical equality upon. Our framework of laws lays out that criteris. Race, sex, religion. It has changed over time what criteria we use.
> 
> What you do not accept, though I have mentioned it on several occasions, is that you and I are allies. We seek the same basic goals; a society where individuals are free to express themselves without persecution or fear of safety. To be accepted and valued as members of a society and a nation. Is this a good enough goal? It implies a fair and level playing field. A just and righteous rulebook. And someone (government) to enforce the rules of that rulebook.
> 
> I raise my children to be as colorblind as possible. For the male members to understand that women do not exist for your sexual gratification or household income. That people are different and we should celebrate that difference. These principles apply to heterosexuald, homosexuals, bisexuals, trisexuals as soon as those lawsuits start, Christians, athiests, Jews, blacks, whites, hispanic, and Asians.
> 
> But what happens here. You see two things about me; Christian and dares to disagree with you on this mattet. You whip out your Sharpie snd label me; bigot, racist, crazy, conservative, intolerant, and I am sure that list contains words unfit for public display. And then you treat me and talk to me according to those beliefs. I have probably done the same.
> 
> Is it not better to create a society where a trans feels free of persecution than to live in a society where they have forced themselves into a location that clearly makes people uncomfortable? Creating enemies rarely makes friends.
> 
> You say gender is a reason we cannot discriminate. I say sex. Our laws say sex. Our constitution says sex. See the debate properly framed now? It is NOT about whether we can discriminate. I have proven over and over we can and do. Every single person. Even you. It is about on what basis we allow that discrimination.


You don't know what I see. Nor do you know what I think about who you are. Please stop trying to tell me what my thoughts are. It is really a very bad way to try to get my or anyone's attention.

PS this is about discrimination based on sex.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> And as to your right to be treated equally, this is a theoretical notion. We do not treat all members of society equally.
> 
> When a strip club for male clients hires a new dancer, do they have to consider male applicants? The supreme court says no. This is based solely on genetalia, is it not?
> 
> A movie theater charges you $8 to watch a movie and $5 for the child sitting next to you which watches the exact same movie occupying the same amount of space. Equal?
> 
> We do not live in an equal society. That is a utopian ideal which cannot exist in reality.


Just because no one has every fought every single instance of discrimination based on age or sex does not mean they are legal. We are a nation in process at all times working towards wiping out alll discrimination that should not exist within the framework of our constitution. 

Some small forms of discrimination are just worth it to fight in the courts to some. Some are.


----------



## painterswife

In reality it is our appeance not our sex organs that society uses to determine what bathroom they thing we should be in. Look like the sex stipulated on the door and very seldom will anyone ever notice. Stray from that norm and people get their panties in a wad.

A women could look like a man and never even be questioned about their using the men's bathroom. They never check your actual sex organs. Now they actually know for a fact the sex organs because of circumstances and a bunch of people are in a tizzy. It is hysterical.

The sign on the door is a suggestion not a law.


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> Pedophiles all ready have access to your children if you allow them to go into public bathrooms alone.


This exactly. 

I'll make it simple- mind your own business and keep an eye on your kids. No little kid should be in any public bathroom, public locker room, or public shower alone.

I take it that the _bathroom_ issue is pretty much resolved since we've moved on to locker rooms and showers? 

Even in the dark ages of the 60s and 70s when I went to school there was at least 1 private shower with a changing area, if your daughter will be scarred for life by seeing a penis she should use it. Everyone sees a penis eventually, and chances are she'll like them plenty at some point of her life. 

The transgender girls that push this issue to the point of using locker rooms and showers are truly transgender. They've (the girl in this court case is a prime example) lived as a girl for years, is on hormone therapy, play on a girl's sport team, etc. It's safe to say that she isn't a straight boy just trying to see someone naked. You (collective you) should be worried about the policies in place that allows who gets to use the locker room and shower facilities- there needs to be set rules of how long someone has lived as the other gender, are they receiving hormone treatment, etc. to weed out the straight boy creepers. 

I'm confident that this situation can be resolved so that all American citizens are treated equally.


----------



## Irish Pixie

logbuilder said:


> Why do you persist in trying to derail the discussion?
> 
> 
> Isn't there some middle ground or do we have to just battle it out and then retreat to our corners saying to ourselves that we won? While, yet the judges have not spoken and potentially whatever they say will be the law of the land.
> 
> Here is my middle ground:
> 
> 
> 
> Look like a dude, go into the dude's room.
> Look like a gal, go into the gal's room.
> Use stalls or urinals as appropriate.
> Schools, get curtains to allow private changing and showering.
> If you have a concern that you escalate to authorities and it ends up being unfounded, you are subject to strict civil liability.
> 
> Do anything to harm another, you will face the charges. There are already plenty of laws to nail almost anyone that does questionable things.


A common sense, spot on post. Thank you.


----------



## DEKE01

painterswife said:


> Free access is not a right. Being treated equally is a right.
> 
> You listing the pros and cons of every situation does not change the fact that discrimination is not allowed under our constitution.


Discrimination is allowed under the constitution. You discriminate every day. 

But since you brought it up...

How is it discrimination and what are the adverse consequences? LOL. I won't hold my breath.


----------



## DEKE01

painterswife said:


> You don't know what I see. Nor do you know what I think about who you are. Please stop trying to tell me what my thoughts are. It is really a very bad way to try to get my or anyone's attention.
> 
> PS this is about discrimination based on sex.


You may want to go back and read the thread. Your side didn't an awful lot of time insisting it was about gender, not sex.


----------



## painterswife

DEKE01 said:


> You. Irish pixie. Bear foot farm.
> 
> You can't even hide behind your gender argument. An unaltered transgender is still biologically his birth sex. A born male trans G will shower with girls. That is the official policy of DoED under title IX.
> 
> You really stepped in it this time. LOL.
> 
> It is amazing these people don't even know what they are arguing for.





DEKE01 said:


> Discrimination is allowed under the constitution. You discriminate every day.
> 
> But since you brought it up...
> 
> How is it discrimination and what are the adverse consequences? LOL. I won't hold my breath.


How about you admit you were wrong about what you posted about me first. Then I will answer your question again. Not holding my breath.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

DEKE01 said:


> Discrimination is allowed under the constitution. You discriminate every day.
> 
> But since you brought it up...
> 
> How is it discrimination and what are the adverse consequences? LOL. I won't hold my breath.


You can find the answer here
Just read until you get to it:

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/sp...ppeals-court-rules-transgender-bathrooms.html


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> And it does not appear they desire any form of middle ground. It appears they want nothing short of reshaping the norms of or excluding every citizen in this nation so that a self proclaimed trans and any imposters can and will stand next to sn opposite sex person and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
> 
> I hsve already been invited to leave the country if I do not like what they are asking. Just making sure you understand the positions here of your current administration and the party of which he is a member. They do not care about your middle ground or reasonable attitudes.
> 
> It is called an agenda because it is an agenda.
> 
> A unisex restroom is already middle ground. A safe place to pee, free from persecution or fear of violence from those that wish them harm. Rejected.
> 
> It is not enough to have a place to pee. They want to pee THERE, next to you, so that you must see they are there and accept that you can do nothing about it. This has so little to do with taking a pee or changing clothes, I do not know why those words are even part of the debate.
> 
> It is about acceptance. Why are we talking about urinals and showers and never about acceptance? Again, silly.


Do you really think that anyone's opinion here (or pretty much anywhere else) is going to make a bit of difference? In the US we live under a thing called the Constitution. The SCOTUS uses the Constitution to define our laws. In 1964, SCOTUS ratified The Civil Rights Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964) and it declared that certain groups of people can't be discriminated against. I'm sure that you're going to say that LGBT is not named in that act as one of the protected classes so I'll refer you to US v. Windsor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Windsor) that gave LGBT the right to marry. There are also multiple laws against LGBT discrimination. I think (_my opinion_) is that LGBT will be added to the protected class soon, it's already effectively there when DOMA was struck down. 

Finally, we live in a country that values freedom over everything, and that means freedom for everyone, not just certain people. I suggest that while you may not embrace this change, it is inevitable and the issue now is rules and how to effectively enforce them. Or not, keep banging your collective heads against a wall. It is your choice. 

This is my opinion and I am allowed to express it even if it is not universally accepted.


----------



## arabian knight

painterswife said:


> Free access is not a right. Being treated equally is a right.


NOT when it comes to Privacy in the Bathroom it don't. This is the oNLY thing you dudes have to swing on is this flimsy equal rights crap. Well it ain't gonna fly the it some to Privacy and Safety when taking a leak or a dump. Get off your high-horse in this E R crap. The sting is so weak and being stretched like a rubber band about to BREAK. And BREAK int will when this crap gets into a more reasonable court system, not this liberal crud that is happening today. And this PC crap that is running amok.


----------



## painterswife

arabian knight said:


> NOT when it comes to Privacy in the Bathroom it don't. This is the oNLY thing you dudes have to swing on is this flimsy equal rights crap. Well it ain't gonna fly the it some to Privacy and Safety when taking a leak or a dump. Get off your high-horse in this E R crap. The sting is so weak and being stretched like a rubber band about to BREAK. And BREAK int will when this crap gets into a more reasonable court system, not this liberal crud that is happening today. And this PC crap that is running amok.


A stall is all the privacy you need. That is all the privacy you get now so why does it matter what sex the person who is sitting in the next stall is?


----------



## arabian knight

Irish Pixie said:


> Finally, we live in a country that values freedom over everything,


Freedom comes with SACRIFICE. Get off this crap that taking one where you want is a freedom. IT IS NOT. Not the way you THINK it is. Not the way the liberal thinking is, always want to be special don't you? Always put up on a pedestal saying hey look I am better then you and now I have more rights then YOU. BOLONEY on this entire liberal crap that is happening. Boy do we need Trump more then ever to get this country whipped back into shape.~! And to clip a few wings off the way this country is flying these days.


----------



## painterswife

arabian knight said:


> Freedom comes with SACRIFICE. Get off this crap that taking one where you want is a freedom. IT IS NOT. Not the way you THINK it is. Not the way the liberal thinking is, always want to be special don't you? Always put up on a pedestal saying hey look I am better then you and now I have more rights then YOU. BOLONEY on this entire liberal crap that is happening. Boy do we need Trump more then ever to get this country whipped back into shape.~! And to clip a few wings off the way this country is flying these days.


Logic is how you plead you case. Emotion does not further your position.


----------



## arabian knight

This country is no longer the "Home of the brave". It is now the "Home of the minority offended whining cry babies."


----------



## painterswife

arabian knight said:


> This country is no longer the "Home of the brave". It is now the "Home of the minority offended whining cry babies."


Yes, your posts do seem to be a lot of whining about what you think the state of things are.


----------



## DEKE01

painterswife said:


> Logic is how you plead you case. Emotion does not further your position.


LOL 

Emotion is exactly what drives the whole issue. The emotions of a few mentally ill people. There is no logic by your side at all. 

Because as often as you duck, weave, evade, and lie, no one has yet to describe the discrimination and adverse consequences.


----------



## DEKE01

painterswife said:


> How about you admit you were wrong about what you posted about me first. Then I will answer your question again. Not holding my breath.


Since your post contains the sane lie you've been repeating, I don't trust youto follow thru.


----------



## DEKE01

Bearfootfarm said:


> You can find the answer here
> Just read until you get to it:
> 
> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/sp...ppeals-court-rules-transgender-bathrooms.html


Read it. Once again You are arong.


----------



## painterswife

DEKE01 said:


> Since your post contains the sane lie you've been repeating, I don't trust youto follow thru.


Another excuse to refuse to admit you were wrong.


----------



## farmrbrown

DEKE01 said:


> LOL
> 
> Emotion is exactly what drives the whole issue. The emotions of a few mentally ill people. There is no logic by your side at all.
> 
> Because as often as you duck, weave, evade, and lie, no one has yet to describe the discrimination and adverse consequences.


If for no other reason, I find the responses interesting in this thread in the way answers are NOT simply given to easy questions.
Sure, you can say, "Scroll back, it's already been answered" but if it takes only a few minutes to copy a paragraph or two and intelligently and thoughtfully answer a legitimate question, why insist on being a stubborn  just because your emotions get in the way of logic?


Deke, I'll give you an answer from the court transcript in a few minutes, since your opponents seem unwilling or unable to do so....................



http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/152056.P.pdf



*"
J.A. 15-16; 58.
At the November 11, 2014 meeting twenty-seven people spoke
during the Citizens&#8217; Comment Period, a majority of whom supported Hook&#8217;s proposed resolution. Many of the speakers displayed hostility to G.G., including by referring pointedly to
8
him as a &#8220;young lady.&#8221; J.A. 16. Others claimed that permitting G.G. to use the boys&#8217; restroom would violate the privacy of other students and would lead to sexual assault in restrooms. One commenter suggested that if the proposed policy were not adopted, non-transgender boys would come to school wearing dresses in order to gain access to the girls&#8217; restrooms. G.G. and his parents spoke against the proposed policy. Ultimately, the Board postponed a vote on the policy until its next meeting on December 9, 2014.
At the December 9 meeting, approximately thirty-seven people spoke during the Citizens&#8217; Comment Period. Again, most of those who spoke were in favor of the proposed resolution. Some speakers threatened to vote the Board members out of office if the Board members voted against the proposed policy. Speakers again referred to G.G. as a &#8220;girl&#8221; or &#8220;young lady.&#8221; J.A. 18. One speaker called G.G. a &#8220;freak&#8221; and compared him to a person who thinks he is a &#8220;dog&#8221; and wants to urinate on fire hydrants. Id. Following this second comment period, the Board voted 6-1 to adopt the proposed policy, thereby barring G.G. from using the boys&#8217; restroom at school.
G.G. alleges that he cannot use the girls&#8217; restroom because women and girls in those facilities &#8220;react[] negatively because they perceive[] G.G. to be a boy.&#8221; Id. Further, using the girls&#8217; restroom would &#8220;cause severe psychological distress&#8221; to
&#65532;&#65532;9
G.G. and would be incompatible with his treatment for gender dysphoria. J.A. 19. As a corollary to the policy, the Board announced a series of updates to the school&#8217;s restrooms to improve general privacy for all students, including adding or expanding partitions between urinals in male restrooms, adding privacy strips to the doors of stalls in all restrooms, and constructing single-stall unisex restrooms available to all students. G.G. alleges that he cannot use these new unisex restrooms because they &#8220;make him feel even more stigmatized . . . . Being required to use the separate restrooms sets him apart from his peers, and serves as a daily reminder that the school views him as &#8216;different.&#8217;&#8221; Id. G.G. further alleges that, because of this stigma and exclusion, his social transition is undermined and he experiences &#8220;severe and persistent emotional and social harms.&#8221; Id. G.G. avoids using the restroom while at school and has, as a result of this avoidance, developed multiple urinary tract infections.
B.
G.G. sued the Board on June 11, 2015. G.G. seeks an
injunction allowing him to use the boys&#8217; restroom and brings underlying claims that the Board impermissibly discriminated against him in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution."

&#65532;&#65532;10*

*"
G.G. alleges that by singling him out for different
treatment because he is transgender, the Board&#8217;s restroom policy discriminates against him &#8220;on the basis of sex&#8221; in violation of Title IX. In light of the weight of circuit authority concluding that discrimination against transgender individuals constitutes discrimination &#8220;on the basis of sex&#8221; in the context
&#65532;&#65532;&#65532;&#65532;&#65532;&#65532;37
of analogous statutes and our holding here that the Department&#8217;s interpretation of 34 C.F.R. Â§ 106.33 is to be given controlling weight, G.G. has surely demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of his Title IX claim. See Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 250&#8211;51 (1989); see also Glenn v. Brumby, 663 F.3d 1312, 1316&#8211;19 (11th Cir. 2011); Smith v. City of Salem, 378 F.3d 566, 573&#8211;75 (6th Cir. 2004); Rosa v. Park W. Bank & Trust Co., 214 F.3d 213, 215&#8211;16 (1st Cir. 2000); Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187, 1201&#8211;02 (9th Cir. 2000).
B.
In support of his claim of irreparable harm, G.G. submitted
an affidavit to the district court describing the psychological distress he experiences when he is forced to use the single- stall restrooms or the restroom in the nurse&#8217;s office. See J.A. 32&#8211;33. His affidavit also indicates that he has &#8220;repeatedly developed painful urinary tract infections&#8221; as a result of holding his urine in order to avoid using the restroom at school. Id.
An expert declaration by Dr. Randi Ettner, a psychologist specializing in working with children and adolescents with gender dysphoria, provides further support for G.G.&#8217;s claim of irreparable harm. In her affidavit, Dr. Ettner indicates that treating a transgender boy as male in some situations but not in others is &#8220;inconsistent with evidence-based medical practice and
&#65532;&#65532;&#65532;&#65532;&#65532;&#65532;&#65532;&#65532;&#65532;&#65532;&#65532;&#65532;38
detrimental to the health and well-being of the child&#8221; and explains why access to a restroom appropriate to one&#8217;s gender identity is important for transgender youth. J.A. 39. With respect to G.G. in particular, Dr. Ettner states that in her professional opinion, the Board&#8217;s restroom policy &#8220;is currently causing emotional distress to an extremely vulnerable youth and placing G.G. at risk for accruing lifelong psychological harm.&#8221; J.A. 41. In particular, Dr. Ettner opines that
[a]s a result of the School Board&#8217;s restroom policy, . . . G.G. is put in the humiliating position of having to use a separate facility, thereby accentuating his &#8216;otherness,&#8217; undermining his identity formation, and impeding his medically necessary social transition process. The shame of being singled out and stigmatized in his daily life every time he needs to use the restroom is a devastating blow to G.G. and places him at extreme risk for immediate and long-term psychological harm.
J.A. 42.
The Board offers nothing to contradict any of the
assertions concerning irreparable harm in G.G.&#8217;s or Dr. Ettner&#8217;s affidavits. Instead, its arguments focus on what is purportedly lacking from G.G.&#8217;s presentation in support of his claim of irreparable harm, such as &#8220;evidence that [his feelings of dysphoria, anxiety, and distress] would be lessened by using the boy[s&#8217;] restroom,&#8221; evidence from his treating psychologist, medical evidence, and an opinion from Dr. Ettner &#8220;differentiating between the distress that G.G. may suffer by
39
not using the boy[s&#8217;] bathroom during the course of this litigation and the distress that he has apparently been living with since age 12.&#8221; Br. Appellee 42&#8211;43. As to the alleged deficiency concerning Dr. Ettner&#8217;s opinion, the Board&#8217;s argument is belied by Dr. Ettner&#8217;s affidavit itself, which, as quoted above, provides her opinion about the psychological harm that G.G. is experiencing &#8220;[a]s a result of the School Board&#8217;s restroom policy.&#8221; J.A. 42. With respect to the other purported inadequacies, the absence of such evidence does nothing to undermine the uncontroverted statements concerning the daily psychological harm G.G. experiences as a result of the Board&#8217;s policy or Dr. Ettner&#8217;s unchallenged opinion concerning the significant long-term consequences of that harm. Moreover, the Board offers no argument to counter G.G.&#8217;s averment that he has repeatedly contracted a urinary tract infection as a result of holding his urine to avoid using the restroom at school.
The uncontroverted facts before the district court demonstrate that as a result of the Board&#8217;s restroom policy, G.G. experiences daily psychological harm that puts him at risk for long-term psychological harm, and his avoidance of the restroom as a result of the Board&#8217;s policy puts him at risk for developing a urinary tract infection as he has repeatedly in the past. G.G. has thus demonstrated that he will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction."






40*






BTW, the same court transcript also contains the judges agreement that the term "sex" in Title IX is clear in its meaning of gender.
There are only two in this world, male or female.
(starting on page 13 IIRC)
Most of us already know this, including the 3 judges on the court.


----------



## Irish Pixie

farmrbrown said:


> If for no other reason, I find the responses interesting in this thread in the way answers are NOT simply given to easy questions.
> Sure, you can say, "Scroll back, it's already been answered" but if it takes only a few minutes to copy a paragraph or two and intelligently and thoughtfully answer a legitimate question, why insist on being a stubborn  just because your emotions get in the way of logic?
> 
> 
> Deke, I'll give you an answer from the court transcript in a few minutes, since your opponents seem unwilling or unusable to do so....................


It's a control issue for the OP and you're happily jumping through the hoop. Good boy.


----------



## Jim Bunton

painterswife said:


> A stall is all the privacy you need. That is all the privacy you get now so why does it matter what sex the person who is sitting in the next stall is?


Why do we currently have designated rest rooms for male and female? Because it does matter to a lot of people. 

Jim


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> It's a control issue for the OP and you're happily jumping through the hoop. Good boy.


No ma'am.
I'm answering the question instead of being an annoying smart aleck.

Your choice.


One would think, with the evidence being on your side, that logic would override emotion and simply pasting the court opinion with that evidence would satisfy you.........but apparently not.


----------



## painterswife

Jim Bunton said:


> Why do we currently have designated rest rooms for male and female? Because it does matter to a lot of people.
> 
> Jim


Yes, it matters to lots of people. There are people that think people of color are monkeys. There are people that think women should not have the right to vote. There are people that think we should not have same sex marriages.

What does that have to do with our rights under the constitution?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

DEKE01 said:


> Read it. Once again You are arong.


You just keep repeating yourself
At least AK puts some effort into his replies


----------



## Irish Pixie

farmrbrown said:


> No ma'am.
> I'm answering the question instead of being an annoying smart aleck.
> 
> Your choice.
> 
> 
> One would think, with the evidence being on your side, that logic would override emotion and simply pasting the court opinion with that evidence would satisfy you.........but apparently not.


I don't like being controlled, apparently you don't mind, to each his own.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> If for no other reason, I find the responses interesting in this thread in the way answers are NOT simply given to easy questions.
> Sure, you can say, "Scroll back, it's already been answered" but if it takes only a few minutes to copy a paragraph or two and intelligently and thoughtfully answer a legitimate question, why insist on being a stubborn  just because your emotions get in the way of logic?
> 
> 
> Deke, *I'll give you an answer* from the court transcript in a few minutes, since your opponents seem unwilling or unable to do so....................
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/152056.P.pdf
> 
> 
> BTW, the same court transcript also contains the judges agreement that the term "sex" in Title IX is clear in its meaning of gender.
> There are only two in this world, male or female.
> (starting on page 13 IIRC)
> Most of us already know this, including the 3 judges on the court.





> No ma'am.
> I'm answering the question instead of being an annoying smart aleck.


That's debateable


----------



## thericeguy

Farmrbrown, ty for the copy paste. I see the basis of the argument. I find it telling that there was no evidence presented by the noard to refute the claims of the only credentialed witness. The judgement repeats almost verbatim the words of that credentialed witness. In essence, the board lost by defaulting the case. Future actions may not be so ill prepared, such as the cases sure to hit the high court in short order.


----------



## DEKE01

painterswife said:


> Another excuse to refuse to admit you were wrong.


No, while I was feeding critters I thought about it. I shouldn't use the excuse that others refuse to admit wrong, obfuscate, and even lie as an excuse to lower my standards. 

*I apologize to you for erroneously saying you want kids of opposite sex to shower together or even that you want group showers for single sex. 
*

But the bigger picture remains - you are for policies that will result in children being forced to forego athletics in and out of school or they will be forced into group showers with the opposite sex. 

It may be an unintended consequence of your policy preference, but it is a clear and obvious consequence. 

As I was once an avid racquetball player, I was in lots of locker rooms all around the eastern half of the country. They were in clubs, big city hotels, big chain gyms, small town resorts, expensive places, and cheap places, both publicly and privately owned. Often they were the facilities the schools used, like the county owned rec facility that was adjacent to DD's high school. 

I never saw the women's sides, but in only maybe a handful of them did the men's locker rooms have any sort of private changing facilities or individual showers. Sometimes the shower was nothing but an open room, with a several shower heads, occasionally it had partitions between the showers, but still open to the room. 

Your policy will result in a huge cost to retrofit all those facilities and it won't be done over night. And to what end, to placate a mentally ill person who was discriminated against in her mind only, so that the public will have to participate in the lie the transG tells herself that she is not what she is.


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> Well, I'll give you that you didn't say "how high"
> 
> Have a wonderful day.


Thank you, I will.

It may be among the most racist and discriminatory comments made on this thread, but it's mostly true.......and the title of a funny movie.
My defense?
"White men can't jump"

:hysterical::hysterical:



thericeguy said:


> Farmrbrown, ty for the copy paste. I see the basis of the argument. I find it telling that there was no evidence presented by the noard to refute the claims of the only credentialed witness. The judgement repeats almost verbatim the words of that credentialed witness. In essence, the board lost by defaulting the case. Future actions may not be so ill prepared, such as the cases sure to hit the high court in short order.


You got it.
I don't doubt that GG got urinary tract infections and holding your pee is detrimental to one's health.
Those are unarguable facts.
A good lawyer would have zeroed in on those facts and offered an alternative to the causation for the defendant's case.
:goodjob:


----------



## painterswife

DEKE01 said:


> No, while I was feeding critters I thought about it. I shouldn't use the excuse that others refuse to admit wrong, obfuscate, and even lie as an excuse to lower my standards.
> 
> *I apologize to you for erroneously saying you want kids of opposite sex to shower together or even that you want group showers for single sex.
> *
> 
> But the bigger picture remains - you are for policies that will result in children being forced to forego athletics in and out of school or they will be forced into group showers with the opposite sex.
> 
> It may be an unintended consequence of your policy preference, but it is a clear and obvious consequence.
> 
> As I was once an avid racquetball player, I was in lots of locker rooms all around the eastern half of the country. They were in clubs, big city hotels, big chain gyms, small town resorts, expensive places, and cheap places, both publicly and privately owned. Often they were the facilities the schools used, like the county owned rec facility that was adjacent to DD's high school.
> 
> I never saw the women's sides, but in only maybe a handful of them did the men's locker rooms have any sort of private changing facilities or individual showers. Sometimes the shower was nothing but an open room, with a several shower heads, occasionally it had partitions between the showers, but still open to the room.
> 
> Your policy will result in a huge cost to retrofit all those facilities and it won't be done over night. And to what end, to placate a mentally ill person who was discriminated against in her mind only, so that the public will have to participate in the lie the transG tells herself that she is not what she is.


Thank-you for the apology.

Yes as we move forward and enforce the laws against discrimination there are costs. I however think that as a society we need to bear those costs to get to the greater good. There are very few transgenders in the schools and there are lots of ways to accommodate their rights and the rights of those who wish to have their privacy even if it is from someone of their own sex.


----------



## dixiegal62

InvalidID said:


> There are more cases of Senators being charged with lewd behavior in public restrooms than trans people. We should ban them from public restrooms!
> 
> ..


I disagree, when a senator breaks the law it makes national news. When an everyday Joe breaks the law it's not like we hear about it unless it's local. Just because it's not national news doesn't mean it's not happening.


----------



## InvalidID

dixiegal62 said:


> I disagree, when a senator breaks the law it makes national news. When an everyday Joe breaks the law it's not like we hear about it unless it's local. Just because it's not national news doesn't mean it's not happening.


 You may be right, I was making light of the situation not stating an absolute fact.

The point being that TG people generally try to blend in and not be 'noticed'. Bathroom lewdness isn't really going to further that goal. While the people we trust most are the ones generally doing the things we fear. (Most pedo's aren't the random stranger in a bathroom, it's someone known to the family/child)

This is one of those hot button issues that a little common sense would go a long way towards solving. Get in where you fit in comes to mind.


----------



## Irish Pixie

InvalidID said:


> You may be right, I was making light of the situation not stating an absolute fact.
> 
> The point being that TG people generally try to blend in and not be 'noticed'. Bathroom lewdness isn't really going to further that goal. While the people we trust most are the ones generally doing the things we fear. (Most pedo's aren't the random stranger in a bathroom, it's someone known to the family/child)
> 
> This is one of those hot button issues that a little common sense would go a long way towards solving. Get in where you fit in comes to mind.


I think you were correct in your first post, if any transgender person were arrested for lewd bathroom behavior it would be front page news simply because this is a hot button issue. 

Fox would have it as breaking news.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> Thank-you for the apology.
> 
> Yes as we move forward and enforce the laws against discrimination there are costs. I however think that as a society we need to bear those costs to get to the greater good. There are very few transgenders in the schools and there are lots of ways to accommodate their rights and the rights of those who wish to have their privacy even if it is from someone of their own sex.


When I first joined this thread, I believe the very first response to me was you nor anybody else gets to tell anyone else where to pee. Over the numerous pages, attitudes seem to have shifted in the last few pages to include the acceptance of some rules. I find that odd. One cannot have rules about peeing without telling some segment of society how, when, or where they will be allowed to pee.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> When I first joined this thread, I believe the very first response to me was you nor anybody else gets to tell anyone else where to pee. Over the numerous pages, attitudes seem to have shifted in the last few pages to include the acceptance of some rules. I find that odd. One cannot have rules about peeing without telling some segment of society how, when, or where they will be allowed to pee.


My attitude has not shifted. I still don't believe that you can tell me where to pee as long as I don't drop my drawers in a public location.


----------



## InvalidID

So, being as I'm a little different in my world view.... How many supporters of TG bathroom rights would agree that private property owners should have the right to make the rules as they see fit?


----------



## farmrbrown

painterswife said:


> Thank-you for the apology.
> 
> Yes as we move forward and enforce the laws against discrimination there are costs. I however think that as a society we need to bear those costs to get to the greater good. [/B]There are very few transgenders in the schools and there are lots of ways to accommodate their rights and the rights of those who wish to have their privacy even if it is from someone of their own sex.


*

Now we're getting back to the meat of the issue.


At issue in this case is just how far must we go to "accommodate"?
It was admitted by the panel of judges that the law written in the 1970's did not change with the times.
We may not have always been just boys and girls, but most of us older folks know that at that time we only heard of one or two unique cases in the world, everybody else just used the name and sex our parents gave us. :shrug:

This was the first one I heard about when I was in jr. high.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RenÃ©e_Richards

So now that people are changing their sex to match what they feel inside, is the accommodation only a one way street?
Does it have to be militant or belligerent ?("That's the LAW, tough cookies, pal!")
Or is tolerance only reserved as a demand to the majority, minorities need not worry about it?

I will say the plaintiff in this case seemed pretty low key, but I don't live in that small town, so I don't really know all the details.
Some of the parents' comments at the school board meetings were downright horrible and mean.
But is ANY of that the result of changing accommodations several times and GG not willing to acknowledge that as acceptance?
If the school provides you with your own private bathroom and that STILL ain't good enough, can you see why you will eventually hit a granite wall and being nice and tolerant is thrown out the window?*


----------



## Irish Pixie

InvalidID said:


> So, being as I'm a little different in my world view.... How many supporters of TG bathroom rights would agree that private property owners should have the right to make the rules as they see fit?


Private properly as in an individual homeowner? Or an individual that owns a public business?


----------



## painterswife

InvalidID said:


> So, being as I'm a little different in my world view.... How many supporters of TG bathroom rights would agree that private property owners should have the right to make the rules as they see fit?


I feel the same about any discrimination. If you invite the public into and establishment then no discrimination is allowed. If you have a private members only establishment then you can discriminate with in your members. You can't carry that over to employees though.


----------



## arabian knight

InvalidID said:


> So, being as I'm a little different in my world view.... How many supporters of TG bathroom rights would agree that private property owners should have the right to make the rules as they see fit?


 Those that believe in everyone should go wherever they darn well please, its so far out of their flipping minds and it is NOT discriminating in ANY shape manner or form. it IS COMMON DECENCY. Which means Courtesy when comes to who is able to go into what bathroom. It sure as heck in no way a form of discriminating.
But the left don't even know the meaning of Decency or if there is even such a word. LOL.


----------



## InvalidID

Irish Pixie said:


> Private properly as in an individual homeowner? Or an individual that owns a public business?





painterswife said:


> I feel the same about any discrimination. If you invite the public into and establishment then no discrimination is allowed. If you have a private members only establishment then you can discriminate with in your members. You can't carry that over to employees though.


 I am thinking a public business. For example, if I own a bar and I don't want TG female in female bathroom. 

MY take, honestly, is that if it's a private establishment then I get to be as racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. as I want. I bought and paid for it, I make the rules here. So long as it's made clear up front I see no problem with people being able to make the rules for their own property as they see fit. 

(Think of it this way, if I was gay and you posted no gay cakes... I wouldn't want to force you to do a thing you didn't want to do because I'm a reasonable human, and I wouldn't want you to have my money because you are not)


----------



## thericeguy

InvalidID said:


> So, being as I'm a little different in my world view.... How many supporters of TG bathroom rights would agree that private property owners should have the right to make the rules as they see fit?


Private businesses should be able to set their own policy within reasonable limits. government interference should be as limited as possible, as the ADA was handled, allowing a wide tolerance is how businesses accomodated persons. A buzzer to signify help needed satisfied the law. Simple. Inexpensive. Effective. 

I doubt we will see that kind of reasonable attitudes on this subject. We already see that by rejecting a bathroom just for them as unacceptable.


----------



## painterswife

InvalidID said:


> I am thinking a public business. For example, if I own a bar and I don't want TG female in female bathroom.
> 
> MY take, honestly, is that if it's a private establishment then I get to be as racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. as I want. I bought and paid for it, I make the rules here. So long as it's made clear up front I see no problem with people being able to make the rules for their own property as they see fit.
> 
> (Think of it this way, if I was gay and you posted no gay cakes... I wouldn't want to force you to do a thing you didn't want to do because I'm a reasonable human, and I wouldn't want you to have my money because you are not)


I understand and see your point of view. I don't agree with it. There are mechanism to do that within the structures of our laws and constitution. So you are free to do it just not in the way you wish to be able to.


----------



## Irish Pixie

InvalidID said:


> I am thinking a public business. For example, if I own a bar and I don't want TG female in female bathroom.
> 
> MY take, honestly, is that if it's a private establishment then I get to be as racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. as I want. I bought and paid for it, I make the rules here. So long as it's made clear up front I see no problem with people being able to make the rules for their own property as they see fit.
> 
> (Think of it this way, if I was gay and you posted no gay cakes... I wouldn't want to force you to do a thing you didn't want to do because I'm a reasonable human, and I wouldn't want you to have my money because you are not)


I agree with painterswife, if it's a public business you can't discriminate but if it's a private member type business you can.

Anyone can say no to anything even if the business is public but they run the risk of someone filing a lawsuit.


----------



## Txsteader

painterswife said:


> A women could look like a man and never even be questioned about their using the men's bathroom. They never check your actual sex organs. *Now they actually know for a fact the sex organs because of circumstances and a bunch of people are in a tizzy. It is hysterical.*
> 
> The sign on the door is a suggestion not a law.


And whose fault is that, exactly?

It sure isn't the general public's fault because they're not the ones who instigated this issue. 

No, IMO you can thank radical, agenda-driven progressives.


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> And whose fault is that, exactly?
> 
> It sure isn't the general public's fault because they're not the ones who instigated this issue.
> 
> No, IMO you can thank radical, agenda-driven progressives.


You do know that this was settled at the school level . The student in question was using the bathroom of his choice and there was no real problem until the school board got involved. Then the student had to sue for the rights the constitution gives everyone.

We can thank people who were not directly involved.


----------



## InvalidID

painterswife said:


> I understand and see your point of view. I don't agree with it. There are mechanism to do that within the structures of our laws and constitution. So you are free to do it just not in the way you wish to be able to.





Irish Pixie said:


> I agree with painterswife, if it's a public business you can't discriminate but if it's a private member type business you can.
> 
> Anyone can say no to anything even if the business is public but they run the risk of someone filing a lawsuit.


 I agree this is the way the law views things now but I disagree with it. Again, I would say that just because it's law doesn't make it right.

I think the redress here is to simply not spend money at the establishment. If you can survive without the business of the people you've offended more power to you. There is no law saying you can't be a stupid bigot. 

As an example, I don't go to places I'm not wanted (such as black nightclubs owned by folks who don't like ------). They're racist, they legally can't ban me from the place now but so what? A little common sense tells me not to be where I'm not welcome. 
So if I were gay or TG why would I want to force myself on people that don't like me? It's unreasonable.


----------



## painterswife

InvalidID said:


> I agree this is the way the law views things now but I disagree with it. Again, I would say that just because it's law doesn't make it right.
> 
> I think the redress here is to simply not spend money at the establishment. If you can survive without the business of the people you've offended more power to you. There is no law saying you can't be a stupid bigot.
> 
> As an example, I don't go to places I'm not wanted (such as black nightclubs owned by folks who don't like ------). They're racist, they legally can't ban me from the place now but so what? A little common sense tells me not to be where I'm not welcome.
> So if I were gay or TG why would I want to force myself on people that don't like me? It's unreasonable.


Are you going to expect to check the genitals of those entering this place of business of yours? Or are you going to judge them based on how they look?


----------



## flewism

painterswife said:


> You do know that this was settled at the school level . The student in question was using the bathroom of his choice and there was no real problem until the school board got involved. Then the student had to sue for the rights the constitution gives everyone.
> 
> We can thank people who were not directly involved.


The school broad got involved when they were bombarded with complaints for parents. How did the parents find out?, can we assume from their kids attending the school? Remember this child "identified" as female thru age 12, and at 14 change identity. School board solution was to create the unisex bathroom, but this was unacceptable to the trans student, thus the parent's sued.


----------



## Shine

painterswife said:


> Are you going to expect to check the genitals of those entering this place of business of yours? Or are you going to judge them based on how they look?


Are they going to require admittance based on something that is only in their mind, something that they cannot prove?


----------



## thericeguy

Give them their victory lap. The reason they won this time is the school board offered no defense, defaulting the case. This tells us nothing about how a future case will end when a proper defense is offered.


----------



## InvalidID

painterswife said:


> Are you going to expect to check the genitals of those entering this place of business of yours? Or are you going to judge them based on how they look?


 I think it would be case by case? I honestly have no idea how they'd work it because I wouldn't have an issue myself. 
But what if I owned a store and didn't want fat people in it? Stupid, but my right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Same thing here, you have a beard and a sundress and I decide you use the men's room or just ban you from my store... My right to refuse to do business with anyone for any reason. You really don't even have to give a reason, a simple leave is all that's required.


----------



## farmrbrown

InvalidID said:


> So, being as I'm a little different in my world view.... How many supporters of TG bathroom rights would agree that private property owners should have the right to make the rules as they see fit?





InvalidID said:


> I am thinking a public business. For example, if I own a bar and I don't want TG female in female bathroom.
> 
> MY take, honestly, is that if it's a private establishment then I get to be as racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. as I want. I bought and paid for it, I make the rules here. So long as it's made clear up front I see no problem with people being able to make the rules for their own property as they see fit.
> 
> (Think of it this way, if I was gay and you posted no gay cakes... I wouldn't want to force you to do a thing you didn't want to do because I'm a reasonable human, and I wouldn't want you to have my money because you are not)




What you have posted is the basic wording of the HB2 bill in NC as it applied to businesses.

You are about to see what I was talking about when I asked about tolerance and accommodation being a one way street.
There are plenty of businesses that welcome one and all. There are some that are stubborn and don't want to allow it.
Is there any room to let people run their business as they wish?
As time goes on the answer should be clear by now...........



painterswife said:


> I understand and see your point of view. I don't agree with it. There are mechanism to do that within the structures of our laws and constitution. So you are free to do it just not in the way you wish to be able to.





Irish Pixie said:


> I agree with painterswife, if it's a public business you can't discriminate but if it's a private member type business you can.
> 
> Anyone can say no to anything even if the business is public but they run the risk of someone filing a lawsuit.


----------



## farmrbrown

painterswife said:


> You do know that this was settled at the school level . The student in question was using the bathroom of his choice and there was no real problem until the school board got involved. Then the student had to sue for the rights the constitution gives everyone.
> 
> We can thank people who were not directly involved.


Unless you read something in the transcript that I missed, that is not how it went.


----------



## painterswife

flewism said:


> The school broad got involved when they were bombarded with complaints for parents. How did the parents find out?, can we assume from their kids attending the school? Remember this child "identified" as female thru age 12, and at 14 change identity. School board solution was to create the unisex bathroom, but this was unacceptable to the trans student, thus the parent's sued.


So who were the people that drove this boy to go to court to enforce his rights? he would have never had to go to court if the school board had not violated his rights.


----------



## painterswife

farmrbrown said:


> Unless you read something in the transcript that I missed, that is not how it went.


Page 7 of the court ruling.

The school was made aware of him being trans gendered and the school made steps to insure he was treated as a boy. There was no indecent for 7 weeks. Then others in the community contacted the school board.


----------



## InvalidID

farmrbrown said:


> What you have posted is the basic wording of the HB2 bill in NC as it applied to businesses.
> 
> You are about to see what I was talking about when I asked about tolerance and accommodation being a one way street.
> There are plenty of businesses that welcome one and all. There are some that are stubborn and don't want to allow it.
> Is there any room to let people run their business as they wish?
> As time goes on the answer should be clear by now...........


 And that's the problem with issues like this. Everyone wants to force other people to do something in the name of what's right. 

I'm not trying to force everyone to own a gun even though I support gun ownership and think everyone SHOULD own a gun. I'm also not a fan of huge homes that have tons of wasted space that goes unused. Not trying to force people to downsize...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> I disagree, when a senator breaks the law it makes national news. When an everyday Joe breaks the law it's not like we hear about it unless it's local. Just because it's not national news doesn't mean it's not happening.


If it were a big problem it would be easy to find examples on the internet


----------



## InvalidID

Bearfootfarm said:


> If it were a big problem it would be easy to find examples on the internet


 Well played.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

InvalidID said:


> So, being as I'm a little different in my world view.... How many supporters of TG bathroom rights would agree that private property owners should have the right to make the rules as they see fit?


"Private" property owners do.
Businesses with *public* restrooms, not as much.

It's clear many will look for an excuse to discriminate, just like the tow truck driver who left a disabled on the side of a highway with her wrecked car simply due to a Bernie Sanders bumper sticker.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> If it were a big problem it would be easy to find examples on the internet


Larry Craig comes to mind...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Are they going to require admittance based on something that is only in their mind, something that they cannot prove?


No, I don't think they will ask about religion before they let you pee


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> Larry Craig comes to mind...


He wasn't transgender, transvestite, nor a pedophile, and his example was already given.

I haven't heard anyone complain about Congressmen in rest rooms


----------



## Irish Pixie

This is about the transgender girl from IL that has identified as a girl for years, is currently in hormone therapy, is identified as she by school staff, has a female name, and plays on a girls sport team. I think it sums up what many transgender feel- they just don't want to be forced to be separate. 

"The district said she was allowed to change inside the girlsâ locker room, but only behind a curtain. The student, who has not been publicly identified, has said she would probably use that curtain to change. But she and the federal government have insisted that she be allowed to make that decision voluntarily, and not because of requirements by the district."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/u...transgender-students-rights-us-says.html?_r=0


----------



## farmrbrown

painterswife said:


> You do know that this was settled at the school level . The student in question was using the bathroom of his choice and *there was no real problem until the school board got involved. *Then the student had to sue for the rights the constitution gives everyone.
> 
> *We can thank people who were not directly involved.*


:umno:







painterswife said:


> Page 7 of the court ruling.
> 
> The school was made aware of him being trans gendered and the school made steps to insure he was treated as a boy. There was no indecent for 7 weeks. Then others in the community contacted the school board.


Yes, that's what I read too.
The school board didn't arbitrarily step in, they were responding to complaints, mostly from parents. Some of the students interviewed by the local news station were ok with it, some were afraid to speak because they would be labeled "bigots".
So, it really didn't go with "no real problem".
When the problem occurred the school board made modifications to the stalls in the rest rooms and also allowed the student to use the school nurse's private bathroom.
And we all know the rest of the story...............


----------



## painterswife

farmrbrown said:


> :umno:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's what I read too.
> The school board didn't arbitrarily step in, they were responding to complaints, mostly from parents. Some of the students interviewed by the local news station were ok with it, some were afraid to speak because they would be labeled "bigots".
> So, it really didn't go with "no real problem".
> When the problem occurred the school board made modifications to the stalls in the rest rooms and also allowed the student to use the school nurse's private bathroom.
> And we all know the rest of the story...............


Do you have any proof that it was from people that were directly involved at the school? I can find no reports of that.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, I don't think they will ask about religion before they let you pee


Nice dodge.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Nice dodge.


No Dodge here
I like Fords


----------



## oneraddad

Farmboybill is returning his Dodge.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

oneraddad said:


> Farmboybill is returning his Dodge.


I'd do the same if someone forced one on me


----------



## Jim Bunton

InvalidID said:


> I think it would be case by case? I honestly have no idea how they'd work it because I wouldn't have an issue myself.
> But what if I owned a store and didn't want fat people in it? Stupid, but my right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Same thing here, you have a beard and a sundress and I decide you use the men's room or just ban you from my store... My right to refuse to do business with anyone for any reason. You really don't even have to give a reason, a simple leave is all that's required.


Your premise that you can refuse service to anyone for any reason is faulty. when you start a business and are open to the public there are rules you must follow.
Jim


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Jay's garage is nicer, but we have the same truck:


----------



## InvalidID

Jim Bunton said:


> Your premise that you can refuse service to anyone for any reason is faulty. when you start a business and are open to the public there are rules you must follow.
> Jim


 I guess that depends on how creative you are. 

_Does a business have the right to refuse service to anyone as they see fit?_
_The answer is NO._
_The 1964 Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the legal right to âfull and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.â_
​_Many states also passed their own Civil Rights laws to extend the federal protection even further. For example, California passed the Unruh Civil Rights Act which also makes it illegal to discriminate against any person because of unconventional dress or sexual orientation. But unfortunately not all states followed Californiaâs lead._
_Now, do businesses have the right to refuse service for other reasons? YES, of course._
*Basically, if there is a legitimate business reason to deny service, like general disruption or drunkenness, for example, then there is legal precedence for the business to refuse service.*


And let us not forget, this is a state by state thing. The only federal law on the books states you can't discriminate based on race, color, religion, or national origin.
So if that man in a dress is causing a disruption and you ask him to leave, you're legal. Who defines disruption? I would think Websters would be a good place to start.

*To throw into confusion or disorder.

*Man in dress goes into women's room, women freak out, man has caused disruption. Legal and clean. Wrong, but legal.


----------



## Heritagefarm

There are other methods of discouraging customers that tend to be more effective. If you don't like them and you buy specific things, raise those prices. Move your schedule around. Charge outrageous amounts for weird things. Act like an imbecile when certain people come in. They'll get the hint and go somewhere else.


----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> If it were a big problem it would be easy to find examples on the internet


And they've been posted in this thread at least twice.&#128522;


----------



## no really

Heritagefarm said:


> There are other methods of discouraging customers that tend to be more effective. If you don't like them and you buy specific things, raise those prices. Move your schedule around. Charge outrageous amounts for weird things. Act like an imbecile when certain people come in. They'll get the hint and go somewhere else.



Kinda had that happen before, in a Halal market. Tried to convince my friends that we (several women) would not get waited on, they just ignored us like we were invisible.. :huh:.

Sent the guys in and surprise they got the meat..


----------



## Txsteader

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...e-high-school-lawsuit-met-20160504-story.html


> A group of suburban students and parents is suing the U.S. Department of Education and Illinois' largest high school district after school officials granted a transgender student access to the girls locker room.
> 
> 
> In a lawsuit filed in federal court Wednesday, the group contends that the actions of the Department of Education and Palatine-based Township High School District 211 "trample students' privacy" rights and create an "intimidating and hostile environment" for students who share the locker rooms and restrooms with the transgender student.





> One student who opted to use the privacy stall said she was called "transphobic" and "homophobic," according to the lawsuit, which stated that she now wears her gym clothes under her school clothes to avoid changing in the locker room.


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...e-high-school-lawsuit-met-20160504-story.html


That case is doomed to fail. They are not forced to share a facilities with members of the opposite sex. They have been given options.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> That case is doomed to fail. They are not forced to share a facilities with members of the opposite sex. They have been given options.


Male. Female. Unisex. Those sound like 3 options. Rejected and sued.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> Male. Female. Unisex. Those sound like 3 options. Rejected and sued.


That case is based on discrimination. Treating people different by forcing them. This case is based on privacy. They have the same options as everyone else. No one is forced. They get to choose their own option.

Subtle difference but perfectly clear.


----------



## Txsteader

painterswife said:


> That case is doomed to fail. They are not forced to share a facilities with members of the opposite sex. They have been given options.


And the rights of the girl being bullied/harassed as transphobic and homophobic?

You can't see the divisions this is causing?


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> And the rights of the girl being bullied/harassed as transphobic and homophobic?
> 
> You can't see the divisions this is causing?


No one should be bullied or harassed. Not acceptable.

Yes, I see the division. The same division we get when gays, or people of color or women demand to not be discriminated against. Not a good enough reason to allow discrimination.


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> No one should be bullied or harassed. Not acceptable.
> 
> Yes, I see the division. The same division we get when gays, or people of color or women demand to not be discriminated against. Not a good enough reason to allow discrimination.


I'll bet dollars to donuts that some people wouldn't care if transgender (all LGBT?) kids were bullied and harassed.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> I'll bet dollars to donuts that some people wouldn't care if transgender (all LGBT?) kids were bullied and harassed.


And some people dont care when hispanics, blacks, nerds, Jews, Christians ... You should get the idea. Stop playing the victim.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> And some people dont care when hispanics, blacks, nerds, Jews, Christians ... You should get the idea. Stop playing the victim.


How is she a victim? I guess those girls who were hasseled should just stop playing the victim.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> And some people dont care when hispanics, blacks, nerds, Jews, Christians ... You should get the idea. Stop playing the victim.


Can you please explain what I am supposed to be a victim of? LOL.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> How is she a victim? I guess those girls who were hasseled should just stop playing the victim.


Playing the bictim by building a terrible argument. We all know the KKK snd skinheads exist in this country. We cannot stop them because to stop them we, you or I, might be the next one stopped. 

Those groups hate everyone. Of COURSE there are SOME people who want ALL lgbt harrassed. Thats what haters do. 

Statements like that are made in the hope that people will see the effected party as being set apart, targetted for harrassment, the victim in all things. 

But when you consider the real world, haters hate. Jews get hate. Blacks get hate. Christians get hate. Nerds get hate. And wr could make that list to include every human being on this planet so long as we only need to go find "some people" who hate the group. 

If you havent noticed, ISIS wants every American dead. Everyone. You. Me. Everyone.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> Playing the bictim by building a terrible argument. We all know the KKK snd skinheads exist in this country. We cannot stop them because to stop them we, you or I, might be the next one stopped.
> 
> Those groups hate everyone. Of COURSE there are SOME people who want ALL lgbt harrassed. Thats what haters do.
> 
> Statements like that are made in the hope that people will see the effected party as being set apart, targetted for harrassment, the victim in all things.
> 
> But when you consider the real world, haters hate. Jews get hate. Blacks get hate. Christians get hate. Nerds get hate. And wr could make that list to include every human being on this planet so long as we only need to go find "some people" who hate the group.
> 
> If you havent noticed, ISIS wants every American dead. Everyone. You. Me. Everyone.


Nice dodge.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> And they've been posted in this thread at least twice.&#128522;


I've seen no examples of actual *transgenders* causing any problems, nor any evidence the incidents posted were in any way related to these laws.

If one can't point to more than one or two in a country of over 350 million, I'd say it's really not a problem worth getting in a tizzy about


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> And some people dont care when hispanics, blacks, nerds, Jews, Christians ... You should get the idea. Stop *playing the victim.*


That's what those complaining about the ruling are doing


----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> I've seen no examples of actual *transgenders* causing any problems, nor any evidence the incidents posted were in any way related to these laws.
> 
> If one can't point to more than one or two in a country of over 350 million, I'd say it's really not a problem worth getting in a tizzy about



I'm guessing you consider the posted examples something besides transgenders then. So now we are back to, how is anyone going to tell a cross dressers bent on possibly harming from a trans who just wants to pee in peace?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> I'm guessing you consider the posted examples something besides transgenders then. So now we are back to, how is anyone going to tell a cross dressers bent on possibly harming from a trans who just wants to pee in peace?


One will do something *illegal*, just as they always have.

The other will go unnoticed, again as they always have.

The laws aren't going to change anyone's behavior

Everything you seem to be worried about is already illegal, and will remain so.


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> One will do something *illegal*, just as they always have.
> 
> The other will go unnoticed, again as they always have.
> 
> The laws aren't going to change anyone's behavior
> 
> Everything you seem to be worried about is already illegal, and will remain so.


Odd. If they have always gone unnoticed, whats the problem?


----------



## arabian knight

dixiegal62 said:


> I'm guessing you consider the posted examples something besides transgenders then. So now we are back to, how is anyone going to tell a cross dressers bent on possibly harming from a trans who just wants to pee in peace?


And this miscarriage of justice is just making it easier for those things to occur. Why do those hate to see people separated when it comes to bathroom privacy? Nice going to make even more of this crap to happen even more often putting the entire population at RISK.


----------



## painterswife

arabian knight said:


> And this miscarriage of justice is just making it easier for those things to occur. Why do those hate to see people separated when it comes to bathroom privacy? Nice going to make even more of this crap to happen even more often putting the entire population at RISK.


The sky is falling, the sky is falling.


----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> One will do something *illegal*, just as they always have.
> 
> The other will go unnoticed, again as they always have.
> 
> The laws aren't going to change anyone's behavior
> 
> Everything you seem to be worried about is already illegal, and will remain so.


And you don't think bad people will take advantage of the new bathroom freedom? I'm having a hard time deciding if your really that naive or you just don't care if there's collateral damage. Numerous examples of men dressing up as women and hurting women.


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> The sky is falling, the sky is falling.


:thumb: Snerk.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> The sky is falling, the sky is falling.


Glad you can make light of other peoples concerns. I think people will end up hurt with this. No matter if it's an innocent transgender who someone mistakes for a bad person, or an innocent women hurt when a real perv uses the new laws to his advantage it'll be a tragedy. Some are so bent on shoving thier agenda down others throats they don't bother looking at the big picture. SMH.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> Glad you can make light of other peoples concerns. I think people will end up hurt with this. No matter if it's an innocent transgender who someone mistakes for a bad person, or an innocent women hurt when a real perv uses the new laws to his advantage it'll be a tragedy. Some are so bent on shoving thier agenda down others throats they don't bother looking at the big picture. SMH.


Discussing actual concerns is one thing. There is a big difference between that and the posting of doom and gloom every time other people fight for their rights and don't agree with the conservative agenda.

So yes, I will counter that doom and gloom with laughter when ever I feel like it.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> Discussing actual concerns is one thing. There is a big difference between that and the posting of doom and gloom every time other people fight for their rights and don't agree with the conservative agenda.
> 
> So yes, I will counter that doom and gloom with laughter when ever I feel like it.


Are you saying only things your concerned about are real? Funny you mock others then end with you'll do what you feel like. I guess your the only one with that right with your liberal mindset.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> Are you saying only things your concerned about are real? Funny you mock others then end with you'll do what you feel like. I guess your the only one with that right with your liberal mindset.


Did I say that? No I did not. A little over reaching.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> Did I say that? No I did not. A little over reaching.


Not an over reach at all. You where very clear.


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> Discussing actual concerns is one thing. There is a big difference between that and the posting of doom and gloom every time other people fight for their rights and don't agree with the conservative agenda.
> 
> So yes, I will counter that doom and gloom with laughter when ever I feel like it.


Especially because there has been no (at least that I can find) indications of a transgender person doing anything illegal in a bathroom. 

Most (all?) of the sky-is-falling and gloom n doom posts are from people that don't want to share bathrooms with the transgendered. They are similar to the racists of the 50s and 60s that said the same thing about sharing bathrooms with blacks. Many suggest they'll use violence as well. Ugly, ugly, ugly.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> Not an over reach at all. You where very clear.


I guess I don't know my own mind. Thanks for educating me on what I mean. Keep up the good work.


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> I guess I don't know my own mind. Thanks for educating me on what I mean. Keep up the good work.


Don't you just love when they say they know what you think better than you do yourself?


----------



## Farmerga

The North Carolina law assigns bathroom entrance based on the sex on ones Birth certificate. As some have stated, we are not born with a specific gender. The NC law doesn't even speak to gender, but, rather to sex of the individual, so, the argument about discrimination based on gender is false as the NC law doesn't speak to the gender, but, rather to the sex of the individual. All companies, "artists", posters, etc, who have falsely accused the NC legislature and governor of discrimination, based on gender, should apologize at once.


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> Especially because there has been no (at least that I can find) indications of a transgender person doing anything illegal in a bathroom.
> 
> Most (all?) of the sky-is-falling and gloom n doom posts are from people that don't want to share bathrooms with the transgendered. The are similar to the racists of the 50s and 60s that said the same thing about sharing bathrooms with blacks. Many suggest they'll use violence as well. Ugly, ugly, ugly.


If you want to address my comment that I prefer a gun over screaming if attacked in a bathroom then please do so. Trying to goad me while talking to another person is childish and silly.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> The North Carolina law assigns bathroom entrance based on the sex on ones Birth certificate. As some have stated, we are not born with a specific gender. The NC law doesn't even speak to gender, but, rather to sex of the individual, so, the argument about discrimination based on gender is false as the NC law doesn't speak to the gender, but, rather to the sex of the individual. All companies, "artists", posters, etc, who have falsely accused the NC legislature and governor of discrimination, based on gender, should apologize at once.


Telling anyone that they have to use a specific bathroom based on their birth sex is discrimination at it's basic. Just like telling someone they can only use a certain water fountain because of their skin color.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> Especially because there has been no (at least that I can find) indications of a transgender person doing anything illegal in a bathroom.
> 
> Most (all?) of the sky-is-falling and gloom n doom posts are from people that don't want to share bathrooms with the transgendered. They are similar to the racists of the 50s and 60s that said the same thing about sharing bathrooms with blacks. Many suggest they'll use violence as well. Ugly, ugly, ugly.


Is this statement reading the minds, motivation, and beliefs of people other than yourself? You should strive to live by the standards you preach.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> Telling anyone that they have to use a specific bathroom based on their birth sex is discrimination at it's basic. Just like telling someone they can only use a certain water fountain because of their skin color.


Yes, it is discrimination. And this brings us right back to a week ago. Discrimination is not illegal! I have proven this on numerous occasions. Many, if not most of our laws are totally based on discrimination. 

Certain criteria cannot be used as a legal basis for discrimination. Gender identity is not one of them. 

Even discrimination of a protected criteria can be legal. Strip clubs do not have to hire men. Clearly sex discrimination. Legal. 

Get a better argument.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Telling anyone that they have to use a specific bathroom based on their birth sex is discrimination at it's basic. Just like telling someone they can only use a certain water fountain because of their skin color.


Nope, not really, skin color is a surface difference that really means nothing other than ones susceptibility to sunburn. There are real, biological, anatomical, hormonal, and brain differences between males and females.

BTW, telling anyone they have to use a specific bathroom is on the same level of discrimination as a locked door on your house.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> Yes, it is discrimination. And this brings us right back to a week ago. Discrimination is not illegal! I have proven this on numerous occasions. Many, if not most of our laws are totally based on discrimination.
> 
> Certain criteria cannot be used as a legal basis for discrimination. Gender identity is not one of them.
> 
> Even discrimination of a protected criteria can be legal. Strip clubs do not have to hire men. Clearly sex discrimination. Legal.
> 
> Get a better argument.


Discrimination based on sex is illegal. That is all the argument that is needed.


----------



## arabian knight

GENDER DISCRIMINATION
Gender discrimination, also known as sexual discrimination, *is the practice of letting a person's sex unfairly become a factor when deciding who receives a job, promotion, or other employment benefit.* It most often affects women who feel they have been unfairly discriminated against in favor of a man. But there have also been cases where males have claimed that reverse discrimination has occurred&#8212;that is, the woman received unfairly favorable treatment at the expense of the man.

Where the heck do you people think it means this when going to the BATHROOM. GET A NEW and relevant argument yours is falling apart FAST.

Read more: http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/small/Eq-Inc/Gender-Discrimination.html#ixzz48AQvu3sh


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Discrimination based on sex is illegal. That is all the argument that is needed.


 
That argument is not always true.


----------



## painterswife

arabian knight said:


> GENDER DISCRIMINATION
> Gender discrimination, also known as sexual discrimination, *is the practice of letting a person's sex unfairly become a factor when deciding who receives a job, promotion, or other employment benefit.* It most often affects women who feel they have been unfairly discriminated against in favor of a man. But there have also been cases where males have claimed that reverse discrimination has occurredâthat is, the woman received unfairly favorable treatment at the expense of the man.
> 
> Where the heck do you people think it means this when going to the BATHROOM. GET A NEW and relevant argument yours is falling apart FAST.
> 
> Read more: http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/small/Eq-Inc/Gender-Discrimination.html#ixzz48AQvu3sh


We are talking civil rights. Quoting from a business source is only part of the story. You need new and relevant sources to back up your argument.


----------



## arabian knight

Once the country gave into Gay Marriage .. Came the Trans movement.. you give in.. the next thing are the people who go after children and animals.

Liberals want this as the Norm. 
Seven and a half years of the Obama administration and now nobody in this country knows which bathroom to use.
What a sick society we are these days, all brought to you by the mind warped left


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> And *you don't think bad people will take advantage of the new bathroom freedom?* I'm having a hard time deciding if your really that naive or you just don't care if there's collateral damage. Numerous examples of men dressing up as women and hurting women.


How many times do I have to repeat it?



> Numerous examples of men dressing up as women and hurting women.


And that's *all* because of the law?
Who's "naive" now?

Nothing has really changed other than the headlines.

Wasn't it you who claimed the incidents wouldn't be reported if it wasn't a current topic?

You can't play both sides with your reasons


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> Is this statement reading the minds, motivation, and beliefs of people other than yourself? You should strive to live by the standards you preach.


I'm sorry and I'll explain- it's my opinion. It's what I've observed by reading posts, weighing the information, and thus forming my own personal opinion. I'm not stating (like you've done numerous times) that I know better what you think than you do. Did that help?


----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> How many times do I have to repeat it?
> 
> 
> And that's *all* because of the law?
> Who's "naive" now?
> 
> Nothing has really changed other than the headlines.
> 
> Wasn't it you who claimed the incidents wouldn't be reported if it wasn't a current topic?
> 
> You can't play both sides with your reasons


You can repeat it until the cows come home. Your views on the subject are just that 'your views'. 
No it wasn't me. I said nothing about it being reported if it was a ''current topic"


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> The North Carolina law assigns bathroom entrance based on the sex on ones Birth certificate. As some have stated, we are not born with a specific gender.
> 
> *The NC law doesn't even speak to gender*, but, rather to sex of the individual, so, the argument about discrimination based on gender is false as the NC law doesn't speak to the gender, but, rather to the sex of the individual.
> 
> All companies, "artists", posters, etc, who have falsely accused the NC legislature and governor of discrimination, based on gender, should apologize at once.


Those against the law keep telling everyone "gender" and "biological sex" are the same thing, but now you are saying they aren't

Nice attempt at spin there, but they don't have to use the word to "address" the issue.

http://ncleg.net/Sessions/2015E2/Bills/House/PDF/H2v1.pdf

What will you say when they repeal the silly law?


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> Discrimination based on sex is illegal. That is all the argument that is needed.


Discrimination as defined by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to be specific.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

arabian knight said:


> Once the country gave into Gay Marriage .. Came the Trans movement.. you give in.. the next thing are the people who go after children *and animals.*
> 
> Liberals want this as the Norm.
> Seven and a half years of the Obama administration and now nobody in this country knows which bathroom to use.
> What a sick society we are these days, all brought to you by the mind warped left


No one is going to take your pony


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one is going to take your pony


SNAP!~ :bow:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> You can repeat it until the cows come home. Your views on the subject are just that 'your views'.
> *No it wasn't me*. I said nothing about it being reported if it was a ''current topic"


Sorry!
Must have been some other "country conservative"
You all look alike to me


----------



## greg273

arabian knight said:


> Seven and a half years of the Obama administration and now nobody in this country knows which bathroom to use.
> t


 Use the one you've been using, its not that complicated. And if you're peeking at the genitals of the person in the bathroom with you, please stop doing that, its creepy.


----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> Sorry!
> Must have been some other "country conservative"
> You all look alike to me


I believe it was IP who commented that trans attacks would be a hot topic and all over fox news. Didn't realize she was a country conservative though. 



Irish Pixie said:


> I think you were correct in your first post, if any transgender person were arrested for lewd bathroom behavior it would be front page news simply because this is a hot button issue.
> 
> Fox would have it as breaking news.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> I believe it was IP who commented that trans attacks would be a hot topic and all over fox news. Didn't realize she was a country conservative though.


You'd be amazed at who is and who isn't


----------



## Heritagefarm

greg273 said:


> Use the one you've been using, its not that complicated. And if you're peeking at the genitals of the person in the bathroom with you, please stop doing that, its creepy.


I'm not real concerned with the bathroom issue anymore. If some people can't figure out what gender they are, I feel for them. Their world must be royally screwed up. 

What I'm concerned about now the school shower issue. Some have brought up using a curtain... If there is a curtain. But the trans complain they want to be just like the other gender... except they cannot. Maybe a stall... Oops, some of them claim the stall is discrimination. :bangingheadonbrickwall:


----------



## arabian knight

*North Carolina governor leads lawsuit over LGBT rights*

I love it~!


----------



## painterswife

Heritagefarm said:


> I'm not real concerned with the bathroom issue anymore. If some people can't figure out what gender they are, I feel for them. Their world must be royally screwed up.
> 
> What I'm concerned about now the school shower issue. Some have brought up using a curtain... If there is a curtain. But the trans complain they want to be just like the other gender... except they cannot. Maybe a stall... Oops, some of them claim the stall is discrimination. :bangingheadonbrickwall:


I think no option for privacy is wrong.

This is how I see it. Everyone needs to offered the same options so there is no discrimination. Privacy from seeing or being seen while disrobing needs to be one of those options. The person gets to choose what option they wish to use. Those options can not be forced on anyone.


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> I think no option for privacy is wrong.
> 
> This is how I see it. Everyone needs to offered the same options so there is no discrimination. Privacy from seeing or being seen while disrobing needs to be one of those options. The person gets to choose what option they wish to use. Those options can not be forced on anyone.


If one doesn't want to see the dreaded penis she can use a privacy area. No problems with that is there? It's fair to everyone.


----------



## Heritagefarm

painterswife said:


> I think no option for privacy is wrong.
> 
> This is how I see it. Everyone needs to offered the same options so there is no discrimination. Privacy from seeing or being seen while disrobing needs to be one of those options. The person gets to choose what option they wish to use. Those options can not be forced on anyone.


A reasonable answer. I would wonder just how far some people will try to carry it, though. But, that's just speculation. Would you be willing to let a transgender woman, still with male genetialia, shower naked in the girl's shower - with other girls around. It would help if I'd ever used public showers more than once.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Irish Pixie said:


> If one doesn't want to see the dreaded penis she can use a privacy area. No problems with that is there? It's fair to everyone.


Are you talking about a transgender male in the girl's showers? SHould they all hide behind a curtain so they don't see the male genitals?


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> If one doesn't want to see the dreaded penis she can use a privacy area. No problems with that is there? It's fair to everyone.





Heritagefarm said:


> Are you talking about a transgender male in the girl's showers? SHould they all hide behind a curtain so they don't see the male genitals?


This is the whole problem in a nut shell (pun intended) Females born females are already being told if they don't like it use a different area but when this little girl in the op was given a choice for a private room she said no. Why is it discrimination to tell the trans to use a more private option but its not discrimination to tell the real girls to do so? This isn't equal treatment, this is special treatment.


----------



## painterswife

Heritagefarm said:


> A reasonable answer. I would wonder just how far some people will try to carry it, though. But, that's just speculation. Would you be willing to let a transgender woman, still with male genetialia, shower naked in the girl's shower - with other girls around. It would help if I'd ever used public showers more than once.


It is about choice. Those that don't care can shower together. Those that do, will not.

I have never in my life been forced to shower with anyone of the same sex so why would I be forced to shower with someone not of the same sex. That right to privacy seems to be stripped away from our children now. Why is that not being fought?

To some the whole situation is mute. They know that children play doctor and have seen all the parts anyways.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> This is the whole problem in a nut shell (pun intended) Females born females are already being told if they don't like it use a different area but when this little girl in the op was given a choice for a private room she said no. Why is it discrimination to tell the trans to use a more private option but its not discrimination to tell the real girls to do so? This isn't equal treatment, this is special treatment.


It is about force and choice. You can offer all the choices but you can not single someone out by sex and force them to use an option you deem correct.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Heritagefarm said:


> Are you talking about a transgender male in the girl's showers? SHould they all hide behind a curtain so they don't see the male genitals?


Why not? We're not talking about raging testosterone, they're taking estrogen to become the women that they know they are. The issue now is how long should they have been dressing, taking hormones, etc. as their true gender. A couple of months I'd have an issue with, a couple of years or more means they are serious and not straight boy creepers. 

You realize the chance of actually using a locker room or shower with a transgender person is very very low, right?


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> It is about force and choice. You can offer all the choices but you can not single someone out by sex and force them to use an option you deem correct.


Yup. Separate but equal in the 50s/60s didn't work either. Discrimination is discrimination.

ETA: The IL case the transgender girl said she'd probably use the curtained off privacy area but didn't want to be forced to use it.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> It is about force and choice. You can offer all the choices but you can not single someone out by sex and force them to use an option you deem correct.


If there is only a girls room or a boys room available there is no choice.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> If one doesn't want to see the dreaded penis she can use a privacy area. No problems with that is there? It's fair to everyone.


"privacy area: AKA "Women's Restroom".


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> If there is only a girls room or a boys room available there is no choice.


There are washrooms with stalls and there is the choice to not take a shower.


----------



## thericeguy

dixiegal62 said:


> If there is only a girls room or a boys room available there is no choice.


Sometimes, at this point in the conversation, this brings a comment that you have the choice to leave the US, or stop doing what you want to do. Odd to me in light of the arguments made to create those two choices.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> Sometimes, at this point in the conversation, this brings a comment that you have the choice to leave the US, or stop doing what you want to do. Odd to me in light of the arguments made to create those two choices.


Yet you are tho one who interjected it here. Was that to stir the pot?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> "privacy area: AKA "Women's Restroom".


Cute. We're discussing locker rooms and showers now. The solution is curtained off areas. Don't want to see the dreaded penis- use a curtained off area. Presto! No dreaded penis.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> There are washrooms with stalls and there is the choice to not take a shower.


 The same choice not to take a shower the transgenders had and fought against? So before all this allowing any sex in any bathroom came along there wasn't bathroom stalls for transgenders to use? Did they not already have the same privacy you're saying real females would have? Again not equal treatment, special treatment. Now under the new laws transgender females will have to share the female bathrooms with the 'dreaded penises' they where trying to get way from in the male bathrooms.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> So before all this allowing any sex in any bathroom came along there wasn't bathroom stalls for transgenders to use? Did they not already have the same privacy you're saying real females would have? Again not equal treatment, special treatment.


Please clarify I don't know what you are trying to say.


----------



## arabian knight

thericeguy said:


> Sometimes, at this point in the conversation, this brings a comment that you have the choice to leave the US, or stop doing what you want to do. Odd to me in light of the arguments made to create those two choices.


 The lawsuit that was just filed by North Carolina against the U.S. Government has a lot more involved in it than what is listed in the headline. The feds are basically blackmailing the state to overturn their legally enacted law with the threats of withholding certain federal funds. Funds in part coming from the taxpayers of that state. Big brother in Washington is good at blackmail to achieve it's own agenda. Similar to the blackmailing of WI and other states a few years back to raise the drinking age to 21. With the threat of withholding fed highway aids.


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> Cute. We're discussing locker rooms and showers now. The solution is curtained off areas. Don't want to see the dreaded penis- use a curtained off area. Presto! No dreaded penis.


This is confusing...... who dreads the penis more the transgender female or the born female? Seems your all for the trans female not seeing one but against the born female not seeing it.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> Please clarify I don't know what you are trying to say.


Sure, 

you said born females have the choice not to take a shower.... didn't transgenders have the same choice?

You said born females have the privacy of bathroom stalls.... so did trans but that was not good enough for them.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> This is confusing...... who dreads the penis more the transgender female or the born female? Seems your all for the trans female not seeing one but against the born female not seeing it.


In my opinion it is not about the plumbing for transgenders. They have already lived with the plumbing. It is feeling included not excluded with the group they identify with.

Maybe they want to be included in the make-up and hair sessions that happen in those sex/gender specific facilities. ( just an example)


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> Sure,
> 
> you said born females have the choice not to take a shower.... didn't transgenders have the same choice?
> 
> You said born females have the privacy of bathroom stalls.... so did trans but that was not good enough for them.


Transgenders were being *forced* to use a room not of their choosing. They were being segregated. Discriminated against.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Cute. We're discussing locker rooms and showers now. The solution is curtained off areas. Don't want to see the dreaded penis- use a curtained off area. Presto! No dreaded penis.


Ok. "privacy area" AKA "Women's locker room" We all know that Chester the Molester will honor the privacy of the curtained off area.


----------



## painterswife

duplicate


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> Transgenders were being *forced* to use a room not of their choosing. They were being segregated. Discriminated against.


No they're not true transgenders have been using the bathroom of their choice all along with no problems.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Ok. "privacy area" AKA "Women's locker room" We all know that Chester the Molester will honor the privacy of the curtained off area.


How long has "Chester the Molester" been transgender? How long as she been on hormone therapy and living as a woman?


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> Ok. "privacy area" AKA "Women's locker room" We all know that Chester the Molester will honor the privacy of the curtained off area.


Chester the molester could be doing that in any where no matter what restroom he or she is in.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Transgenders were being *forced* to use a room not of their choosing. They were being segregated. Discriminated against.


What of women who don't choose to use a room where there may be a male present? Should they have that option? Or, should they be forced to used a room not of their choosing?


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> No they're not true transgenders have been using the bathroom of their choice all along with no problems.


Well then how do you explain this court case and this child being force and having to sue to get the same rights that everyone already had?


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Chester the molester could be doing that in any where no matter what restroom he or she is in.


Chester the molester throws on a dress and claims "transgender", to enter the woman's private areas and we can't say boo about it. Used to be, if that happened, we could.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> What of women who don't choose to use a room where there may be a male present? Should they have that option? Or, should they be forced to used a room not of their choosing?


They have always had the option. Separate stalls. When you choose to use a public facility you have already chosen to wave some of your privacy.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Well then how do you explain this court case and this child being force and having to sue to get the same rights that everyone already had?


That child had the right to enter and use the RR that the SEX of the child would indicate, just like you, me, and everyone else has.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> In my opinion it is not about the plumbing for transgenders. They have already lived with the plumbing. It is feeling included not excluded with the group they identify with.
> 
> Maybe they want to be included in the make-up and hair sessions that happen in those sex/gender specific facilities. ( just an example)


I understand your opinion on the matter, even though I don't agree I can respect your views. What I don't understand is IP trying to belittle posters. She was who I was commenting to.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> They have always had the option. Separate stalls. When you choose to use a public facility you have already chosen to wave some of your privacy.


 But, you didn't say the "stall" of your choice, you said "room". Why do not women get the same choice? It is reasonable that, when one enters a "women's" restroom, she can expect there to be no males.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> In my opinion it is not about the plumbing for transgenders. They have already lived with the plumbing. It is feeling included not excluded with the group they identify with.
> 
> Maybe they want to be included in the make-up and hair sessions that happen in those sex/gender specific facilities. ( just an example)


And if every single girl in that session refuses to speak to the trans person, refuses to brush their hair, zip their dress, or loan them some more blush, are those girls discrimination illegally against that trans person? You cannot legislate how people think.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> Well then how do you explain this court case and this child being force and having to sue to get the same rights that everyone already had?


She wasn't forced the school gave her an option of a private room, the same option you want to give other females.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> She wasn't forced the school gave her an option of a private room, the same option you want to give other females.


Everyone must be given the same choices. No one must be forced to use an option. That is the basis of discrimination. How can I make that any clearer to you?


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> And if every single girl in that session refuses to speak to the trans person, refuses to brush their hair, zip their dress, or loan them some more blush, are those girls discrimination illegally against that trans person? You cannot legislate how people think.


That would be their right. They however don't get to make rules or laws that will bar that person from choosing to try to be part of the group.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> Everyone must be given the same choices. No one must be forced to use an option. That is the basis of discrimination. How can I make that any clearer to you?


People on your side of the issue are already saying if women don't like it go elsewhere. Some going so far as to say if you don't like it stay home. How is that equal? Taking away a woman's basic right to privacy isn't equal, most women I know don't care about a true transgender using the women's room myself included, but you want to force her to use it with men too. You can't say anything to make me see how this is equal treatment.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> People on your side of the issue are already saying if women don't like it go elsewhere. Some going so far as to say if you don't like it stay home. How is that equal? Taking away a woman's basic right to privacy isn't equal, most women I know don't care about a true transgender using the women's room myself included, but you want to force her to use it with men too. You can't say anything to make me see how this is equal treatment.


I am sorry but if you can't understand what discrimination is under the law from what I have said. I don't know what else to say. No one has taken away anyone's basic right to privacy. You can keep repeating it but it will not make it true.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Everyone must be given the same choices. No one must be forced to use an option. That is the basis of discrimination. How can I make that any clearer to you?


My Birth certificate states that my sex is male, it doesn't speak to my gender. I am required to use the Men's/boy's RR and some other areas that are specific for my sex. I am not allowed to enter the women's RR. locker room etc.. Why? Right to Privacy and safety issues. I, generally, cannot choose to use a RR that is contrary to my sex, no one can. If everyone is assigned RR's based on the Sex listed on their birth certificate, there IS NO DESCRIMINATION.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> My Birth certificate states that my sex is male, it doesn't speak to my gender. I am required to use the Men's/boy's RR and some other areas that are specific for my sex. I am not allowed to enter the women's RR. locker room etc.. Why? Right to Privacy and safety issues. I, generally, cannot choose to use a RR that is contrary to my sex, no one can. If everyone is assigned RR's based on the Sex listed on their birth certificate, there IS NO DESCRIMINATION.


Yes, just repeat what you posted and use color of skin instead of sex. 

There is privacy in restrooms. Stalls.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> I am sorry but if you can't understand what discrimination is under the law from what I have said. I don't know what else to say. No one has taken away anyone's basic right to privacy. You can keep repeating it but it will not make it true.


Neither does your repeating I haven't lost the basic right to privacy in the ladies room.


----------



## flewism

dixiegal62 said:


> People on your side of the issue are already saying if women don't like it go elsewhere. Some going so far as to say if you don't like it stay home. How is that equal? Taking away a woman's basic right to privacy isn't equal, most women I know don't care about a true transgender using the women's room myself included, but you want to force her to use it with men too. You can't say anything to make me see how this is equal treatment.


But they're NOT men, they are girls with male genitals. That is the premise of their argument. Just like the 9th grade girls shower room after physical ed. class and if they don't like it they can line up at the uni-sex shower or not shower. Isn't physical ed. required still in 9th grade?


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> Neither does your repeating I haven't lost the basic right to privacy in the ladies room.


You still have a choice. Why do you get to have a choice and also get to take it away from someone else?


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Yes, just repeat what you posted and use color of skin instead of sex.
> 
> There is privacy in restrooms. Stalls.


First off, there are Biological, anatomical, hormonal, brain chemistry, and a plethora of other differences between the sexes, unlike the content of melanin one possesses, in ones skin.

Secondly, if there is privacy in stalls, why do the trans gendered care what restroom they are "forced" to use?


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> You still have a choice. Why do you get to have a choice and also get to take it away from someone else?


 
She generally can't choose to enter the men's room.


----------



## flewism

Farmerga said:


> First off, there are Biological, anatomical, hormonal, brain chemistry, and a plethora of other differences between the sexes, unlike the content of melanin one possesses, in ones skin.
> 
> Secondly, if there is privacy in stalls, why do the trans gendered care what restroom they are "forced" to use?


Because they will suffer undo metal anguish, Is their statement,


----------



## arabian knight

This is not never has been or will it ever be about discrimination. It is however the so into few in this country that want to control what goes on, and how things are not the same well humans are or never have been the same sexual. Its control plain and simple of a select group tiny tiny fraction pf the population that wants to be put on a pedestal saying see we are the best we have to control the whole country and make everyone just like it was REALLY 1984. Wonder when they will want everyone to dress the same wear the same air stye cause one or the other OFFENDS. LOL My God they country is going insane fast.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> First off, there are Biological, anatomical, hormonal, brain chemistry, and a plethora of other differences between the sexes, unlike the content of melanin one possesses, in ones skin.
> 
> Secondly, if there is privacy in stalls, why do the trans gendered care what restroom they are "forced" to use?


So if there are all those differences, does the person get to choose their own reason for choosing where to pee or is it only because of their plumbing? Skin color was the only difference that was used to discriminate against people of color.


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> You still have a choice. Why do you get to have a choice and also get to take it away from someone else?


 No problem with true transgenders, huge problem with posers... show me how you're going to sort them out.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> No problem with true transgenders, huge problem with posers... show me how you're going to sort them out.


How do you sort them out now?


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> How do you sort them out now?


That's not an answer, that's side stepping something you have no answer for.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> That's not an answer, that's side stepping something you have no answer for.


It is my answer. How will you tell who is a transgender from a poser in your words? What stops someone now from committing a crime in a bathroom and how will that change because people get to choose which bathroom they go into?

How are you preventing same sex sexual assaults right now or you only concerned about women getting sexually assaulted?

How do you tell the difference right now between a transgender person and a person who just is more masculine or feminine that the person of the same sex?


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> It is my answer. How will you tell who is a transgender from a poser in your words? What stops someone now from committing a crime in a bathroom and how will that change because people get to choose which bathroom they go into?
> 
> How are you preventing same sex sexual assaults right now or you only concerned about women getting sexually assaulted?
> 
> How do you tell the difference right now between a transgender person and a person who just is more masculine or feminine that the person of the same sex?


You are the one in favor of this law give some real answers don't push it off on me.


----------



## Bubba1358

painterswife said:


> So if there are all those differences, does the person get to choose their own reason for choosing where to pee or is it only because of their plumbing? Skin color was the only difference that was used to discriminate against people of color.


This comparison does not hold water.

There is no credible science to differentiate between races, other than pigment content. There are, however, many complex, distinct differences between the sexes even at the molecular level that have nothing to do with self-identification. They are innate and profound.

Keeping biological men and women separated is NOT discrimination.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> You are the one in favor of this law give some real answers don't push it off on me.


I don't think there is a need to sort them out. That should be obvious. I don't think that allow the sexes to mingle is going to increase sexual assaults. They have plenty of opportunity right now.

You are the one concerned about posers so you must have a way to sort them out now.


----------



## painterswife

Bubba1358 said:


> This comparison does not hold water.
> 
> There is no credible science to differentiate between races, other than pigment content. There are, however, many complex, distinct differences between the sexes even at the molecular level that have nothing to do with self-identification. They are innate and profound.
> 
> Keeping biological men and women separated is NOT discrimination.


Are you using those differences( other than plumbing) to decide who pees where? If not then they are not germane to this discussion.


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> Yes, just repeat what you posted and use color of skin instead of sex.
> 
> There is privacy in restrooms. Stalls.


Exactly. This is perfect.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Heritagefarm said:


> Are you talking about a transgender male in the girl's showers? SHould they all hide behind a curtain so they don't see the male genitals?


There's no need to hide when you can control where you look and which way you face


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> This is the whole problem in a nut shell (pun intended) Females born females are already being told if they don't like it use a different area but when this little girl in the op was given a choice for a private room she said no. *Why is it discrimination *to tell the trans to use a more private option but its not discrimination to tell the real girls to do so? This isn't equal treatment, this is special treatment.


They are being given a choice of using either 
She was told to use one


----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> They are being given a choice of using either
> She was told to use one


Well that would be true if all public places offered mens, women's or family rooms but they don't so no there isn't always a choice.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> So if there are all those differences, does the person get to choose their own reason for choosing where to pee or is it only because of their plumbing? Skin color was the only difference that was used to discriminate against people of color.


People don't (shouldn't) get to pick where they pee. It should (has been) determined by their biological sex. There is no discrimination. If you are male, you must go here, if you are female you must go there. That is ALL females, and ALL males. I can't go where no other male can go. It is common sense. 

I am a middle aged male. My wife says I am like a big kid. Does that mean that I can walk into an elementary school and enter the girls RR? I mean, as long as they have stalls. 

Again, that requirement is no more discriminatory than keeping your house locked.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> They are being given a choice of using either
> She was told to use one


Do I have the choice to use either? Should I?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> This is confusing...... *who dreads the penis* more the transgender female or the born female? Seems your all for the trans female not seeing one but against the born female not seeing it.


It seems to be the grown men and women who won't be using those facilities in the first place.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Do I have the choice to use either? Should I?


Are you transgender?


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> People don't (shouldn't) get to pick where they pee. It should (has been) determined by their biological sex. There is no discrimination. If you are male, you must go here, if you are female you must go there. That is ALL females, and ALL males. I can't go where no other male can go. It is common sense.
> 
> I am a middle aged male. My wife says I am like a big kid. Does that mean that I can walk into an elementary school and enter the girls RR? I mean, as long as they have stalls.
> 
> Again, that requirement is no more discriminatory than keeping your house locked.


Using your sex to decide where you pee is discrimination at it's most basic.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> Ok. "privacy area" AKA "Women's locker room" We all know that Chester the Molester will honor the privacy of the curtained off area.


No one has shown any proof transgenders have any interest in "molesting" anyone.

You keep parroting the words, but they have no substance


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Are you transgender?


No. So transgendered get more choice than I do. It is good that you would say it. A transgendered can choose between the bathrooms, no matter their biological sex, but, because I am not trans gendered, I am not afforded the same choice.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> No they're not true transgenders have been using the bathroom of their choice all along with no problems.


You asked a question about showers and then switched back to bathrooms.
You're not following the conversation very well.
Go back and read it with that in mind and it will make sense


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one has shown any proof transgenders have any interest in "molesting" anyone.
> 
> You keep parroting the words, but they have no substance


And you keep misunderstanding what I have said, and everyone else has said over and over. Perhaps that is why we keep repeating over and over.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> People don't (shouldn't) get to pick where they pee. It should (has been) determined by their biological sex. There is no discrimination. If you are male, you must go here, if you are female you must go there. That is ALL females, and ALL males. I can't go where no other male can go. It is common sense.
> 
> I am a middle aged male. My wife says I am like a big kid. Does that mean that I can walk into an elementary school and enter the girls RR? I mean, as long as they have stalls.
> 
> Again, that requirement is no more discriminatory than keeping your house locked.


Try it and see. Have your wife give us a follow up, OK?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> Chester the molester throws on a dress and claims "transgender", to enter the woman's private areas and *we can't say boo *about it. Used to be, if that happened, we could.


You can say "boo" all you like, and if they *do* something illegal they can still be charged.


----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> You asked a question about showers and then switched back to bathrooms.
> You're not following the conversation very well.
> Go back and read it with that in mind and it will make sense


I asked about both. Pay attention &#128518;


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> No. So transgendered get more choice than I do. It is good that you would say it. A transgendered can choose between the bathrooms, no matter their biological sex, but, because I am not trans gendered, I am not afforded the same choice.


OK. Is your gender male or female?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> She wasn't forced the school gave her an option of a private room, the same option you want to give other females.


They didn't want to "give her an option"
This has been explained multiple times
It would have been the *only* room she could use
The other girls would be able to use either one they wanted


----------



## Bearfootfarm

painterswife said:


> Everyone must be given the same choices. No one must be forced to use an option. That is the basis of discrimination.
> *How can I make that any clearer to you?*


You can't because it's been repeated countless times since the beginning of the thread, and they still keep repeating the same arguments and asking the same questions, thinking the answers will change.

It seems they really aren't reading the replies at all


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> That's not an answer, that's side stepping something you have *no answer* for.


Your question was one that's been asked and answered more than once.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> You are the one in favor of this law give some real answers don't push it off on me.


That's not an answer, that's side stepping something you have no answer for.

Why keep pretending this hasn't been covered already?
The 'real answer" is if you don't like the law you can write your congressman.

No one here has to meet your demands for more answers when it's clear you haven't paid attention to those already given

Scroll back and read if you really want to know


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> Well that would be true if *all public places* offered mens, women's or family rooms but they don't so no there isn't always a choice.


You have a habit of changing the subject with every post.
Maybe that is why you are confused

You asked about a specific person in a specific case involving a school, not everyone in the general public


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> Do I have the choice to use either? Should I?


If you are a member of her school class, by all means
If you are just making another irrational argument, you should know better


----------



## Heritagefarm

Irish Pixie said:


> Why not? We're not talking about raging testosterone, they're taking estrogen to become the women that they know they are. The issue now is how long should they have been dressing, taking hormones, etc. as their true gender. A couple of months I'd have an issue with, a couple of years or more means they are serious and not straight boy creepers.
> 
> You realize the chance of actually using a locker room or shower with a transgender person is very very low, right?


Yes, and the odds of me driving off a cliff are incredibly low, too. It doesn't prove anything. 

Your first statement I agree with. So you do think it's wrong for a boy to wander into the girl's shower? Or is that his right? He could just claim to be trans.



thericeguy said:


> Sometimes, at this point in the conversation, this brings a comment that you have the choice to leave the US, or stop doing what you want to do. Odd to me in light of the arguments made to create those two choices.


Leaving the country should never be a viable option, although people do it every election year (or at least threaten to).



Irish Pixie said:


> Cute. We're discussing locker rooms and showers now. The solution is curtained off areas. Don't want to see the dreaded penis- use a curtained off area. Presto! No dreaded penis.


The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. ALl the normal people shouldn't be forced to use a separate area because of one entitled person.



painterswife said:


> Transgenders were being *forced* to use a room not of their choosing. They were being segregated. Discriminated against.


And that's wrong. But's it's also wrong to play the card in the opposite direction. I don't have a problem with trans - actually I do, I'd recommend a psychiatrist instead of hormone therapy, but what do I know - but I DO have a problem with them forcing people to do what they are uncomfortable with.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> And you keep misunderstanding what I have said, and everyone else has said over and over. Perhaps that is why we keep repeating over and over.


I understand exactly what you've said.
I just think most of it is unrealistic and irrational
Repeating it 20 times reinforces that opinion


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> I asked about both. *Pay attention* &#128518;


You *asked* about one and made a statement about the other
Punctuation makes all the difference, and I pay close attention.

Look at your post and you will see only one question mark


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> I understand exactly what you've said.
> I just think most of it is unrealistic and irrational
> Repeating it 20 times reinforces that opinion


I somehow doubt you understood as you mischaracterized our concerns in your reply.


----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's not an answer, that's side stepping something you have no answer for.
> 
> Why keep pretending this hasn't been covered already?
> The 'real answer" is if you don't like the law you can write your congressman.
> 
> No one here has to meet your demands for more answers when it's clear you haven't paid attention to those already given
> 
> Scroll back and read if you really want to know


Probably because it's never been answered by any of you. It's been sidestepped and pushed aside but not answered.


----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> You *asked* about one and made a statement about the other
> Punctuation makes all the difference, and I pay close attention.
> 
> Look at your post and you will see only one question mark


Nit picking much lol I'm seeing it's easier for some to do this than come up with real answers. The old Grammer and punctuation dodge&#128517;


----------



## painterswife

Heritagefarm said:


> And that's wrong. But's it's also wrong to play the card in the opposite direction. I don't have a problem with trans - actually I do, I'd recommend a psychiatrist instead of hormone therapy, but what do I know - but I DO have a problem with them forcing people to do what they are uncomfortable with.


I actually feel for people that are are going to be placed in situations that are uncomfortable for them. I do think as we move forward that we have to find ways to ease these problems for everyone. I don't see a rush of people of the opposite sex using the other sexes restrooms. We already have family or single room facilities in many places for those that feel uncomfortable. You can easily wait in line for them instead of waiting in line inside the large restrooms.

Discriminating against a portion of the population has never been the correct answer even though so often society seems to have to be forced to not do this.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> I somehow doubt you understood as you *mischaracterized * our concerns in your reply.


Nope.
Irrational and unrealistic pretty much covers most of the arguments you've made so far.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> Nit picking much lol I'm seeing it's easier for some to do this than come up with real answers. The old Grammer and punctuation dodge&#128517;


I have asked you lots of questions that you side step and dismiss. How about you come up with some of those real answers.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> If you are a member of her school class, by all means
> If you are just making another irrational argument, you should know better


So you are willing to let the jocks shower with the cheerleaders? What about the coaches, teachers, janitors, visiting parents, etc.? And, for once, do not dismiss this as "irrational" because you said, in your response "If you are a member of her schools class, by all means". 

Well, a public school, which will let a transgender choose the RR, locker room, etc., of his or her choice, regardless of his/her SEX, MUST allow ALL people, legally allowed on school property, to do the same.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> Nit picking much lol I'm seeing it's easier for some to do this than come up with real answers. The old Grammer and punctuation *dodge*&#128517;


I don't make the rules, and I can't read your mind

Judging by exactly *what you posted* you only asked one question

You're "dodging" now because you don't want to admit what I said was correct, in that you only used one question mark and therefore only asked one question, pertaining to showers.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> So you are willing to let the jocks shower with the cheerleaders? What about the coaches, teachers, janitors, visiting parents, etc.? And, for once, do not dismiss this as "irrational" because you said, in your response "If you are a member of her schools class, by all means".
> 
> Well, a public school, which will let a transgender choose the RR, locker room, etc., of his or her choice, regardless of his/her SEX, MUST allow ALL people, legally allowed on school property, to do the same.


There you are again simply *repeating *the same irrational, unrealistic arguments that have been posted before.

I can see you aren't really trying to have a serious discussion, so I'll stop before you mention the evil Govt or slavery


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> I have asked you lots of questions that you side step and dismiss. How about you come up with some of those real answers.


Because im.still.waiting for you to answer what I asked you before you asked me &#128518;


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> Nope.
> Irrational and unrealistic pretty much covers most of the arguments you've made so far.


Nope, I clearly stated that Chester the molester could POSE (I believe my exact words were "throw on a dress") as a trans gender, you came back, mistakenly with some crap about there being no proof that a transgender wished to molest anyone. Well, I wasn't talking about transgender folks, was I? 

Your favorite dodge is calling your opponent "irrational", or, harping on some mistake in punctuation, or, some other such foolishness. More and more are seeing through your dodges and understand that the "loudest", most condescending voice usually not the correct voice.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> Because im.still.waiting for you to answer what I asked you before you asked me &#128518;


What question have you asked that I did not answer?


----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> I don't make the rules, and I can't read your mind
> 
> Judging by exactly *what you posted* you only asked one question
> 
> You're "dodging" now because you don't want to admit what I said was correct, in that you only used one question mark and therefore only asked one question, pertaining to showers.


 I've watched you do this little merry go round with too many other posters on here to be sucked into it. lf my writing style bothers you it's best to skip over me and carry.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> There you are again simply *repeating *the same irrational, unrealistic arguments that have been posted before.
> 
> I can see you aren't really trying to have a serious discussion, so I'll stop before you mention the evil Govt or slavery


You can't answer it can you? Why is it unrealistic? For one as dapper of brain as you, it should be an easy question to answer. If you have answered it, show us slow witted folks where?


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> What question have you asked that I did not answer?


Not getting on your merry go round either pw. You don't want to give an answer that fine.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bearfootfarm said:


> There you are again simply *repeating *the same irrational, unrealistic arguments that have been posted before.
> 
> I can see you aren't really trying to have a serious discussion, so I'll stop before you mention the evil Govt or slavery


Yup, that's next.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> Not getting on your merry go round either pw. You don't want to give an answer that fine.


You made a statement and I have asked for clarification. If you don't want to back up your statements then stop playing games and accuse me of not answering.

So are we going to have a discussion or or you going to dodge my question.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Yup, that's next.


And yet, no one can tell us how our arguments are irrational, or, unrealistic. IP or BFF deeming it so, does not cut the mustard.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> Nope, I clearly stated that Chester the molester could POSE (I believe my exact words were "throw on a dress") as a trans gender, you came back, mistakenly with some crap about there being no proof that a transgender wished to molest anyone. Well, I wasn't talking about transgender folks, was I?
> 
> Your favorite dodge is calling your opponent "irrational", or, harping on some mistake in punctuation, or, some other such foolishness. * More and more are seeing through your dodges and understand that the "loudest", most condescending voice usually not the correct voice.*


Yeah, there are entire threads devoted to how evil I am and how terrible it is here at HT. 

It's funny what y'all say when you think it's just you and your buddies listening


----------



## Bubba1358

painterswife said:


> *I actually feel for people that are are going to be placed in situations that are uncomfortable for them.* I do think as we move forward that we have to find ways to ease these problems for everyone. I don't see a rush of people of the opposite sex using the other sexes restrooms. We already have family or single room facilities in many places for those that feel uncomfortable. You can easily wait in line for them instead of waiting in line inside the large restrooms.
> 
> *Discriminating against a portion of the population has never been the correct answer* even though so often society seems to have to be forced to not do this.


As do I. The way I see it though, keeping things as they are (male and female facilities based on outward biological characteristics) is the best solution toward limiting the number of people who feel uncomfortable.

The trans community comprises a tiny 0.3% of the U.S. population. Based upon the people that I know in my life, including family, friends, and co-workers, FAR MORE than 0.3% of them are extremely uncomfortable with sharing private facilities with those of differing biological characteristics. The number of uncomfortable people skyrockets when children are brought into the equation.

Also, it's not discrimination when everyone is subject to a policy equally - which we are already.


----------



## painterswife

Bubba1358 said:


> As do I. The way I see it though, keeping things as they are (male and female facilities based on outward biological characteristics) is the best solution toward limiting the number of people who feel uncomfortable.
> 
> The trans community comprises a tiny 0.3% of the U.S. population. Based upon the people that I know in my life, including family, friends, and co-workers, FAR MORE than 0.3% of them are extremely uncomfortable with sharing private facilities with those of differing biological characteristics. The number of uncomfortable people skyrockets when children are brought into the equation.
> 
> Also, it's not discrimination when everyone is subject to a policy equally - which we are already.


I don't totally disagree with you. It is a solution but I don't think it is a feasible solution. We decide by looks not plumbing who we think should be in a bathroom. Who will decide if a man is too feminine looking or even androgynous and not fit to be in a bathroom? So many of our youth don't fit a mold. Are we going to have bathroom police?

I don't agree with you that it is an equal policy when your sex makes rules on where you can go.


----------



## no really

Bubba1358 said:


> As do I. The way I see it though, keeping things as they are (male and female facilities based on outward biological characteristics) is the best solution toward limiting the number of people who feel uncomfortable.
> 
> The trans community comprises a tiny 0.3% of the U.S. population. Based upon the people that I know in my life, including family, friends, and co-workers, FAR MORE than 0.3% of them are extremely uncomfortable with sharing private facilities with those of differing biological characteristics. The number of uncomfortable people skyrockets when children are brought into the equation.
> 
> Also, it's not discrimination when everyone is subject to a policy equally - which we are already.



Than there are the minority communities that will have a difficult time with this sharing of facilities.


----------



## Heritagefarm

painterswife said:


> I actually feel for people that are are going to be placed in situations that are uncomfortable for them. I do think as we move forward that we have to find ways to ease these problems for everyone. I don't see a rush of people of the opposite sex using the other sexes restrooms. We already have family or single room facilities in many places for those that feel uncomfortable. You can easily wait in line for them instead of waiting in line inside the large restrooms.
> 
> Discriminating against a portion of the population has never been the correct answer even though so often society seems to have to be forced to not do this.


Of course not. But I think it's important to take both sides of the argument into consideration. From what I've seen, neither side has enough info or logic to back up their side very well. We're probably going to end up with more anti discrimination laws, but it doesn't mean people won't still be uncomfortable. We have yet to figure out what to do about the male-genital trans girl in the girls shower. I can only imagine their reactions.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> And yet, no one can tell us how our arguments are irrational, or, unrealistic. IP or BFF deeming it so, does not cut the mustard.


You (collective you) play the "what if" game, come up with outlandish scenarios, post something that is so ridiculous that I can't tell if you're being factious, or repeat yourselves so often that it might as well be on a continuous loop. 

If we (the pro transgender) answer a question it's never enough, or one of you (collective you) will change the question a bit and then say we didn't answer it, or state repeatedly that we didn't answer your question. 

We are never going to agree on this issue. Ever. So there's really no point in continuing to discuss it is there?


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> Of course not. But I think it's important to take both sides of the argument into consideration. From what I've seen, neither side has enough info or logic to back up their side very well. We're probably going to end up with more anti discrimination laws, but it doesn't mean people won't still be uncomfortable. We have yet to figure out what to do about the male-genital trans girl in the girls shower. I can only imagine their reactions.


Well, at some point violence might ensue if it gets bad enough. Then you have to be concerned if 12 people get on the jury who think this law stinks, and were told tonleave the country. 

Read a really good article today about all politicians living in a bubble and alienating massive chunks of people. 

Put it on a national ballot "do you want coed showers in K-12" in plain language, without all the legal mumbo jumbo, and watch.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> Well, at some point violence might ensue if it gets bad enough. Then you have to be concerned if 12 people get on the jury who think this law stinks, and were told tonleave the country.
> 
> Read a really good article today about all politicians living in a bubble and alienating massive chunks of people.
> 
> Put it on a national ballot "do you want coed showers in K-12" in plain language, without all the legal mumbo jumbo, and watch.


Case in point. There will never be coed showers, no one wants coed showers, and no one is asking for coed showers.


----------



## Bubba1358

Irish Pixie said:


> We are never going to agree on this issue.


I don't agree to that! 

:trollface:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> Well, at some point violence might ensue if it gets bad enough. Then you have to be concerned if 12 people get on the jury who think this law stinks, and were told tonleave the country.
> 
> Read a really good article today about all politicians living in a bubble and alienating massive chunks of people.
> 
> Put it on a national ballot "do you want coed showers in K-12" in plain language, without all the legal mumbo jumbo, and watch.


You're overlooking the fact several states have had these laws for years already
You'd have to actually read the thread to know that though


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> Case in point. There will never be coed showers, no one wants coed showers, and no one is asking for coed showers.


Right. Doctors treating trans students will issue an "admit one" photo ID card to trans which can be swiped at the shower entrance to gain lawful restricted and ptotected access, right?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

arabian knight said:


> I ain't gonna be sharing no sticker bathroom with no opposite sex or some wanna be opposite one other then what God made that person.
> 
> *These signs MEAN SOMETHING * Better be some learn it~! And stop this liberal nonsense crap~!


They *seem* to mean some poor fool doesn't know how to spell "Oliv*e*"



> Olive Oyl:
> 
> Olive Oyl is a cartoon character created by E. C. Segar in 1919 for his comic strip Thimble Theatre. The strip was later renamed Popeye after the sailor character that became the most popular member


----------



## thericeguy

So when I read an article, I think it was the Chicago area school, where the school put up a curtained shower for the heshe, and the heshe said she "might" use said curtain, and the government responded that the student could use the curtain voluntarily, but the school could not force said student to use said curtain, thats not a coed shower? Please explain.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> So when I read an article, I think it was the Chicago area school, where the school put up a curtained shower for the heshe, and the heshe said she "might" use said curtain, and the government responded that the student could use the curtain voluntarily, but the school could not force said student to use said curtain, thats not a coed shower? Please explain.


Figure it out
It's really not hard


----------



## Bubba1358

Bearfootfarm said:


> Figure it out
> It's really not hard


Thanks for the condescension!

I think this is a fair question. The end result is male parts and female parts of children, both exposed, in the same shower area. What he/she/whatever thinks doesn't alter the fact that the others can SEE something different. In their view (literally, because it's what their eyes tell them), that shower just became co-ed. That would be my view in the situation.

If left to "figure it out," the conclusion I come to is that the other people in the shower are supposed to ignore the differences and the extremely uncomfortable position THEY have been FORCED into, because she/he/whatever said so.

What am I missing?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> COED LOCKER ROOMS GIVEN GREEN LIGHT
> Statute allows people to 'choose a gender'





> Coed locker rooms could be a reality now that a new statute to allow people to &#8220;choose a gender&#8221; has been approved in Maryland.


http://www.wnd.com/2007/11/44558/

http://www.wnd.com/2014/05/coed-bathrooms-going-statewide/




> According to a summary, the Maryland law, SB 212, prohibits &#8220;discrimination based on gender identity, with regard to public accommodations, housing/real estate, or employment, or by persons regulated by the Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation. It also prohibits discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation with regard to leasing commercial property and in state personnel actions.&#8221;





> Nationwide, 17 states and the District of Columbia have embraced the transsexual agenda. Rhode Island added &#8220;gender identity and expression&#8221; to its anti-discrimination law in June with the support of Gov. Jack Markell, and Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden announced his support in an Equality Delaware video.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Bubba1358 said:


> Thanks for the condescension!
> 
> I think this is a fair question. The end result is male parts and female parts of children, both exposed, in the same shower area. What he/she/whatever thinks doesn't alter the fact that the others can SEE something different. In their view (literally, because it's what their eyes tell them), that shower just became co-ed. That would be my view in the situation.
> 
> If left to "figure it out," the conclusion I come to is that the other people in the shower are supposed to ignore the differences and the extremely uncomfortable position THEY have been FORCED into, because she/he/whatever said so.
> 
> *What am I missing?*


Don't complain about "condescension" after what you posted earlier.

They don't have to look at any "differences" and many aren't comfortable showering with others of any sex, so there's no promise one won't have some "discomfort" in their lives.

I don't know of any schools where elementary or middle school age kids are required to shower at all. 

This thread started with a case of a female to male transgender high school student who had been on hormones for two years.

Some only want to focus on "chester the molester" types, when all that was covered in the first 50 posts

It's about *gender*


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Some made a big deal over the "1 million signatures" to boycott Target

Their stock went up 1.5% today and is up more than 10% year-to-date

http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=TGT

That makes me wonder about the claims of a "big majority" being upset over these laws


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> So when I read an article, I think it was the Chicago area school, where the school put up a curtained shower for the heshe, and the heshe said she "might" use said curtain, and the government responded that the student could use the curtain voluntarily, but the school could not force said student to use said curtain, thats not a coed shower? Please explain.


Actually, this is the quote, "The district said she was allowed to change inside the girlsâ locker room, but only behind a curtain. The student, who has not been publicly identified, has said she would _probably_ use that curtain to change. But she and the federal government have insisted that she be allowed to make that decision voluntarily, and not because of requirements by the district."

From: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/u...transgender-students-rights-us-says.html?_r=0

No, not coed. Coed implies both male and female, yes? The transgender girl has lived as a girl, is undergoing to hormone therapy, and is female except for the dreaded penis that even she doesn't want. 

If the curtains are OK for one girl why aren't they OK for any girl that doesn't want to catch a (possible) glimpse of the dreaded penis?


----------



## flewism

Or someone with the dreaded penis staring at them.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Irish Pixie said:


> No, not coed. Coed implies both male and female, yes? The transgender girl has lived as a girl, is undergoing to hormone therapy, and is female except for the dreaded penis that even she doesn't want.
> 
> If the curtains are OK for one girl why aren't they OK for any girl that doesn't want to catch a (possible) glimpse of the dreaded penis?


Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner is apparently OK with it.


----------



## Irish Pixie

flewism said:


> Or someone with the dreaded penis staring at them.


Why can't they use the curtained area?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Heritagefarm said:


> Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner is apparently OK with it.


I don't understand? Caitlyn Jenner is apparently OK with what?


----------



## Heritagefarm

Bubba1358 said:


> Thanks for the condescension!
> 
> I think this is a fair question. The end result is male parts and female parts of children, both exposed, in the same shower area. What he/she/whatever thinks doesn't alter the fact that the others can SEE something different. In their view (literally, because it's what their eyes tell them), that shower just became co-ed. That would be my view in the situation.
> 
> If left to "figure it out," the conclusion I come to is that the other people in the shower are supposed to ignore the differences and the extremely uncomfortable position THEY have been FORCED into, because she/he/whatever said so.
> 
> What am I missing?


Apparently it's OK to throw both sets of genitals in the shower together? Nothing bad could possibly happen. As if that's not what teens fantasize all the time.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't understand? Caitlyn Jenner is apparently OK with what?


She hasn't decided what to do with her penis! I can't believe I just wrote this - this is INSANE!


----------



## Irish Pixie

Heritagefarm said:


> She hasn't decided what to do with her penis! I can't believe I just wrote this - this is INSANE!


It's her penis...  She's done with girls too, wants a man in her life.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Heritagefarm said:


> Apparently it's OK to throw both sets of genitals in the shower together? Nothing bad could possibly happen. As if that's not what teens fantasize all the time.


It is when the dreaded penis is attached to a estrogen taking and been living as a girl for years, girl. 

That's the real issue, isn't it? How to be sure the transgender girl isn't a straight boy creeper?


----------



## Shine

I can't wait to see what the next mental delusion fad is going to be, from the looks of things, it should be a lu lu.

Reality still wanders on, chuckling to itself on its way....


----------



## AmericanStand

I want to register my offense of the word creeper as it is being used here. 
You seem to be labeling a young male with a penis who wants to see female bodies naked as a creeper. 
I see that as normal. 
I am far more creeped out by a young man with a penis who wants to claim to be a girl because he doesn't feel like a man.


----------



## thericeguy

This is the narrow argument I refer to often seen in action; these last few pages. 

She calls herself a girl. 
She treats herself life a girl. 
We changed the definition of a centuries old word to mean what we want. 
So therefor it is not coed. See? All girls in there. 

Sounds good, right? But why is there someone with a penis in the shower?

And how come NOONE will say who gets to say which boy that isnt a girl is a girl?

You take a step back from the agenda driven narrowly crafted argument being made here and the end result defies all rational thought. homosexual bath houses come to mind. Those prude conservatives would tell you no good can come from such behaviours. How many homosexuals have died from AIDS as a result of those bath houses? After HIV was known, attempts to close the bath houses were met with criticism as "discrimination" and "persecution".

I am not impressed thus far with the other sides way of thinking about things, or the effect on people when their policies become reality.


----------



## Irish Pixie

AmericanStand said:


> I want to register my offense of the word creeper as it is being used here.
> You seem to be labeling a young male with a penis who wants to see female bodies naked as a creeper.
> I see that as normal.
> I am far more creeped out by a young man with a penis who wants to claim to be a girl because he doesn't feel like a man.


If he's trying to get into a girls locker room by nefarious means, he's a creeper in my opinion. My post, my terminology.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> This is the narrow argument I refer to often seen in action; these last few pages.
> 
> She calls herself a girl.
> She treats herself life a girl.
> We changed the definition of a centuries old word to mean what we want.
> So therefor it is not coed. See? All girls in there.
> 
> Sounds good, right? But why is there someone with a penis in the shower?
> 
> And how come NOONE will say who gets to say which boy that isnt a girl is a girl?
> 
> You take a step back from the agenda driven narrowly crafted argument being made here and the end result defies all rational thought. homosexual bath houses come to mind. Those prude conservatives would tell you no good can come from such behaviours. How many homosexuals have died from AIDS as a result of those bath houses? After HIV was known, attempts to close the bath houses were met with criticism as "discrimination" and "persecution".
> 
> I am not impressed thus far with the other sides way of thinking about things, or the effect on people when their policies become reality.


I'm sorry, I can't help you understand. I've tried and failed.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> I can't wait to see what the next mental delusion fad is going to be, from the looks of things, it should be a lu lu.
> 
> Reality still wanders on, chuckling to itself on its way....


Is it any different than the delusion that an imaginary figure runs your (collective religious) life?


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> Is it any different than the delusion that an imaginary figure runs your (collective religious) life?


Yes, by far.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> This is the narrow argument I refer to often seen in action; these last few pages.
> 
> She calls herself a girl.
> She treats herself life a girl.
> We changed the definition of a centuries old word to mean what we want.
> So therefor it is not coed. See? All girls in there.
> 
> Sounds good, right? But why is there someone with a penis in the shower?
> 
> And how come NOONE will say who gets to say which boy that isnt a girl is a girl?
> 
> You take a step back from the agenda driven narrowly crafted argument being made here and the end result defies all rational thought. homosexual bath houses come to mind. Those prude conservatives would tell you no good can come from such behaviours. How many homosexuals have died from AIDS as a result of those bath houses? After HIV was known, attempts to close the bath houses were met with criticism as "discrimination" and "persecution".
> 
> *I am not impressed thus far with the other sides way of thinking about things*, or the effect on people when their policies become reality.


You're laboring under a delusion if you think anyone cares if you are "impressed"

If it's such a bad thing, show us some examples from the state who have had these laws for years


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Yes, by far.


Only in your mind


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> Is it any different than the delusion that an imaginary figure runs your (collective religious) life?


One cannot have a religious life without something to guide that religious life. Are you suggestion all religions cease to have a guiding force and begin to follow only their own whims? I call that religion liberalism. It is self worship.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> One cannot have a religious life without something to guide that religious life. Are you suggestion all religions cease to have a guiding force and begin to follow only their own whims? I call that religion liberalism. It is self worship.


Uh. No. What I said was: is transgenderism any more delusional than thinking an imaginary figure is running your (collective your) life?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bearfootfarm said:


> Only in your mind


:drum:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> One cannot have a religious life without *something* to guide that religious life. Are you suggestion all religions cease to have a guiding force and begin to follow only their own whims? I call that religion liberalism. It is self worship.


What is that "something"?


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> What is that "something"?


It differs by religion across all religions.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bearfootfarm said:


> What is that "something"?


An imaginary figure.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Irish Pixie said:


> It's her penis...  She's done with girls too, wants a man in her life.


Erm, I guess that's more normal. Ish. Kinda. lol. 



Irish Pixie said:


> It is when the dreaded penis is attached to a estrogen taking and been living as a girl for years, girl.
> 
> That's the real issue, isn't it? How to be sure the transgender girl isn't a straight boy creeper?


Yes, I think that is the real issue. I think that the person getting therapy.. Actually becoming the other gender, should be given access to the correct restroom. The others should still have their sensitivities taken into account. 



AmericanStand said:


> I want to register my offense of the word creeper as it is being used here.
> You seem to be labeling a young male with a penis who wants to see female bodies naked as a creeper.
> I see that as normal.
> I am far more creeped out by a young man with a penis who wants to claim to be a girl because he doesn't feel like a man.


Every teen male wants a glimpse. ACTING on that impulse is wrong. So I see no problem with "creeper."


----------



## thericeguy

I will continue to ask, since it will become a critical part of implementing a policy where a transgender is allowed into an opposing sex facility. 

Who decides when you have become "enough" of what you say for it to be allowed. 

If that someone does not exist and there are no restrictions, all facilities nationwide just became coed, with no restrictions to admittance. It is critical to define this "person" unless you are, indeed, arguing for all coed restrooms. 

Brought to you by the administration promising to "reshape America".


----------



## Elevenpoint

Still can't grasp the ol men in the men's room...
Women in the women's room.
90 pages?
You know a boy from a girl.
PM me for exciting new hobbies to try.


----------



## Heritagefarm

45 pages for me.


----------



## Jim Bunton

Irish Pixie said:


> It is when the dreaded penis is attached to a estrogen taking and been living as a girl for years, girl.
> 
> That's the real issue, isn't it? How to be sure the transgender girl isn't a straight boy creeper?


No that isn't the issue. The issue is is it appropriate to expose the female students to male genitalia at school. This has nothing to do with sexual intent. If a male gets caught peeing out side where a young girl could accidentally see him he very likely will be charged with indecent exposure. If a minor did see him he would likely be placed on the sex offender registry. Even though his only intent was to pee. 

Jim
*
*


----------



## DEKE01

farmrbrown said:


> Deke, I'll give you an answer from the court transcript in a few minutes, since your opponents seem unwilling or unable to do so....................


Yes, I had read that previously. And besides her control issues of not wanting to respond to my Q, there may have been another reason why none of them wanted to cite the court case. It doesn't answer my Q. 

The first analogy I thought of was a wife beating man who uses a phrase such as, "don't make me hit you." I would hope that all of us would agree that short of an all out attack by the woman and the man is acting in self defense, there isn't anything she can do or say that would make him hit her. He acts on his own. We would all convict him for his actions because he is responsible for them. 

The girl is responsible for her own actions. All of her medical issues were directly the result of her own decisions, even if they were the result of her mental illness. 

But like all analogies, it is flawed. So then I thought of a homicidal - suicidal man. The VA Tech shooter comes to mind because he grew up in the same area and attended the same high school as my DD. His was a tortured soul, he had been bullied all his life, or at a minimum he thought he had. (since he died, there wasn't much of an investigation that I ever saw to back up the claims of bullying.) So he sought revenge against the kinds of people he associated as his tormentors. Do we say VA Tech discriminated against him? Did VA Tech students cause his adverse consequences? No and no. He is responsible for his own actions, even if they are the result of a mental illness. 

But an even better analogy came to mind this morning. Do you remember that cinematic masterpiece, a documentary (ahem) of the old west called, _Blazing Saddles_? I would post a link of the applicable part, but it is so full of the N-word it would get deleted. Google, "the new sheriff scene from blazing saddles" and watch it. Even the one with the control issues should like it because it features a Bible getting shot. 

The new black sheriff comes riding into town. The townies want to shoot him, so he takes himself hostage, pulls out his gun and holds it to his head. The sheriff says he will blow that N-word's head all over the town and one of the town ladies says, "Isn't anyone going to help that poor man?" So the sheriff walks as a hostage to himself to the sheriff's office and then smugly says to himself, "Oh baby, you are so talented and they are so dumb." 

And that is just about a perfect analogy to the TG's case and the court's and loony left's response. TG takes herself hostage causing medical problems for herself, causes the school and then court to jump through hoops but it is never high enough until they participate in the lie that she is male, and now she is laughing at the town dummies just like the sheriff in _Blazing Saddles_. 

There was no discrimination. More than reasonable accommodations were made. There were no adverse consequences caused by the school. It was a mentally ill TG who took herself hostage and refused to release the hostage until everyone tells her she is male. And to quote the sheriff, "they are so dumb."


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> It differs by religion across all religions.


So it can be anything they want it to be?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> I will continue to ask, since it will become a critical part of implementing a policy where a transgender is allowed into an opposing sex facility.
> 
> *Who decides* when you have become "enough" of what you say for it to be allowed.
> 
> If that someone does not exist and there are no restrictions, all facilities nationwide just became coed, with no restrictions to admittance. It is critical to define this "person" unless you are, indeed, arguing for all coed restrooms.
> 
> Brought to you by the administration promising to "reshape America".


The people actually involved make the decisions.
Nothing becomes "co-ed" since they will all be the same gender
You just keep repeating the fallacy


----------



## DEKE01

Irish Pixie said:


> I'll bet dollars to donuts that some people wouldn't care if transgender (all LGBT?) kids were bullied and harassed.


And of course you would be right. In a nation of 300+ million people, you can find racists, religious bigots, all sorts of haters, goat lovers, stupid people, and people who are so self absorbed in their personal struggles they see everyone who is not 100% with them as someone who wants to persecute them.


----------



## DEKE01

Irish Pixie said:


> Uh. No. What I said was: is transgenderism any more delusional than thinking an imaginary figure is running your (collective your) life?


YES.

You can't prove God/Allah/The wicked witch of the west doesn't exist. But I can prove you are not a man...under the presumption you are really the woman you portray yourself as.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> Still can't grasp the ol men in the men's room...
> Women in the women's room.
> 90 pages?
> You know a boy from a girl.
> PM me for exciting new hobbies to try.


I would hope you're not grasping the "ol" men in the men's room, not that there's anything wrong with that


----------



## Heritagefarm

DEKE01 said:


> YES.
> 
> You can't prove God/Allah/The wicked witch of the west doesn't exist. But I can prove you are not a man...under the presumption you are really the woman you portray yourself as.


You can't prove they do exist, either.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Bearfootfarm said:


> I would hope you're not grasping the "ol" men in the men's room, not that there's anything wrong with that


:umno:


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jim Bunton said:


> No that isn't the issue. The issue is is it appropriate to expose the female students to male genitalia at school. This has nothing to do with sexual intent. If a male gets caught peeing out side where a young girl could accidentally see him he very likely will be charged with indecent exposure. If a minor did see him he would likely be placed on the sex offender registry. Even though his only intent was to pee.
> 
> Jim
> *
> *


If she's been living as a girl for years, undergoing hormone treatment, and says she's a girl- she's a girl. She doesn't want the dreaded penis either. There are a couple options open to _all_ the girls in that locker room- one change your clothes where you usually do or go to the privacy curtain.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

DEKE01 said:


> YES.
> 
> You can't prove God/Allah/The *wicked witch of the west doesn't exist*. But I can prove you are not a man...under the presumption you are really the woman you portray yourself as.


Sure we can.
We all watched her while she was 
MELTING, melting, melting melting
There's no reason to attempt to prove the others don't exist until someone can prove they do


----------



## Nevada

Irish Pixie said:


> It is when the dreaded penis is attached to a estrogen taking and been living as a girl for years, girl.


Amy Farrah Fowler tells Penny that she might like to have one -- for convenience.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0Xm6RdLakA[/ame]


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> If she's been living as a girl for years, undergoing hormone treatment, and says she's a girl- she's a girl. She doesn't want the dreaded penis either. There are a couple options open to _all_ the girls in that locker room- one change your clothes where you usually do or go to the privacy curtain.


If he's been living as a girl..
And has a penis..that's still he.
And "dreaded" penis? WTH?


----------



## Heritagefarm

Let's talk about the fact that without evolution, and parasites, and maybe a few other things, we'd all be asexual hermophrodites that reproduced whenever we felt like it. Wouldn't that make things so much simpler!?


----------



## InvalidID

Jim Bunton said:


> No that isn't the issue. The issue is is it appropriate to expose the female students to male genitalia at school. This has nothing to do with sexual intent. If a male gets caught peeing out side where a young girl could accidentally see him he very likely will be charged with indecent exposure. If a minor did see him he would likely be placed on the sex offender registry. Even though his only intent was to pee.
> 
> Jim


 Which are stupid laws. Intent is supposed to be considered when passing a judgement. IF you have no sexual intent then you should not be charged with a sex crime. Slapped upside the head with a brick maybe, but not a sex crime.


----------



## InvalidID

Heritagefarm said:


> Let's talk about the fact that without evolution, and parasites, and maybe a few other things, we'd all be asexual hermophrodites that reproduced whenever we felt like it. Wouldn't that make things so much simpler!?


 Maybe we're heading that way? In 100,000 years who knows what we'll look like.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by Jim Bunton View Post
> No that isn't the issue. The issue is is it appropriate to expose the female students to male genitalia at school. This has nothing to do with sexual intent. If a male gets caught *peeing out side* where a young girl could accidentally see him he very likely will be charged with indecent exposure. If a minor did see him he would likely be placed on the sex offender registry. Even though his only intent was to pee.
> Jim


It's not "indecent exposure" if the exposure happens incidentally in a place where being undressed is expected. 

This came up about 1500 posts back


----------



## Bearfootfarm

InvalidID said:


> Maybe we're heading that way? In 100,000 years who knows what we'll look like.


Dusty I imagine


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> If he's been living as a girl..
> And has a penis..that's still he.
> And *"dreaded" penis*? WTH?


If you don't understand, you haven't been keeping up


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> They didn't want to "give her an option"
> This has been explained multiple times
> It would have been the *only* room she could use
> The other girls would be able to use either one they wanted


He could use that one or the boys room. Two choices.
Not the girls with a penis.


----------



## DEKE01

Heritagefarm said:


> You can't prove they do exist, either.


You missed the point. I'm tired of explaining and as much as Irish pixie likes to goad people about their faith, it really is irrelevant to this thread.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> It's her penis...  She's done with girls too, wants a man in her life.


Hate to be the bearer of bad news..
Very few men are looking for a caitlyn/Bruce cross.


----------



## DEKE01

Heritagefarm said:


> Let's talk about the fact that without evolution, and parasites, and maybe a few other things, we'd all be asexual hermophrodites that reproduced whenever we felt like it. Wouldn't that make things so much simpler!?


And if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his butt every time he hopped.


----------



## Nevada

InvalidID said:


> Which are stupid laws. Intent is supposed to be considered when passing a judgement. IF you have no sexual intent then you should not be charged with a sex crime. Slapped upside the head with a brick maybe, but not a sex crime.


The problem with charging people who urinate and moon with sex crimes is that it cheapens the entire process. Lumping minor offenses in with rapists and child molesters actually makes serious offenders look better.


----------



## Heritagefarm

DEKE01 said:


> And if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his butt every time he hopped.


Bees die whenever they sting an animal, but based on the averages of large numbers, it made little difference that a few bees die when they sting. I guessing that's the same case with your tongue in cheek example.


----------



## Jim Bunton

Irish Pixie said:


> If she's been living as a girl for years, undergoing hormone treatment, and says she's a girl- she's a girl. She doesn't want the dreaded penis either. There are a couple options open to _all_ the girls in that locker room- one change your clothes where you usually do or go to the privacy curtain.


 The privacy curtain does not prevent exposure to nudity. It prevents being seen nude. 

I want to agree with you when you say "If she's been living as a girl for years, undergoing hormone treatment, and says she's a girl- she's a girl."

The problem I can't get past is if that statement were true we wouldn't be having this discussion. She would just be using the girls showers, rest rooms etc. because she is a girl.


Jim.


----------



## thericeguy

Nevada said:


> The problem with charging people who urinate and moon with sex crimes is that it cheapens the entire process. Lumping minor offenses in with rapists and child molesters actually makes serious offenders look better.


I mentioned many pages ago this "movement", if it goes badly and ends in very specific laws and guidelines, will lead to criminalizing actions that I think few of us would want criminalized. 

Those photos from way back. I do not want that apparent woman forced into the mens room. She does not belong there. Penis or no penis. Same with the guy photo. He needs to be in the mens room even if he has to sit to pee. 

But to give them legal undeniable constitutional access brings up a HUGE list of societal wide problems, thus creating a huge and sustainable legal battle. Roe v Wade still faces legal battles and sometimes loses. 

So we end up with laws. Laws all over the place. Pee here. No, there, but only in these 13 states, elsewhere you pee like this. Insanity. 

All that was required was for reasonable people to be reasonable. Now we get more laws. More intrusion. And more chances to be a criminal just to pee.


----------



## Jim Bunton

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's not "indecent exposure" if the exposure happens incidentally in a place where being undressed is expected.
> 
> This came up about 1500 posts back



I am sorry if you thought I was saying that this would be indecent exposure from a legal stand point. What I was saying is the fact that student A has no sexual desire to show her penis to the other girls in the shower, or that she believes she is a girl and is doing everything she can to make it happen does not change the fact that she is exposing the other girls to a penis in the girls shower. Is that what the right thing to do is? That to me that is the issue.

Jim


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jim Bunton said:


> The privacy curtain does not prevent exposure to nudity. It prevents being seen nude.
> 
> I want to agree with you when you say "If she's been living as a girl for years, undergoing hormone treatment, and says she's a girl- she's a girl."
> 
> The problem I can't get past is if that statement were true we wouldn't be having this discussion. She would just be using the girls showers, rest rooms etc. because she is a girl.
> 
> 
> Jim.


50+ years ago could a man safely come out as gay? Not likely. Prior to that could a black man use a "white's only" bathroom safely? No. What changed? Public tolerance. It's a safe(r) time for transgenders to come out and be who they are. 

Most of us have evolved as people and a society. And to me at least, that is a good thing.


----------



## thericeguy

Some see evolve. Some see devolve. When an individual member of a species, by choice, takes an action that all but guarantees they will not reproduce, biologically speaking, they have failed. That does not sound like a higher state of existence to me. 

https://geopolicraticus.wordpress.com/2009/04/28/quantifying-biological-success/


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> Some see evolve. Some see devolve. When an individual member of a species, by choice, takes an action that all but guarantees they will not reproduce, biologically speaking, they have failed. That does not sound like a higher state of existence to me.
> 
> https://geopolicraticus.wordpress.com/2009/04/28/quantifying-biological-success/


True. Some see bigots, racists, misogynists and all manner of haters too. 

Question- are _heterosexual_ couples that choose not to have children devolving as well? I always assumed it was a choice. How about people that can't have children? Are they only partially devolving?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> I mentioned many pages ago this "movement", if it goes badly and ends in very specific laws and guidelines, will lead to criminalizing actions that I think few of us would want criminalized.
> 
> Those photos from way back. I do not want that apparent woman forced into the mens room. She does not belong there. Penis or no penis. Same with the guy photo. He needs to be in the mens room even if he has to sit to pee.
> 
> *But to give them legal undeniable constitutional access brings up a HUGE list of societal wide problems*, thus creating a huge and sustainable legal battle. Roe v Wade still faces legal battles and sometimes loses.
> 
> So we end up with laws. Laws all over the place. Pee here. No, there, but only in these 13 states, elsewhere you pee like this. Insanity.
> 
> All that was required was for reasonable people to be reasonable. Now we get more laws. More intrusion. And more chances to be a criminal just to pee.


I asked before if those who repeat that claim could *show actual examples* of all these "problems" occurring in the 17 states which have had these laws for years, but all we have gotten is more speculation and hysteria with no real substance

Those same people are the ones also complaining about "not getting answers"


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yeah, there are entire threads devoted to how evil I am and how terrible it is here at HT.
> 
> It's funny what y'all say when you think it's just you and your buddies listening


I have never said that it is terrible here. I do get annoyed at the semi-strict rules on "insults". I am of the mind that "if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen". 

And yes, you have been the topic of many a thread drift because of how highly you think of yourself and how obviously transparent you are.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> Some see evolve. Some see devolve. When an individual member of a species, by choice, takes an action that all but guarantees they will not reproduce, biologically speaking, they have failed. That does not sound like a higher state of existence to me.
> 
> https://geopolicraticus.wordpress.com/2009/04/28/quantifying-biological-success/


So I have failed in your opinion if I decide not to reproduce? I could adopt, I could foster, I could support children already in families that need help. I could just make the world a better place.

I find that kind of attitude short sighted and not someone thing any god would condone.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> You (collective you) play the "what if" game, come up with outlandish scenarios, post something that is so ridiculous that I can't tell if you're being factious, or repeat yourselves so often that it might as well be on a continuous loop.
> 
> If we (the pro transgender) answer a question it's never enough, or one of you (collective you) will change the question a bit and then say we didn't answer it, or state repeatedly that we didn't answer your question.
> 
> We are never going to agree on this issue. Ever. So there's really no point in continuing to discuss it is there?


 There is no "what if" here. If one gets to choose where he/she goes to the bathroom, (which is what you (collective you) advocate for) ALL get to choose. That, indeed, opens up the probability of the Jocks showering with the cheerleaders, etc. etc.. 

Unless, of course, you are indeed advocating for special rights for certain people?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Jim Bunton said:


> I am sorry if you thought I was saying that this would be indecent exposure from a legal stand point. What I was saying is the fact that student A has no sexual desire to show her penis to the other girls in the shower, or that she believes she is a girl and is doing everything she can to make it happen does not change the fact that she is exposing the other girls to a penis in the girls shower. Is that what the right thing to do is? That to me that is the issue.
> Jim


The average age in the US for first *intercourse* is 16.

Most high school girls aren't seeing their first penis in the shower at school, and most younger kids aren't being forced to shower at school as far as I know

The indecent exposure topic came up earlier and one tried to claim it was actually "illegal" to allow them there based on current laws. 

With transgenders being such a small percentage of the population, the vast majority of people will never be in the same room with one at all, much less in a shower


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> There is no "what if" here. If one gets to choose where he/she goes to the bathroom, (which is what you (collective you) advocate for) ALL get to choose. That, indeed, opens up the probability of the Jocks showering with the cheerleaders, etc. etc..
> 
> Unless, of course, you are indeed advocating for special rights for certain people?


Transgendered (all LGBT) will be added to the protected class (my opinion) because some people will refuse to give them the same rights as every other American citizen. Does that make the special? Or does it simply level the playing field?


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Case in point. There will never be coed showers, no one wants coed showers, and no one is asking for coed showers.


So, you are, indeed asking for special rights for certain individuals? If one gets to choose, and the rest do not, that is discrimination.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Transgendered (All LGBT) will be added to the protected class (my opinion) because some people will refuse to give them the same rights as every other American citizen. Does that make the special? Or does it simply level the playing field?


 
IF they get a choice as to which RR/locker room they may enter, and the rest of society does not enjoy the same choice, yes, they have special rights.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> True. Some see bigots, racists, misogynists and all manner of haters too.
> 
> Question- are _heterosexual_ couples that choose not to have children devolving as well? I always assumed it was a choice. How about people that can't have children? Are they only partially devolving?


I did not mean to imply that being childless was devolving, though I see how it looks that way based on my wording. 

A society that supports or promotes the failure of individuals is a devolving society. As an example, taken to an extreme, it would lead to the extinction of that society as every individual would fail, leaving nothing. That would not be evolving. It is the opposite. 

If something is bad at an extreme, it is also bad at smaller intensities. A society will survive a 7% homosexual rate, but were it not for immigration from higher birth rate nations, I dare say our nation would be collspsed right now with a failed economy. Reproduction and replacement of individual members being necessary should be a no-brainer. 

Remove the emotion. On a biological judgement, any individual who fails to pass his or her DNA to a future generation for any reason had failed according to biological success standards. That is not s moral or ethical judgement. For confirmation, ask a few biologists.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> I have never said that it is terrible here. I do get annoyed at the semi-strict rules on "insults". I am of the mind that "if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen".
> 
> And yes, you have been the topic of many a thread drift because of how highly you think of yourself and how obviously transparent you are.


You're entitled to your opinion.
That doesn't mean it's accurate, nor that others are that much different.

If I agreed more with *your* views you'd be hitting the "like" button instead of complaining about my attitude.



> IF they get a choice as to which RR/locker room they may enter, and the rest of society does not enjoy the same choice, yes, they have special rights.


Again you repeat a fallacy, since you have that same right *if* you are transgender.

The entire basis of your main argument against it all is that* anyone *will now be able to choose, but then you flip flop and say only one group gets "special rights"

You can't argue both points and expect to be taken seriously


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> I did not mean to imply that being childless was devolving, though I see how it looks that way based on my wording.
> 
> A society that supports or promotes the failure of individuals is a devolving society. As an example, taken to an extreme, it would lead to the extinction of that society as every individual would fail, leaving nothing. That would not be evolving. It is the opposite.
> 
> *If something is bad at an extreme, it is also bad at smaller intensities.* A society will survive a 7% homosexual rate, but were it not for immigration from higher birth rate nations, I dare say our nation would be collspsed right now with a failed economy. Reproduction and replacement of individual members being necessary should be a no-brainer.
> 
> Remove the emotion. On a biological judgement, any individual who fails to pass his or her DNA to a future generation for any reason had failed according to biological success standards. That is not s moral or ethical judgement. For confirmation, ask a few biologists.


How is loving someone and making someones life better because of it ever a fail? How is it bad? Just because there can be no off spring?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> IF they get a choice as to which RR/locker room they may enter, and the rest of society does not enjoy the same choice, yes, they have special rights.


So do you, so do I, so do most people under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> How is loving someone and making someones life better because of it ever a fail? How is it bad? Just because there can be no off spring?


Correct. Just because there is no offspring. Absolutely right.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Farmerga said:


> There is no "what if" here. If one gets to choose where he/she goes to the bathroom, (which is what you (collective you) advocate for) ALL get to choose. That, indeed, opens up the probability of the Jocks showering with the cheerleaders, etc. etc..
> 
> Unless, of course, you are indeed advocating for special rights for certain people?


I'm warmed up to the idea now of any bathroom for all. No discrimination against heterosexual men or women. You have to open your mind to the endless benefits of this situation instead of this tiny issue of transgenger in bathrooms.
One on my mind...I decide to use the women's bathroom one day... the woman in the stall next to me has a foul smelling bowel movement.. You both walk out of your stalls at the same time...she knows..that you know...
There can be no awkward moments between the two of you from then on..
How neat to be able to tell others you met in the ladies room at Target.


----------



## thericeguy

elevenpoint said:


> I'm warmed up to the idea now of any bathroom for all. No discrimination against heterosexual men or women. You have to open your mind to the endless benefits of this situation instead of this tiny issue of transgenger in bathrooms.
> One on my mind...I decide to use the women's bathroom one day... the woman in the stall next to me has a foul smelling bowel movement.. You both walk out of your stalls at the same time...she knows..that you know...
> There can be no awkward moments between the two of you from then on..
> How neat to be able to tell others you met in the ladies room at Target.


There is also the benefit that if the sexes get somewhat equal distribution, the pervs would have less places to creep in the shadows. But we need to restrict these policies to 21 and up, like alcohol. I want to say 18, but that gives a high school problem.

Turn the mens room into the underage room, and the ladies into the adults room. Family room for anyone that chooses. Solved.


----------



## Elevenpoint

thericeguy said:


> There is also the benefit that if the sexes get somewhat equal distribution, the pervs would have less places to creep in the shadows. But we need to restrict these policies to 21 and up, like alcohol. I want to say 18, but that gives a high school problem.
> 
> Turn the mens room into the underage room, and the ladies into the adults room. Family room for anyone that chooses. Solved.


True..it is solved. Any bathroom for all based upon your personal decision, freedom to choose , and comfort level. Transgender has choice too but may be upset that there is a man in the ladies room...but now there is absolutely no discrimination against ANY person.
Since the claim in the thread is discrimination... that is resolved.
Equality for all.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

What does this do for Olympic and professional sports. Does a man who identifies as a woman /transgender get to compete on a woman's Team?


----------



## Txsteader

Some try to throw out the argument that all transgenders are taking hormones, are in the process of transforming, etc. 

But the actual definition of transgender, per Merriam Webster, is:


> : of, relating to, or being a person (as a transsexual or transvestite) who identifies with or expresses a gender identity that differs from the one which corresponds to the person's sex at birth


Identifies. Expresses a gender identity. Those terms denote the self-identity issue....the one that says someone can merely claim to be of the opposite gender.

Proponents, for some odd reason rolleyes either can't or willfully refuse to admit that, and the problems it will create.

As has been pointed out before, not all trans can afford treatments to convert. With this law & per the transgender defintion, they don't have to.


----------



## thericeguy

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> What does this do for Olympic and professional sports. Does a man who identifies as a woman /transgender get to compete on a woman's Team?


The very notion of a womans and mans team is discrimination. There shall be only 1 team.


----------



## thericeguy

Txsteader said:


> Some try to throw out the argument that all transgenders are taking hormones, are in the process of transforming, etc.
> 
> But the actual definition of transgender, per Merriam Webster, is:
> Identifies. Expresses a gender identity. Those terms denote the self-identity issue....the one that says someone can merely claim to be of the opposite gender.
> 
> Proponents, for some odd reason rolleyes either can't or willfully refuse to admit that, and the problems it will create.
> 
> As has been pointed out before, not all trans can afford treatments to convert. With this law & per the transgender defintion, they don't have to.


That is what they do. Craft a narrowly focused argument based on a single example few would object to, then extend those rights to people few might have considered. Did you see the trans pictures posted about 50 pages back? Notice they didnt use photos of a dude who went trans this morning.


----------



## AmericanStand

Heritagefarm said:


> Every teen male wants a glimpse. ACTING on that impulse is wrong. So I see no problem with "creeper."



Lol if it wasn't for acting on that impulse the human race would have died out long ago!


----------



## AmericanStand

Irish Pixie said:


> If he's trying to get into a girls locker room by nefarious means, he's a creeper in my opinion. My post, my terminology.



You are wrong , you have been educated, you may no longer claim ignorance only obstinance.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> Some try to throw out the argument that all transgenders are taking hormones, are in the process of transforming, etc.
> 
> But the actual definition of transgender, per Merriam Webster, is:
> Identifies. Expresses a gender identity. Those terms denote the self-identity issue....the one that says someone can merely claim to be of the opposite gender.
> 
> Proponents, for some odd reason rolleyes either can't or willfully refuse to admit that, and *the problems it will create.*
> 
> As has been pointed out before, not all trans can afford treatments to convert. With this law & per the transgender defintion, they don't have to.


No one has said "they all take hormones".

You still want to claim men will suddenly start pretending to be women to enter these places, but can't offer any actual evidence of it occurring more in states that have the laws than it does anywhere else.

You just keep saying "the problems it will create" as if you can reliably predict the future


----------



## Heritagefarm

Irish Pixie said:


> 50+ years ago could a man safely come out as gay? Not likely. Prior to that could a black man use a "white's only" bathroom safely? No. What changed? Public tolerance. It's a safe(r) time for transgenders to come out and be who they are.
> 
> Most of us have evolved as people and a society. And to me at least, that is a good thing.


I don't think the blacks are a good analogy. They've been around for forever. Transgender people haven't, or if they were, we didn't have different bathrooms anyways, so it didn't matter. It's just because now, in modern society, with all our amenities, people get it into their head that they deserve special rights. This is what we're arguing now, because if 
ONLY
transgender people can use either bathroom, they are an elevated class.
Personally I have no desire to use the women's restroom, but I sure as heck am not going to stand by while certain people get more rights than me.




Bearfootfarm said:


> The average age in the US for first *intercourse* is 16.
> 
> Most high school girls aren't seeing their first penis in the shower at school, and most younger kids aren't being forced to shower at school as far as I know
> 
> The indecent exposure topic came up earlier and one tried to claim it was actually "illegal" to allow them there based on current laws.
> 
> With transgenders being such a small percentage of the population, the vast majority of people will never be in the same room with one at all, much less in a shower


Not very many people are getting Zika virus either, but everyone's still freaked out about it.




WolfWalksSoftly said:


> What does this do for Olympic and professional sports. Does a man who identifies as a woman /transgender get to compete on a woman's Team?


Probably, so they may just get rid of women's sports vs. men's sports, because you know, that's sexist. Never mind the fact that men are on average stronger.


----------



## arabian knight

Yes you people just created a huge problem where there was NOT ONE BEFORE.
Ya that is why it is the liberal mind gone amok, a miss and a foul.


----------



## Heritagefarm

AmericanStand said:


> Lol if it wasn't for acting on that impulse the human race would have died out long ago!


Remind me to never share a shower or restroom with you.:spinsmiley:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> That is what they do. *Craft a narrowly focused argument based on a single example few would object to*, then extend those rights to people few might have considered. Did you see the trans pictures posted about 50 pages back? Notice they didnt use photos of a dude who went trans this morning.


You mean like the "pervert going to molest little girls" argument that's been repeated ad infinitum?

Why complain when you use the same tactic?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

arabian knight said:


> Yes you people just created a huge problem where there was NOT ONE BEFORE.
> Ya that is why it is the liberal mind gone amok, a miss and a foul.


You're correct.
There was no problem until you guys started complaining


----------



## painterswife

Heritagefarm said:


> I don't think the blacks are a good analogy. *They've been around for forever. Transgender people haven't, or if they were, we didn't have different bathrooms anyways, so it didn't matter. *It's just because now, in modern society, with all our amenities, people get it into their head that they deserve special rights. This is what we're arguing now, because if
> ONLY
> transgender people can use either bathroom, they are an elevated class.
> Personally I have no desire to use the women's restroom, but I sure as heck am not going to stand by while certain people get more rights than me.
> 
> N


They have always been around. They are just fighting for their rights at this point in time. Just like women and people of color have done in the past.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're entitled to your opinion.
> That doesn't mean it's accurate, nor that others are that much different.
> 
> If I agreed more with *your* views you'd be hitting the "like" button instead of complaining about my attitude.
> 
> 
> Again you repeat a fallacy, since you have that same right *if* you are transgender.
> 
> The entire basis of your main argument against it all is that* anyone *will now be able to choose, but then you flip flop and say only one group gets "special rights"
> 
> You can't argue both points and expect to be taken seriously


 You are not really good at this are you? Many, here, have said that the thought of co-ed showers was "irrational", or, silly, or, not gonna happen. I simply pointed out the mistake in that line of thinking. Either everyone gets to choose and we end up with the Jocks and the cheerleaders showering together, or, a small minority gets special rights that are not enjoyed by the rest of society. Which is it?


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> So do you, so do I, so do most people under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


And therein lies the evil flaw of the Civil Rights act of 1964.


----------



## Heritagefarm

painterswife said:


> They have always been around. They are just fighting for their rights at this point in time. Just like women and people of color have done in the past.


I consider trans to be a modern phenomenon. Before they could rewire their plumbing, any trans had to be content with just using the other sex's clothing. That makes a cross-dresser, not a transgender person. SO, since the ability to change sexes is a recent phenomenon, comparing them to blacks, who have a solid biological basis for being black, and have been around far longer, and faced far more obvious persecution, it's entirely unfair and even demeaning to compare the two groups. 
The first group can choose to just not wear the other sexes clothing.
Blacks can't change their skin color.


----------



## painterswife

Heritagefarm said:


> I consider trans to be a modern phenomenon. Before they could rewire their plumbing, any trans had to be content with just using the other sex's clothing. That makes a cross-dresser, not a transgender person. SO, since the ability to change sexes is a recent phenomenon, comparing them to blacks, who have a solid biological basis for being black, and have been around far longer, and faced far more obvious persecution, it's entirely unfair and even demeaning to compare the two groups.
> The first group can choose to just not wear the other sexes clothing.
> Blacks can't change their skin color.


You do understand that you don't need to actually change the plumbing to be transgender.


----------



## Heritagefarm

painterswife said:


> You do understand that you don't need to actually change the plumbing to be transgender.


If they don't change their plumbing, they're a cross dresser. Sorry. Otherwise, they're just a guy with a vagina or a girl with a penis.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> You do understand that you don't need to actually change the plumbing to be transgender.


Which is exactly why every facility will be coed. Cant tell anyone apart. Dont have to wear a dress. Have long hair. Shave. You dont have to do anything. Hey girls, check out my 8" vagina.


----------



## arabian knight

Ya there was no problem before. Before those that wanted SPECIAL treatment on the front pages of the news started to complain they were not being treated fairly.
FAIRLY? Fairly you say? and here you said there was NO PROBLEM before. I guess one can not see even when the true facts are before them.
Yes they wanted to be put on a pedestal as special people? Special People? No they are not anymore special then the rest of the 300+ million in this country and yet they sure as heck are trying their darnedest to be.


----------



## painterswife

Heritagefarm said:


> If they don't change their plumbing, they're a cross dresser. Sorry. Otherwise, they're just a guy with a vagina or a girl with a penis.


That opinion holds no weight with regards to our laws.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> That opinion holds no weight with regards to our laws.


So, if men start to be awarded federal contracts meant for women because they check the box on the form, that will be fair?

If the man is white and checks female and minority, thats ok too?

If he says he is s black female, noone can question him? Our laws do not allow such intrusion?


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> So, if men start to be awarded federal contracts meant for women because they check the box on the form, that will be fair?
> 
> If the man is white and checks female and minority, thats ok too?
> 
> If he says he is s black female, noone can question him? Our laws do not allow such intrusion?


I am perfectly fine with no one getting a contract because of their sex or skin color.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> I am perfectly fine with no one getting a contract because of their sex or skin color.


But our laws, the ones you mentioned, do not agree with you. We have laws to help women and minorities to overcome the harms created by being disadvantaged. Those laws you spoke of. Those. 

So your OK with a return to discriminating against women and minorities by removing the protections given them, just so trans get what you want them to have?

You are not quite the champion of anti discrimination you see yourself as.

I wonder if views like that, support for the removal of women and minority protections, will be broadcast in the Democratic party. Remember when I mentioned this movement held the promise to fracture the Democratic coalition?


----------



## flewism

Bearfootfarm said:


> *No one has said "they all take hormones". *



Nope all you will need is a doctors note,


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> But our laws, the ones you mentioned, do not agree with you. We have laws to help women and minorities to overcome the harms created by being disadvantaged. Those laws you spoke of. Those.
> 
> *So your OK with a return to discriminating against women and minorities by removing the protections given them, just so trans get what you want them to have?*No, never even implied that
> 
> You are not quite the champion of anti discrimination you see yourself as.


You do like to jumble things all together don't you. You should read what I actually write instead of what you interpret it to mean.


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> If they don't change their plumbing, they're a cross dresser. Sorry. Otherwise, they're just a guy with a vagina or a girl with a penis.





painterswife said:


> That opinion holds no weight with regards to our laws.





painterswife said:


> You do like to jumble things all together don't you. You should read what I actually write instead of what you interpret it to mean.


Explain where I went wrong. I will summarize my understanding of each text. Correct me as needed please. 

Assertion 1: If you do not change your sex organs, you have not become the opposite sex

Assertion 2: our laws say you can be the opposite sex while not altering your sex organs. 

What parts did I mess up? Just reading what was written and interpreting content best I can.


----------



## thericeguy

And it seems as soon as someone points outside your narrowly crafted argument and shows you the consequences of your desires, as soon as you go "off message", you are backstabbing your allies in political power (women and minorities) in about 11 words. It shows you have not thought this through, IMO, and your claims of a no consequence outcome to implementation are false. 

Maybe you should go back to ignoring questions. You made yourself sound really uncaring and unloving with a "who cares about women and minorities" reply.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> Explain where I went wrong. I will summarize my understanding of each text. Correct me as needed please.
> 
> Assertion 1: If you do not change your sex organs, you have not become the opposite sex
> 
> Assertion 2: our laws say you can be the opposite sex while not altering your sex organs.
> 
> What parts did I mess up? Just reading what was written and interpreting content best I can.[/QUOTE
> 
> You should look at who you are quoting. Don't jumble me with other posters.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> And it seems as soon as someone points outside your narrowly crafted argument and shows you the consequences of your desires, as soon as you go "off message", you are backstabbing your allies in political power (women and minorities) in about 11 words. It shows you have not thought this through, IMO, and your claims of a no consequence outcome to implementation are false.
> 
> Maybe you should go back to ignoring questions. You made yourself sound really uncaring and unloving with a "who cares about women and minorities" reply.


You are hilarious.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> You do like to jumble things all together don't you. You should read what I actually write instead of what you interpret it to mean.


The written word has no value without the reader interpreting it. Understanding, percieved or real, comes from the interpretation.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> You are hilarious.


Why thank you. My wife thinks so as well.


----------



## Shine

It is interesting, to strengthen the "rights" of a few, they have to re-level the playing field for the many. The re-leveling of this playing field allows for more discrimination where there was little to none. A person had all the right in the world to use the restroom or locker room of their natural biological sex. ...but they "felt" that they should have access to something that others of their same biological sex had been denied from for as long as I am aware of. 

Because they want to play a modified game of "make-believe" and try to convince others of something that is apparently and physically in error, they make it worse for others, - typical.

What a brave new world we have...


----------



## thericeguy

Shine said:


> It is interesting, to strengthen the "rights" of a few, they have to re-level the playing field for the many. The re-leveling of this playing field allows for more discrimination where there was little to none. A person had all the right in the world to use the restroom or locker room of their natural biological sex. ...but they "felt" that they should have access to something that others of their same biological sex had been denied from for as long as I am aware of.
> 
> Because they want to play a modified game of "make-believe" and try to convince others of something that is apparently and physically in error, they make it worse for others, - typical.
> 
> What a brave new world we have...


Tis the way of the progressive. Change for the sake of change. Matters not if the change is better or worse. They would have us all go extinct to "try something new".


----------



## thericeguy

I find it hillarious that as soon as free thinking is employed, as soon as one stops parroting the soundbytes of "its discrimination", "you cant tell anyone where to pee", "our laws say...", "we have a right", they are abondoning their allies to expose true colors. They care not about anyone but themselves and would sacrifice anyone to reach that goal. 

They pretend their enemy is Christian Conservatives, but we all read the words. It is usery.


----------



## AmericanStand

Heritagefarm said:


> Remind me to never share a shower or restroom with you.:spinsmiley:



lol 
Well I'm no longer a hormone driven teen. 
But if you are a cute chubby female showering with me might just remind me of those days.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> You are not really good at this are you? Many, here, have said that the thought of co-ed showers was "irrational", or, silly, or, not gonna happen. *I simply pointed out the mistake* in that line of thinking. Either everyone gets to choose and we end up with the Jocks and the cheerleaders showering together, or, a small minority gets special rights that are not enjoyed by the rest of society. Which is it?


The fact you "pointed out" something doesn't mean it was correct.

It was also pointed out to you that you have the exact same rights as they do

You just keep repeating yourself


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by Heritagefarm
> 
> Not very many people are getting Zika virus either, but *everyone's still freaked out about it*.


I'm not seeing that at all.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

painterswife said:


> You are *hilarious*.


You misspelled "boring and redundant"


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> The fact you "pointed out" something doesn't mean it was correct.
> 
> It was also pointed out to you that you have the exact same rights as they do
> 
> You just keep repeating yourself


So, I can choose to enter the woman's/girls restroom without fear of government prosecution? Can our jocks/cheerleaders? Or are the only ones who can choose which RR/Locker room they wish to use, the transgendered?

Telling people that they are wrong doesn't cut the mustard when it comes to debate, especially when it is you doing the telling.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> It is interesting, to strengthen the "rights" of a few, they have to re-level the playing field for the many. The re-leveling of this playing field allows for more discrimination where there was little to none. A person had all the right in the world to use the restroom or locker room of their natural biological sex. ...but they "felt" that they should have access to something that others of their same biological sex had been denied from for as long as I am aware of.
> 
> *Because they want to play a modified game of "make-believe" and try to convince others of something that is apparently and physically in error, they make it worse for others, - typical.*
> 
> What a brave new world we have...


You're describing religion again, while supporting discrimination
Allah will be displeased


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> So,* I can choose *to enter the woman's/girls restroom without fear of government prosecution? Can our jocks/cheerleaders? Or are the only ones who can choose which RR/Locker room they wish to use, are the transgendered?


That's been the argument you've been making all along



> Telling people that they are wrong doesn't cut the mustard when it comes to debate, especially *when it is you* doing the telling


But it's Ok when you do it? No inconsistency there


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> thericeguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain where I went wrong. I will summarize my understanding of each text. Correct me as needed please.
> 
> Assertion 1: If you do not change your sex organs, you have not become the opposite sex
> 
> Assertion 2: our laws say you can be the opposite sex while not altering your sex organs.
> 
> What parts did I mess up? Just reading what was written and interpreting content best I can.[/QUOTE
> 
> You should look at who you are quoting. Don't jumble me with other posters.
> 
> 
> 
> Something wrong with your screen? 1 post from Heritage, which you quoted in the first reply I quoted, and another from you. Someone is confused, but it isnt me.
Click to expand...


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's been the argument you've been making all along
> 
> 
> But it's Ok when you do it? No inconsistency there


Can you ever just directly answer a question? That was a real question and you seem to be unwilling/ unable to answer it. 

I will ask again. If, as you said, I have the same rights as the transgendered, can I or can I not, pick and choose which RR or locker room I use, regardless of the posted sex on the door ? If so, prove it, if not how can it be said that non transgendered have the same rights as transgendered?


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're describing religion again, while supporting discrimination
> Allah will be displeased


I will point out that religion is banned as a justification of law. If transgenderism and rrligion are the same, are you arguing transgenderism is banned as a criteria of law? I bet thry suddenly very different.


----------



## Forcast

SO what happens at the gym and like YMCA in the locker rooms and showers?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> Can you ever just directly answer a question? That was a real question and you seem to be unwilling/ unable to answer it.
> 
> *I will ask again*.
> 
> If, as you said, I have the same rights as the transgendered, can I or can I not, pick and choose which RR or locker room I use, regardless of the posted sex on the door ? If so, prove it, if not how can it be said that non transgendered have the same rights as transgendered?


It won't change the answers you've already received multiple times


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Forcast said:


> SO what happens at the gym and like YMCA in the locker rooms and showers?


Hasn't that been explained?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> I will point out that religion is banned as a justification of law. If transgenderism and rrligion are the same, are you arguing transgenderism is banned as a criteria of law? I bet thry suddenly very different.


You seem to be confused as to what I said, because that's not even remotely related


----------



## flewism

Forcast said:


> SO what happens at the gym and like YMCA in the locker rooms and showers?





Bearfootfarm said:


> Hasn't that been explained?


Three possibilities,
1) Everything will go co-ed, or gender neutral.

2) You will need a doctor's note if you are caught in the wrong shower.

3) You will have to register as a member of the opposite sex with the club.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> It won't change the answers you've already received multiple times


So, the answer to my first question, "Can you ever just directly answer a question?", is no. Got it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> So, the answer to my first question, "Can you ever just directly answer a question?", is no. Got it.


Again, you make up your own answers and ignore the ones already given.

Sometimes I choose not to answer when the questions are pointless to begin with.

Judging by past behavior, I will see the same question at least 5 more times anyway


----------



## Lisa in WA

I have mixed feelings about this.

On one hand, I believe all people should be treated with dignity and compassion and if someone says they are the opposite gender from what their anatomy says, who am I to say differently? I'm lucky to not have any such issues and I can't imagine the pain of questioning something so basic and so much a part of our human identity as gender.

On the other hand, while I believe absolutely in equal rights for everyone, I get a sense of one groups rights infringing a bit on another groups rights. 
Western civilization has a very, very long history of separating genders and enforcing modesty between the sexes, and while it's definitely become less so, it's still very much a part of our culture.

I don't have a huge problem with adults having to give this up to some extent in showers or locker rooms. 
But it seems like it's minor children who are going to be put on the front lines of this change and adolescent kids (or preadolescents) don't exactly think like adults and are already coping with emerging sexuality, body image, etc. 

Many kids are from religious homes where modesty is strongly stressed and even if you don't agree with religion, they still have a right to their viewpoints as well as any other group and I think it's unfair to dismiss their concerns for their kids with flippancy.

Not sure what the answer is here other than turning all locker rooms and showers into rooms with individual stalls where everyone is forced to be private. Bathrooms don't bother me personally because of stalls and Banana Republic and Gap, etc. already have unisex changing rooms. 

Definitely a tough issue for both sides I think.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> Again, you make up your own answers and ignore the ones already given.
> 
> Sometimes I choose not to answer when the questions are pointless to begin with.
> 
> Judging by past behavior, I will see the same question at least 5 more times anyway


Let me see a post where my question was answered by you. 

So what are you saying? Have my questions been answered, or, do you choose not to answer because you believe them pointless? (Or, the more likely scenario, the answers are uncomfortable for you). 

Honestly, the only answer from you, to any question I have ever asked, is that the answer has already been given. I am not the only one. You treat everyone, except a select few, the exact same way. The truth is that you are all hat and no cattle.


----------



## thericeguy

basketti said:


> I have mixed feelings about this.
> 
> On one hand, I believe all people should be treated with dignity and compassion and if someone says they are the opposite gender from what their anatomy says, who am I to say differently? I'm lucky to not have any such issues and I can't imagine the pain of questioning something so basic and so much a part of our human identity as gender.
> 
> On the other hand, while I believe absolutely in equal rights for everyone, I get a sense of one groups rights infringing a bit on another groups rights.
> Western civilization has a very, very long history of separating genders and enforcing modesty between the sexes, and while it's definitely become less so, it's still very much a part of our culture.
> 
> I don't have a huge problem with adults having to give this up to some extent in showers or locker rooms.
> But it seems like it's minor children who are going to be put on the front lines of this change and adolescent kids (or preadolescents) don't exactly think like adults and are already coping with emerging sexuality, body image, etc.
> 
> Many kids are from religious homes where modesty is strongly stressed and even if you don't agree with religion, they still have a right to their viewpoints as well as any other group and I think it's unfair to dismiss their concerns for their kids with flippancy.
> 
> Not sure what the answer is here other than turning all locker rooms and showers into rooms with individual stalls where everyone is forced to be private. Bathrooms don't bother me personally because of stalls and Banana Republic and Gap, etc. already have unisex changing rooms.
> 
> Definitely a tough issue for both sides I think.


Just consider that any group that ever wanted to sieze unquestionable pwer, they go straight to the kids. Think Hitler, having them report their very parents for crimes to be executed. Do you find it suprising that ISIS and Al Queda spend so much time indoctrinating children. Groups looking to radically alter a society always head right for the kids. Isnt that a part of the communist manifesto? Anyone?


----------



## Farmerga

basketti said:


> I have mixed feelings about this.
> 
> On one hand, I believe all people should be treated with dignity and compassion and if someone says they are the opposite gender from what their anatomy says, who am I to say differently? I'm lucky to not have any such issues and I can't imagine the pain of questioning something so basic and so much a part of our human identity as gender.
> 
> On the other hand, while I believe absolutely in equal rights for everyone, I get a sense of one groups rights infringing a bit on another groups rights.
> Western civilization has a very, very long history of separating genders and enforcing modesty between the sexes, and while it's definitely become less so, it's still very much a part of our culture.
> 
> I don't have a huge problem with adults having to give this up to some extent in showers or locker rooms.
> But it seems like it's minor children who are going to be put on the front lines of this change and adolescent kids (or preadolescents) don't exactly think like adults and are already coping with emerging sexuality, body image, etc.
> 
> Many kids are from religious homes where modesty is strongly stressed and even if you don't agree with religion, they still have a right to their viewpoints as well as any other group and I think it's unfair to dismiss their concerns for their kids with flippancy.
> 
> Not sure what the answer is here other than turning all locker rooms and showers into rooms with individual stalls where everyone is forced to be private. Bathrooms don't bother me personally because of stalls and Banana Republic and Gap, etc. already have unisex changing rooms.
> 
> Definitely a tough issue for both sides I think.


 
A little reason in the darkness? Good for you. To me, the only logical thing to do is to separate based on sex as the sex of an individual is a more concrete demarcation than gender. Some will be uncomfortable, yes, but how is that any different from those who fear being nude in front of the same sex? There has to be a line and to use a Vulcan proverb, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".


----------



## thericeguy

Farmerga said:


> Let me see a post where my question was answered by you.
> 
> So what are you saying? Have my questions been answered, or, do you choose not to answer because you believe them pointless? (Or, the more likely scenario, the answers are uncomfortable for you).
> 
> Honestly, the only answer from you, to any question I have ever asked, is that the answer has already been given. I am not the only one. You treat everyone, except a select few, the exact same way. The truth is that you are all hat and no cattle.


Did you see what happened to painterswife as soon as she engaged in a non soundbyte conversation? 1 post and admitting she did not care about protections for women or minorities, though they are first in line to compare their chosen group to the plight of slaves and blacks, as if to care. 

They know the effect this will have on society. That is the goal. Remember, if you like your plan you can keep your plan. Think about it.


----------



## flewism

basketti said:


> I have mixed feelings about this.
> 
> On one hand, I believe all people should be treated with dignity and compassion and if someone says they are the opposite gender from what their anatomy says, who am I to say differently? I'm lucky to not have any such issues and I can't imagine the pain of questioning something so basic and so much a part of our human identity as gender.
> 
> On the other hand, while I believe absolutely in equal rights for everyone, I get a sense of one groups rights infringing a bit on another groups rights.
> Western civilization has a very, very long history of separating genders and enforcing modesty between the sexes, and while it's definitely become less so, it's still very much a part of our culture.
> 
> I don't have a huge problem with adults having to give this up to some extent in showers or locker rooms.
> But it seems like it's minor children who are going to be put on the front lines of this change and adolescent kids (or preadolescents) don't exactly think like adults and are already coping with emerging sexuality, body image, etc.
> 
> Many kids are from religious homes where modesty is strongly stressed and even if you don't agree with religion, they still have a right to their viewpoints as well as any other group and I think it's unfair to dismiss their concerns for their kids with flippancy.
> 
> Not sure what the answer is here other than turning all locker rooms and showers into rooms with individual stalls where everyone is forced to be private. Bathrooms don't bother me personally because of stalls and Banana Republic and Gap, etc. already have unisex changing rooms.
> 
> Definitely a tough issue for both sides I think.


I wish I could like this twenty times

Now we need to find the money to change all schools bathrooms and showers to single person use.

Hey the Fed is mandating this let them pay. Isn't it law that if the Fed create mandates they must fund them?

I could care less about any adult facilities or concerns.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> Did you see what happened to painterswife as soon as she engaged in a non soundbyte conversation? *1 post and admitting she did not care about protections for women or minorities,* though they are first in line to compare their chosen group to the plight of slaves and blacks, as if to care.
> 
> They know the effect this will have on society. That is the goal. Remember, if you like your plan you can keep your plan. Think about it.


Please stop attributing things to me that I have not ever said or implied.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> Please stop attributing things to me that I have not ever said or implied.


Laws exist which are designed to overcome disadvantaged groups. Affirmative action is one. The preference for women and minority owned businesses in the awarding of federal contracts is another. They exist to counterbalance an inherent discrimination. 

And you said this. 

I do not care if anyone gets a contract based on sex or skin color. 

This implied rather clearly that you have no desire or will to defend this protection for women or minorities. In fact, you said it in response to me suggesting white men could claim to be black women, thereby getting an unfair advantage against women and minorities. 

Sorry, but your single issue my way or bust mentality leaked out. Care to further discuss your views on white men claiming to be black females to get money? Here is your chance.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> Laws exist which are designed to overcome disadvantaged groups. Affirmative action is one. The preference for women and minority owned businesses in the awarding of federal contracts is another. They exist to counterbalance an inherent discrimination.
> 
> And you said this.
> 
> *I do not care if anyone gets a contract based on sex or skin color. *
> 
> This implied rather clearly that you have no desire or will to defend this protection for women or minorities. In fact, you said it in response to me suggesting white men could claim to be black women, thereby getting an unfair advantage against women and minorities.
> 
> Sorry, but your single issue my way or bust mentality leaked out. Care to further discuss your views on white men claiming to be black females to get money? Here is your chance.





painterswife said:


> I am perfectly fine with no one getting a contract because of their sex or skin color.


Please read what I wrote. Exactly what I wrote. It is not what you say I wrote. Don't attribute other ideas to what I wrote.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> I am perfectly fine with no one getting a contract because of their sex or skin color.


Do you think the alteration of a couple words has changed the comprehension? You might like that statement to go away, to be forgotten. I dont know. 

But is says to me, "I do not care about protections for women or minorities. End them. No biggie". 

That is my interpretation, as I see no way a person who was supporting women or minorities could be ok with "no one getting a contract because of their sex or skin color". 

So do you feel that women and minorities were never discriminated against, thus nothing to correct?

Or is it that it has been corrected enough and is OK to end now?

Or some other possibility. Please explain why you feel this way.


----------



## painterswife

I don't like discrimination of any form. Whether it benefits someone or it hurts someone.

There are times in our history where the discrimination against certain groups is so oppressive that we have had to turn the tide with programs such as affirmative action. I don't believe that women or people of color need that now from our government. If a woman has business then they should be competing on a level playing field with everyone else. 

We have laws in place about discrimination and we should be using those and backing those that are discriminated against in the courts.

So now that you know where I stand in full stop assuming you know who I am or what I believe based on answers about different ideas.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're describing religion again, while supporting discrimination
> Allah will be displeased


Not surprising but you missed it again. You say that a male can indeed be a female and visa versa, correct? This is valid for bids and other government or official uses? Correct? So, if you are for the previously stated premise then you are for males being able to use the "non-discrimination" clauses to gain benefits in business deals by identifying as a "protected class" - Correct?

Personally, I do my best to give the person best suited the opportunity that I might need to fill without regard to race, sex or religion. So, if selecting the person best suited for the position is discrimination, I call that out as being part of the PC brainwashing and proclaim it to be Bull Stuffings in my world.


Also, of note, you say over and over that people who follow God are delusional, correct? Then, via your stance of comparing one to the other being similar in appearance, is it safe to presume that you think transgenders are delusional also?


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> I don't like discrimination of any form. Whether it benefits someone or it hurts someone.
> 
> There are times in our history where the discrimination against certain groups is so oppressive that we have had to turn the tide with programs such as affirmative action. I don't believe that women or people of color need that now from our government. If a woman has business then they should be competing on a level playing field with everyone else.
> 
> We have laws in place about discrimination and we should be using those and backing those that are discriminated against in the courts.
> 
> So now that you know where I stand in full stop assuming you know who I am or what I believe based on answers about different ideas.


Thank you. A straight honest answer not full of double speak. I respect that. I disagree, but it is great you can lawfully say that and no harm will come to you.


----------



## Heritagefarm

AmericanStand said:


> lol
> Well I'm no longer a hormone driven teen.
> But if you are a cute chubby female showering with me might just remind me of those days.


Your biological response is normal and drives the species forward to reproduce. However, deliberately getting entry to see naked girls is wrong. 



painterswife said:


> That opinion holds no weight with regards to our laws.


SO my opinions don't matter? How tolerant. Laws are phooey shampooed shmooey; they just reflect what people want and how they want the society run.


----------



## thericeguy

In light of recent communications breakthroughs, I would like the opportunity to clarify some more positions, as the debate cannot move forward without them. I will respond in kind. 

Assuming the rules go in effect as proposed by the current administration, curtains cannot be required, are we in effect creating a full coed society?

If not, how is a full coed society going to be prevented?

My answer to question one is yes. We cannot implement the rules as proposed and deny any gender or sex access to any facility in a lawful manner. 

Question two becomes moot based on my previous answer, though I have shared several alternatives to current proposed rules with my proposed limitations.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm not seeing that at all.


I am shocked.



thericeguy said:


> I find it hillarious that as soon as free thinking is employed, as soon as one stops parroting the soundbytes of "its discrimination", "you cant tell anyone where to pee", "our laws say...", "we have a right", they are abondoning their allies to expose true colors. They care not about anyone but themselves and would sacrifice anyone to reach that goal.
> 
> They pretend their enemy is Christian Conservatives, but we all read the words. It is usery.


It's not really that at all. It's just a lot of people with too much spare time. When people worked all day long in the fields, they didn't bother to think about which gender they were. Everyone has so much spare time on their hands, they're worried about the latest "social issue." Social issues are mostly engineered. *tin foil hat crinkles*


----------



## painterswife

Heritagefarm said:


> SO my opinions don't matter? How tolerant. Laws are phooey shampooed shmooey; they just reflect what people want and how they want the society run.


Not what I said at all.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Not surprising but you missed it again. You say that a male can indeed be a female and visa versa, correct? This is valid for bids and other government or official uses? *Correct?* So, if you are for the previously stated premise then you are for males being able to use the "non-discrimination" clauses to gain benefits in business deals by identifying as a "protected class" -* Correct?*


Incorrect
I never said anything about Govt contracts at all that I recall.
You should be asking the Govt if transgenders qualify, if you truly want to know. 
I think you're just repeating what someone else said



> Also, of note, you say over and over that people who follow God are delusional, correct? Then, via your stance of comparing one to the other being similar in appearance, is it safe to presume that you think transgenders are delusional also?


I've said all along they are* the same*, whether you consider them delusional or real. 

It can't be that one is "real" and the other is not.

You could have scrolled back and read that, or could have paid attention the first time(s) it was stated.

I've never said *all *that "follow God" are delusional, but some certainly act that way sometimes.



> Personally, I do my best to give the person best suited the opportunity that I might need to fill without regard to race, sex or religion. So, if selecting the person best suited for the position is discrimination, I call that out as being part of the PC brainwashing and proclaim it to be Bull Stuffings in my world.


That paragraph seems like "bull stuffings" to me, since I haven't mentioned hiring discrimination either. 
It appears you are simply saying you follow the law when hiring, although you disagree with it, but it's hard to say for sure what you really mean at all with the rambling syntax


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Heritagefarm said:


> I am shocked.


You shouldn't be.
If "everyone" was "freaking out" over Zika, you'd think there would be several big threads about it instead of all these gender related topics

The evidence doesn't support your theory


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one has said "they all take hormones".
> 
> You still want to claim men will suddenly start pretending to be women to enter these places, but can't offer any actual evidence of it occurring more in states that have the laws than it does anywhere else.
> 
> You just keep saying "the problems it will create" as if you can reliably predict the future


That's what they do, they craft irrational fantasy scenarios and they believe them wholeheartedly even tho there is no proof whatsoever that it will ever happen.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> And therein lies the evil flaw of the Civil Rights act of 1964.


There's the anti government sentiment right on clue. :thumb:


----------



## Heritagefarm

painterswife said:


> Not what I said at all.


Okay.



Bearfootfarm said:


> You shouldn't be.
> If "everyone" was "freaking out" over Zika, you'd think there would be several big threads about it instead of all these gender related topics
> 
> The evidence doesn't support your theory


You just love playing with semantics, don't you?


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> Okay.
> 
> 
> 
> You just love playing with semantics, don't you?


They have no intention of having a proper debate. I ponder the reasons, and I find myself going back and forth between absolute ignorance of the topic at hand and a cunning desire to wear down one's opponent into submission. Jury still out for me.

I did, however, enjoy our opposing views discussion a few days back. Sincere. Well worded. Non judgemental. Responsive.


----------



## Jim Bunton

Bearfootfarm said:


> The average age in the US for first *intercourse* is 16.
> 
> Most high school girls aren't seeing their first penis in the shower at school, and most younger kids aren't being forced to shower at school as far as I know
> 
> The indecent exposure topic came up earlier and one tried to claim it was actually "illegal" to allow them there based on current laws.
> 
> With transgenders being such a small percentage of the population, the vast majority of people will never be in the same room with one at all, much less in a shower


 Are you saying that it isn't a problem to allow a penis to be openly visible in the female locker room since half of the girls have already seen one, and on average have chosen to go farther then just seeing one?

Jim


----------



## dixiegal62

Why stop at locker rooms and bathrooms? Why not do away with movie ratings and prime time TV? Heck show nudity on the cartoon channel and commercial so kids can be prepared! Do away with parental locks on computers. After all parents who have concerns about what their kids are exposed to are just being bigoted prudes.&#128532;


----------



## Nevada

dixiegal62 said:


> Why stop at locker rooms and bathrooms? Why not do away with movie ratings and prime time TV? Heck show nudity on the cartoon channel and commercial so kids can be prepared! Do away with parental locks on computers. After all parents who have concerns about what their kids are exposed to are just being bigoted prudes.&#128532;


The kids will be fine. The problem with kids seeing nudity is that they'll ask questions that the parents don't want to answer.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Incorrect
> I never said anything about Govt contracts at all that I recall.
> You should be asking the Govt if transgenders qualify, if you truly want to know.
> I think you're just repeating what someone else said
> 
> 
> I've said all along they are* the same*, whether you consider them delusional or real.
> 
> It can't be that one is "real" and the other is not.
> 
> You could have scrolled back and read that, or could have paid attention the first time(s) it was stated.
> 
> I've never said *all *that "follow God" are delusional, but some certainly act that way sometimes.
> 
> 
> 
> That paragraph seems like "bull stuffings" to me, since I haven't mentioned hiring discrimination either.
> It appears you are simply saying you follow the law when hiring, although you disagree with it, but it's hard to say for sure what you really mean at all with the rambling syntax


Didn't think that you'd come clean... expected that you would not...


----------



## 7thswan

dixiegal62 said:


> Why stop at locker rooms and bathrooms? Why not do away with movie ratings and prime time TV? Heck show nudity on the cartoon channel and commercial so kids can be prepared! Do away with parental locks on computers. After all parents who have concerns about what their kids are exposed to are just being bigoted prudes.&#128532;


Why have bathrooms? how about we all just ---- in a hole in the ground on main street?Like every third world country
I'm sure everyone wants to be in a small closed in space with a pervert:goodjob:
I've been peeing behind trees forEVER because public bathrooms were disgusting. Should have just done it whenever nature called, on the street, school hall..........


----------



## arabian knight

People wonder why do the States now have to enforce, what for centuries has been common sense? If no law was ever needed before, why now? The answer is because reason is not the universal inheritance of mankind. Men exist who embrace the idiocy of "liberalism" even though it has eroded the moral integrity, the intelligence and the sanity of our people. Even though it demands that 98% stoop to the level of 2%.
Or even fewer then that. How ridiculous. And the end result is a slow decent into madness, madness I tell ya. madness by the few you want to control the 98% of the rest of America.
After all, how else could we become stupid and lazy enough to accept the rule of inferiority upon us from those like Lynch, without so much as a squeak? We must not let this madness prevail I tell ya or America is doomed as America was founded. No more of this crap should be stood for by the few that feel control is the only answer,.~!


----------



## Heritagefarm

Nevada said:


> The kids will be fine. The problem with kids seeing nudity is that they'll ask questions that the parents don't want to answer.


Is porn all right too? Porn has been shown to have deleterious effects on children. Internet porn is a rampant problem, disproportionately consumed by the Bible Belt. 
Maybe seeing nudity constantly would actually dull teens desires. I'd guess it really depends on the person and their hormones, etc. But people should NOT, under any circumstances, be forced into that uncomfortable situation. 
Honestly, it can go either way.



thericeguy said:


> They have no intention of having a proper debate. I ponder the reasons, and I find myself going back and forth between absolute ignorance of the topic at hand and a cunning desire to wear down one's opponent into submission. Jury still out for me.
> 
> I did, however, enjoy our opposing views discussion a few days back. Sincere. Well worded. Non judgemental. Responsive.


I havn't stopped.  I just haven't formulated a good response yet. Bubba brought up some good points and I wanted to look into some stuff first. Here's an article to keep you might enjoy:

https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/te...nesis/text/articles-books/hyers_gen1_jasa.htm

The Bible becomes much easier to swallow, IMO, if the story of Genesis is taken with a grain of salt.


----------



## AmericanStand

Heritagefarm said:


> Your biological response is normal and drives the species forward to reproduce. However, deliberately getting entry to see naked girls is wrong .



Perhaps but if I have to place a bet on rules verses hormones my money is on the teen hormones every time.

I'd also like to point out teen girls are as driven or more than teen boys.....


----------



## Heritagefarm

AmericanStand said:


> Perhaps but if I have to place a bet on rules verses hormones my money is on the teen hormones every time.
> 
> I'd also like to point out teen girls are as driven or more than teen boys.....


Maybe some of us just have better self control.


----------



## Txsteader

Bearfootfarm said:


> You misspelled "boring and redundant"


I guess only certain people are required to be 'nice'.

And certain people are allowed to insult.

:thumb:


----------



## Shine

Txsteader said:


> I guess only certain people are required to be 'nice'.
> 
> And certain people are allowed to insult.
> 
> :thumb:


That would appear to be his modus operandi - been happening ever since I first read one of his posts.


----------



## Txsteader

Shine said:


> That would appear to be his modus operandi - been happening ever since I first read one of his posts.


It just hypocritical since they're the ones who've whined & criticized others about being nasty, rude and hateful.


----------



## arabian knight

Shine said:


> That would appear to be his modus operandi - been happening ever since I first read one of his posts.


Ya one side now can hail a bunch of those insults and not get one thing done about it, but let some on the other side get out a insult and WHAMMO. Things sure went down the dumper since the 3 got together and banded into a insult ring that can't be touched. Wow is all I can say how this board has gone to the dogs the last few months because of just a handful want to control. And CONTROL THEY DO.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> I guess only certain people are required to be 'nice'.
> 
> And certain people are allowed to insult.
> 
> :thumb:





> It just hypocritical since they're the ones who've whined & criticized others about being nasty, rude and hateful.


I haven't whined, I've never reported anyone for "insults", and many of your buddies *are *nasty, rude and hateful. That's just reality

There have been far worse comments directed towards me in this thread and others that are still there, so don't act like it doesn't go both ways, and don't pretend you're being persecuted any more than I would be on your favorite sites. 

Just be honest about it for a change
You like it because you keep coming back even though you've proclaimed multiple times over the last few months that you are "done with HT" 



> Shine:
> That would appear to be his modus operandi - been happening ever since I first read one of his posts.


You don't have to read any of them unless you so choose.
You've done more name calling than I, and reported more posts
We've had this conversation before too


----------



## dixiegal62

Nevada said:


> The kids will be fine. The problem with kids seeing nudity is that they'll ask questions that the parents don't want to answer.


I'm glad you think so, but since you're not the parent of all the kids in this country it's not really your call. Parents till have the right to instill their values in their own kids, at least for now anyway.


----------



## dixiegal62

Looks like a lot of laws will have to change with this new in lightened nudity for all. Texting nude photos to or between minors will no longer be able to be a crime. Kids will be told to just not to look. No need to worry about TV nudity, sponge bob will be running naked and free in bikini bottom, maybe we'll even open nude areas in public places like malls so we can all be free to express ourselves&#128514;


----------



## Bearfootfarm

arabian knight said:


> Ya one side now can hail a bunch of those insults and not get one thing done about it, but let some on the other side get out a insult and WHAMMO. Things sure went down the dumper since the 3 got together and banded into a insult ring that can't be touched. Wow is all I can say how this board has gone to the dogs the last few months because of just a handful want to control. And *CONTROL THEY DO.*


Don't you post just as much as you ever have?
Don't you still say exactly what you want to say?

Exactly* how* does anyone "control" anything *you* do?
Try to be specific


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> Looks like a lot of laws will have to change with this new in lightened nudity for all. *Texting nude photos to or between minors will no longer be able to be a crime. *Kids will be told to just not to look. No need to worry about TV nudity, maybe we'll even open nude areas in public so we can all be free to express ourselves&#128514;


That's already been done in some states because it's impractical to send kids to jail for sending pictures of themselves voluntarily. 

They were both the victim and the criminal under the old laws

The rest of your post is just the typical extremist hype that makes your side lose credibility.


----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's already been done in some states because it's impractical to send kids to jail for sending pictures of themselves voluntarily.
> 
> They were both the victim and the criminal under the old laws
> 
> The rest of your post is just the typical extremist hype that makes your side lose credibility.


You forgot to add in your opinion. If it's hype why do you bother to reply? Feel free to skim right by me.&#128549;


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Don't you post just as much as you ever have?
> Don't you still say exactly what you want to say?
> 
> Exactly* how* does anyone "control" anything *you* do?
> Try to be specific


The mods will delete one post and leave the nasty one next to it. For the most part, there is a select certain few that seem to have clearance to speak in a rather insulting fashion with impunity. So by appearances, the mods favor this style or they favor those that use that style. Why delete one and leave another that is just as bad? I think that I have reported less than a half dozen since coming on the site, most were about what I speak of above, slap in the face - the post remained and the deleted one remained deleted. No bother at explaining. It is not hard to see the slant...


----------



## Elevenpoint

painterswife said:


> You do understand that you don't need to actually change the plumbing to be transgender.





Bearfootfarm said:


> It won't change the answers you've already received multiple times


You got caught up in believing internet nonsense.
Man and woman have been well known since the beginning of time.
You are both right up there with the Emporor with new clothes.
Complete foolish.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> That's what they do, they craft irrational fantasy scenarios and they believe them wholeheartedly even tho there is no proof whatsoever that it will ever happen.


And your the same.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> You forgot to add in your opinion. If it's hype* why do you bother to reply?* Feel free to skim right by me.&#128549;


I replied mainly to the picture texting portion, and partly because when you lose your attitude you are quite capable of actually having a rational, intelligent discussion, which is more than I can say about some others


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> The mods will delete one post and leave the nasty one next to it. For the most part, there is a select certain few that seem to have clearance to speak in a rather insulting fashion with impunity. So by appearances, the mods favor this style or they favor those that use that style. Why delete one and leave another that is just as bad? I think that I have reported less than a half dozen since coming on the site, most were about what I speak of above, slap in the face - the post remained and the deleted one remained deleted. No bother at explaining. *It is not hard to see the slant...*


Same old same old, still the victim, still treated unfairly.
Get new material

None of what you posted is an answer to the question asked


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> *You got caught up in believing internet nonsense.*
> Man and woman have been well known since the beginning of time.
> You are both right up there with the Emporor with new clothes.
> Complete foolish.


Nope, I don't believe any of your nonsense


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> Nope, I don't believe any of your nonsense


Just your nonsense of a man saying he is a girl..Emporor.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> Just your nonsense of a man saying he is a girl..Emporor.


It's not "my nonsense"
Transgenders are real, and the court's rulings are real.
Whining over it is nonsense


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's not "my nonsense"
> Transgenders are real, and the court's rulings are real.
> Whining over it is nonsense


Of course transgender is real...enjoy the new clothes.


----------



## thericeguy

Shine said:


> The mods will delete one post and leave the nasty one next to it. For the most part, there is a select certain few that seem to have clearance to speak in a rather insulting fashion with impunity. So by appearances, the mods favor this style or they favor those that use that style. Why delete one and leave another that is just as bad? I think that I have reported less than a half dozen since coming on the site, most were about what I speak of above, slap in the face - the post remained and the deleted one remained deleted. No bother at explaining. It is not hard to see the slant...


A few days back and many pages ago, I took a quote from a user and added 2 words to it, bolded to set them apart. I then typed text to point out that I had modified the content of the quote so anyone and everyone knew I had modified the quote. I got the you have been a bad boy letter from mods. 

Today, a user quoted me. Modified the quote. I reported the action. It is still a part of the thread.

Having mentioned that I had reported some rather nasty threads, a member of the reported group instantly replied with "have they been deleted?" It does seem that a group of people feel that their posts have a different standard, and do not worry about any actions against them. Thats how I feel about it anyway. 

Probably get banned for even saying this.


----------



## Elevenpoint

thericeguy said:


> A few days back and many pages ago, I took a quote from a user and added 2 words to it, bolded to set them apart. I then typed text to point out that I had modified the content of the quote so anyone and everyone knew I had modified the quote. I got the you have been a bad boy letter from mods.
> 
> Today, a user quoted me. Modified the quote. I reported the action. It is still a part of the thread.
> 
> Having mentioned that I had reported some rather nasty threads, a member of the reported group instantly replied with "have they been deleted?" It does seem that a group of people feel that their posts have a different standard, and do not worry about any actions against them. Thats how I feel about it anyway.
> 
> Probably get banned for even saying this.


And banned from here would affect your life in the tiniest matter?
Hope not.


----------



## Heritagefarm

dixiegal62 said:


> Looks like a lot of laws will have to change with this new in lightened nudity for all. Texting nude photos to or between minors will no longer be able to be a crime. Kids will be told to just not to look. No need to worry about TV nudity, sponge bob will be running naked and free in bikini bottom, maybe we'll even open nude areas in public places like malls so we can all be free to express ourselves&#55357;&#56834;


It's legal to go bare breasted in Times Square. For art purposes, I guess. I think people just get a kick out of it. 
If not for the clearly sexual nature of being naked, there's really nothing wrong with being nude. This coming from a guy who doesn't even own shorts!



elevenpoint said:


> And banned from here would affect your life in the tiniest matter?
> Hope not.


Oh no I might have to find a new set of people to argue - I mean, have discussions with.


----------



## logbuilder

greg273 said:


> Use the one you've been using, its not that complicated. And if you're peeking at the genitals of the person in the bathroom with you, please stop doing that, *its creepy.*


And illegal in many cases.


----------



## Shine

Heritagefarm said:


> It's legal to go bare breasted in Times Square. For art purposes, I guess. I think people just get a kick out of it.
> If not for the clearly sexual nature of being naked, there's really nothing wrong with being nude. This coming from a guy who doesn't even own shorts!
> 
> Oh no I might have to find a new set of people to argue - I mean, have discussions with.


What I have found through all of this kind of boosts my estimation of American Humanity, Nudity is not illegal, a nude person walking down the street has done nothing illegal unless they act in a lewd or suggestive manner, of course, for those that manage the laws, that is subjective, but to violate a law, there must be a lewd or suggestive behavior to be illegal.

Per chance there is some hope for us yet?


----------



## Jim Bunton

When a transgender girl finally takes the plunge and starts to live fully as a girl does she have to take a 30% cut in pay?

Jim


----------



## Txsteader

Bearfootfarm said:


> I haven't whined, I've never reported anyone for "insults", and many of your buddies *are *nasty, rude and hateful. That's just reality
> 
> There have been far worse comments directed towards me in this thread and others that are still there, so don't act like it doesn't go both ways, and don't pretend you're being persecuted any more than I would be on your favorite sites.
> 
> Just be honest about it for a change
> You like it because you keep coming back even though you've proclaimed multiple times over the last few months that you are "done with HT"
> 
> 
> You don't have to read any of them unless you so choose.
> *You've done more name calling than I, and reported more posts*
> We've had this conversation before too


How would you know how many posts I've reported? I certainly don't know how many you've reported, no way of knowing. You getting inside information from someone?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Heritagefarm said:


> Okay.
> You just love playing with *semantics,* don't you?


Yes, words have precise meanings
It's a *written* forum, and I can only respond to the words you use.
There's no evidence I see that supports what you stated.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Jim Bunton said:


> Are you saying that it isn't a problem to allow a penis to be openly visible in the female locker room since half of the girls have already seen one, and on average have chosen to go farther then just seeing one?
> Jim


It's not going to make them go blind or poke their eye out.
Odds of actually having a transgender in their class are minuscule


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> Why stop at locker rooms and bathrooms? Why not do away with movie ratings and prime time TV? Heck show nudity on the cartoon channel and commercial so kids can be prepared! Do away with parental locks on computers. After all parents who have concerns about what their kids are exposed to are just being bigoted prudes.&#128532;


There's that irrational hype again.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Didn't think that you'd come clean... expected that you would not...


You say that every time you disagree with my answers (which is *every* time).


----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's that irrational hype again.


So you say, but really what would be the difference? Why have co-ed showers and bathrooms but shy away from nudity elsewhere?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> *How would you know how many posts I've reported? *
> 
> *I certainly don't know how many you've reported*, no way of knowing.
> 
> You getting inside information from someone?


Go back to page 97 and read post #1927 until you figure it out, since the answer is right there for all to see

You do know how many I've reported if you are paying attention and reading what is posted

I don't need "inside information"
I can read and pay attention


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> So you say, but really what would be the difference? Why have co-ed showers and bathrooms but shy away from nudity elsewhere?


It's not "co-ed" because they are all the same *gender*.
No one is being forced to participate and no one has to look at anything they don't want to see.

The idea of everyone just walking around naked is ridiculous, and you know that because you're not stupid at all.

Silly, extremist arguments such as those tend to make others just ignore everything you say


----------



## Txsteader

Bearfootfarm said:


> Go back to page 97 and read post #1927 until you figure it out, since the answer is right there for all to see
> 
> You do know how many I've reported if you are paying attention and reading what is posted
> 
> I don't need "inside information"
> I can read and pay attention


Sorry, I stand corrected. Caffeine hadn't kicked in yet.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> Sorry, I stand corrected. Caffeine hadn't kicked in yet.


Thank you


----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's not "co-ed" because they are all the same *gender*.
> No one is being forced to participate and no one has to look at anything they don't want to see.
> 
> The idea of everyone just walking around naked is ridiculous, and you know that because you're not stupid at all.
> 
> Silly, extremist arguments such as those tend to make others just ignore everything you say


No its already been established in this thread that there is no way to tell true transgenders from those who are cross dressers or those who may be faking it all. It's also been said you can't let transgenders in and refuse other males, that would be discrimination, so unisex facilities will be co-ed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by thericeguy View Post
> A few days back and many pages ago, I took a quote from a user and added 2 words to it, bolded to set them apart. I then typed text to point out that I had modified the content of the quote so anyone and everyone knew I had modified the quote. I got the you have been a bad boy letter from mods.
> 
> Today, a user quoted me. Modified the quote. I reported the action. It is still a part of the thread.
> 
> Having mentioned that I had reported some rather nasty threads, a member of the reported group instantly replied with "have they been deleted?" It does seem that a group of people feel that their posts have a different standard, and do not worry about any actions against them. Thats how I feel about it anyway.
> 
> Probably get banned for even saying this.


So which post, and what was the misquote?
If you didn't talk in rambling riddles maybe you'd elicit better responses

Which "nasty posts" have you reported that are still there?
Anyone can make vague allegations

You could start your own thread about them.
It's been done before, but they generally don't pan out


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> No its already been established in this thread that there is no way to tell true transgenders from those who are cross dressers or those who may be faking it all. It's also been said you can't let transgenders in and refuse other males, that would be discrimination, so unisex facilities will be co-ed.


People at schools will know if someone was living as a transgender *prior to* any rule changes.

17 states have had these laws for as long as 8 years or more, and we've heard no horror stories from it. The majority isn't even aware of those laws

There should be lots of examples if all the hype is realistic.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's already been done in some states because it's impractical to send kids to jail for sending pictures of themselves voluntarily.
> 
> They were both the victim and the criminal under the old laws
> 
> The rest of your post is just the typical extremist hype that makes your side lose credibility.


Exactly extremist hype. "Let's make outlandish fantasy scenarios and see just how far fetched we can make it." Gah. 

Do we have things to define, and construct rules for? Definitely. But gross exaggeration and embellishment does nothing constructive. It also makes the poster look downright foolish.


----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> People at schools will know if someone was living as a transgender *prior to* any rule changes.
> 
> 17 states have had these laws for as long as 8 years or more, and we've heard no horror stories from it. The majority isn't even aware of those laws
> 
> There should be lots of examples if all the hype is realistic.


Are you saying you only want unisex bathrooms in schools but not in other public facilities? 

The change is going to happen everywhere. No way to tell who has been living as a transgender in your local Target and you can't discriminate against the ones that are questionable, so it's going to have to be on an honor system. 

You want Mom to explain to little Sally that that scarey ( in some cases) looking person in the stall next to her is just doing what's natural but tell her possible exposure and nudity is wrong in other cases. It only makes sense that America's stance on the whole nudity thing will relax in other areas.

You may find it silly to look at possible outcomes to new laws but I don't. Even in everyday life when making decisions I try to look at ways it can change things. Why would anyone want to pass laws that will affect a whole country full of people and not look at possible future outcomes?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bearfootfarm said:


> People at schools will know if someone was living as a transgender *prior to* any rule changes.
> 
> 17 states have had these laws for as long as 8 years or more, and we've heard no horror stories from it. The majority isn't even aware of those laws
> 
> There should be lots of examples if all the hype is realistic.


At some point a rational person just has to sigh and let the foolish play their games. The "opposition" in this thread has decompensated to the point where some of the posts are nothing but fantasy gibberish.

I don't know if it's pot stirring or if they really believe it...


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> There's the anti government sentiment right on clue. :thumb:


 No, I am simply a citizen, not a subject.


----------



## DEKE01

Irish Pixie said:


> At some point a rational person just has to sigh and let the foolish play their games. The "opposition" in this thread has decompensated to the point where some of the posts are nothing but fantasy gibberish.
> 
> I don't know if it's pot stirring or if they really believe it...


10 years ago the idea of allowing the gender confused into bathrooms of the opposite sex was fantasy gibberish.


----------



## painterswife

DEKE01 said:


> 10 years ago the idea of allowing the gender confused into bathrooms of the opposite sex was fantasy gibberish.


Only because you did not know they were there. This child would have had to postpone the inevitable ( how he would live) because others can't handle where someone pees.


----------



## Irish Pixie

DEKE01 said:


> 10 years ago the idea of allowing the gender confused into bathrooms of the opposite sex was fantasy gibberish.


That was then, this is now. Change happens. 

Transgenders aren't confused, they absolutely know what gender they are.


----------



## AmericanStand

Shine said:


> The mods will delete one post and leave the nasty one next to it. For the most part, there is a select certain few that seem to have clearance to speak in a rather insulting fashion with impunity. So by appearances, the mods favor this style or they favor those that use that style. Why delete one and leave another that is just as bad? I think that I have reported less than a half dozen since coming on the site, most were about what I speak of above, slap in the face - the post remained and the deleted one remained deleted. No bother at explaining. It is not hard to see the slant...



I think a lot of that is how the insult is worded. "You Moron " gets deleted while "my three year old has figured out" stays 
"You retard" is deleted while "Bless your heart" is acceptable.


----------



## Irish Pixie

AmericanStand said:


> I think a lot of that is how the insult is worded. "You Moron " gets deleted while "my three year old has figured out" stays
> "You retard" is deleted while "Bless your heart" is acceptable.


Yup. Most people figured that out nearly a year ago.

I once got an infraction for telling someone, "Bless your heart" it's so much worse now, isn't it?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> Are you saying you only want unisex bathrooms in schools but not in other public facilities?
> 
> The change is going to happen everywhere. No way to tell who has been living as a transgender in your local Target and you can't discriminate against the ones that are questionable, so it's going to have to be on an honor system.
> 
> You want Mom to explain to little Sally that that scarey ( in some cases) looking person in the stall next to her is just doing what's natural but tell her possible exposure and nudity is wrong in other cases. It only makes sense that America's stance on the whole nudity thing will relax in other areas.
> 
> You may find it silly to look at possible outcomes to new laws but I don't. Even in everyday life when making decisions I try to look at ways it can change things. Why would anyone want to pass laws that will affect a whole country full of people and not look at possible future outcomes?


I never said I "wanted" anything other than people to mind their own business.

The courts and legislatures are the ones making all the decisions.

I have pointed out that most of the arguments against it are silly and based on bias and hate, but personally I don't *care* who pees where. 

I said several times before, the odds of actually ending up in the same room with someone of the opposite sex and seeing something isn't worth worrying over.

It's a big uproar over a small issue that's being blown out of proportion


----------



## dixiegal62

AmericanStand said:


> I think a lot of that is how the insult is worded. "You Moron " gets deleted while "my three year old has figured out" stays
> "You retard" is deleted while "Bless your heart" is acceptable.


 People find a way around the deletions. In most cases others see right through it and while most of us are guilty of it at one time or another it only makes the ones doing it on a regular basis look foolish and petty.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> People find a way around the deletions. In most cases others see right through it and while most of us are guilty of it at one time or another it only makes the *ones doing it on a regular basis look foolish and petty*.


Good job, a perfect example of insulting people while pretending to walk the high road.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> I never said I "wanted" anything other than people to mind their own business.
> 
> The courts and legislatures are the ones making all the decisions.
> 
> I have pointed out that most of the arguments against it are silly and based on bias and hate, but personally I don't *care* who pees where.
> 
> I said several times before, the odds of actually ending up in the same room with someone of the opposite sex and seeing something isn't worth worrying over.
> 
> It's a big uproar over a small issue that's being blown out of proportion


My business is the protection of my family and those that I care for. This type of law makes it easier for those that would do them harm to do so. So minding my own business is indeed what I am doing. Close your eyes if you will, not I...


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> Good job a perfect example of insulting people while pretending to walk the high road.


 How so? I did say ''most of us'' are guilty Unless you personally feel that your guilty of insulting other posters on a regular basis it's not pertaining to you.


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> Good job a perfect example of insulting people while pretending to walk the high road.



Winner winner chicken dinner. There's a word for that...


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> How so? Unless you personally feel that your guilty of insulting other posters on a regular basis it's not pertaining to you.


You called members here foolish and petty. Does not matter who it was pointed at it was an attempt to insult. Exactly what you are accusing others of doing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

DEKE01 said:


> *10 years ago* the idea of allowing the gender confused into bathrooms of the opposite sex was fantasy gibberish.


You parrot this stuff and never bother to learn if it's true

These examples go back to 1975:

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


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> You called members here foolish and petty. Does not matter who it was pointed at it was an attempt to insult. Exactly what you are accusing others of doing.


And how do you feel about IP's comment after yours? If your going to call one out why not both?


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> And how do you feel about IP's comment after yours? If your going to call one out why not both?


She owns her words. I respect that. I don't respect posts that complain about others actions and then do what they are complaining about in the same post.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> My business is the protection of my family and those that I care for. *This type of law makes it easier for those that would do them harm to do so.* So minding my own business is indeed what I am doing. Close your eyes if you will, not I...


I keep seeing that claim repeated but not substantiated.
It was covered in the first 50 posts

Show some evidence to back your claim


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> She owns her words. I respect that. I don't respect posts that complain about others actions and then do what they are complaining about in the same post.


Of course you do lol. Enough said.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> Of course you do lol. Enough said.


I see you don't like being called out on your own actions.


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> *She owns her words.* I respect that. I don't respect posts that complain about others actions and then do what they are complaining about in the same post.


Yes, I do. And there's still a word for your third sentence...


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> I see you don't like being called out on your own actions.


Wrong, doesn't bother me the least little bit. I'm still right here talking to you about it. Not hiding behind another poster&#128521;


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> Wrong, doesn't bother me the least little bit. I'm still right here talking to you about it. Not hiding behind another poster &#55357;&#56841;


Sorry I misread that. You did not own your own actions and you tried to push it on to someone else. It came across that way to me.


----------

