# Can I pee in public now?



## JohnP (Sep 1, 2010)

Just a thought on the trans-gender issue. If it's ok for girls in boys bathroom/locker room and visa versa, then there should be no such thing as indecent exposure anymore, hence, we should all just be able to pee in public view now correct?

Seriously. If we're going to be an open society like that, then there should be nothing indecent about exposure.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Just self identify as a dog.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Yeah... this "situation" is turning into an industrial strength Monkey-Wrench for a lot of situations. 

Non-Indecent Exposure should now be aligned with Non-Suggestive Nudity.

In all of this I never knew that there are MANY public places where non-suggestive nudity is totally legal. Check it out, there has to be a suggestive nature for nudity to be illegal here in Florida...


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

As a professional landscaper I can attest that members of my profession have mastered this ability. It's not so much public as much as it is understanding line of sight.


----------



## JohnP (Sep 1, 2010)

Even if we just stick to minors for this discussion. If some boy or girl exposes themselves outside of school and gets charged, they're going to lawyer up and probably beat it. If President, a Harvard educated Lawyer, says it's ok in school, then how can it be illegal outside of school.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

JohnP said:


> Even if we just stick to minors for this discussion. If some boy or girl exposes themselves outside of school and gets charged, they're going to lawyer up and probably beat it. If President, a Harvard educated Lawyer, says it's ok in school, then how can it be illegal outside of school.


That is the point of the policy; anarchy.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

thericeguy said:


> Just self identify as a dog.



C'mon, that would be insanity, unlike thinking you are the opposite sex. The latter means you are to be celebrated as brave and have laws changed to be in your favor. The former will land you in the loony bin. See the difference?


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

poppy said:


> C'mon, that would be insanity, unlike thinking you are the opposite sex. The latter means you are to be celebrated as brave and have laws changed to be in your favor. The former will land you in the loony bin. See the difference?


I was told my someone supporting transgender rights "no way. That requires s dna change. Not happening". Do you think they managed to get thru school snd not hear about XX and XY? Sad, right?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Sure, pee anywhere you want.
Just don't whine when you're arrested and charged with a crime
Being stupid has a price


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Sure, pee anywhere you want.
> Just don't whine when you're arrested and charged with a crime


 Of course they're gonna whine, thats the whole point...they say "If boys can use the girls room, then why can't I??"... Except the policy put out by the Obama admin for schools wasn't 'all boys can use the girls room', it was 'Transgendered kids can use the bathroom they identify as'. Not 'identify' as in 'oh, I just felt like it', the criteria is a little more stringent than that, as the case in Chicago where the kid played on girls sports teams and was passing as a 'girl' for years. 
Sure, its weird, no denying that. But it would be also weird to have someone who dressed, acted, and identified as a woman using the mens room. 
Its a pretty small percentage of people who would ever fall into this category, so its a lot of bluster from both sides of the issue.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

greg273 said:


> Of course they're gonna whine, thats the whole point...they say "If boys can use the girls room, then why can't I??"... Except the policy put out by the Obama admin for schools wasn't 'all boys can use the girls room', it was 'Transgendered kids can use the bathroom they identify as'. Not 'identify' as in 'oh, I just felt like it', the criteria is a little more stringent than that, as the case in Chicago where the kid played on girls sports teams and was passing as a 'girl' for years.
> Sure, its weird, no denying that. But it would be also weird to have someone who dressed, acted, and identified as a woman using the mens room.
> Its a pretty small percentage of people who would ever fall into this category, so its a lot of bluster from both sides of the issue.


Please show me a requirement of a doctors note, or a therapist, or a time delay between indentifying and access, or anything that remotely resembles any limitation of any kind.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

thericeguy said:


> Please show me a requirement of a doctors note, or a therapist, or a time delay between indentifying and access, or anything that remotely resembles any limitation of any kind.


Don't hold your breath. I've seen nothing that says you can't identify as a female right now and return to identifying as a male an hour later. Which you identify as could be determined by how bad you have to pee and which restroom is closest.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Didn't they make it legal to pee in the streets of New York?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

poppy said:


> Don't hold your breath. *I've seen nothing* that says you can't identify as a female right now and return to identifying as a male an hour later. Which you identify as could be determined by how bad you have to pee and which restroom is closest.


You've also seen nothing that says that's true either, but it hasn't stopped anyone from repeating the hype.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-d...int-guidance-help-schools-ensure-civil-rights



> At the same time, the guidance makes clear that schools can provide *additional privacy options to any student for any reason*.
> 
> *The guidance does not require any student to use shared bathrooms or changing spaces,* when, for example, there are other appropriate options available; and schools can also take steps to increase privacy within shared facilities.


This says the school has to be notified before they are treated as transgenders



> The Departments interpret Title IX to require that when a student or the studentâs parent or guardian, as appropriate, notifies the school administration that the student will assert a gender identity that differs from previous representations or records, the school will begin treating the student consistent with the studentâs gender identity. Under Title IX, there is no medical diagnosis or treatment requirement that students must meet as a prerequisite to being treated consistent with their gender identity.6 Because transgender students often are unable to obtain identification documents that reflect their gender identity (e.g., due to restrictions imposed by state or local law in their place of birth or residence),7 requiring students to produce such identification documents in order to treat them consistent with their gender identity may violate Title IX when doing so has the practical effect of limiting or denying students equal access to an educational program or activity.


https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/850986/download


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Why do liberals hate women and little girls?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You've also seen nothing that says that's true either, but it hasn't stopped anyone from repeating the hype.
> 
> https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-d...int-guidance-help-schools-ensure-civil-rights
> 
> ...


You quote the DOJ like they aren't a pack of lying Obama thugs :rotfl:


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

JohnP said:


> Just a thought on the trans-gender issue. If it's ok for girls in boys bathroom/locker room and visa versa, then there should be no such thing as indecent exposure anymore, hence, we should all just be able to pee in public view now correct?
> 
> Seriously. If we're going to be an open society like that, then there should be nothing indecent about exposure.


I think Berkley or somewhere up in San Francisco area, they put in open public urinal fountain like statues. The residents in the area are seriously grossed out at what they see!


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

JJ Grandits said:


> As a professional landscaper I can attest that members of my profession have mastered this ability. It's not so much public as much as it is understanding line of sight.


Gatorade bottle and a truck door, I can pee where I wanna.:whistlin:


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/40005-2/



> Urinating and drinking in public would no longer be treated as crimes under a package of bills New Yorkâs City Council will consider to ease enforcement of quality-of-life offenses that lawmakers say clog the courts and have been disproportionately enforced against minorities.
> 
> 
> According to the New York Times, one liberal official who sponsored this change noted it was *designed to help minorities âreach their full potential*.â
> ...


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

JeffreyD said:


> I think Berkley or somewhere up in San Francisco area, they put in open public urinal fountain like statues. The residents in the area are seriously grossed out at what they see!


That is beimg sued out of existence. They were stand up pee units. Those women with a penis cant use them. Discrimination.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Cornhusker said:


> Why do liberals hate women and little girls?


What do you call a dog with 5 legs? Nothing; calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

Repeating something doesn't make it a valid question.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Sure, pee anywhere you want.
> Just don't whine when you're arrested and charged with a crime
> Being stupid has a price


How is this being stupid? What I said about the situation in being a landscaper is very true.
Having to urinate is not a sexual situation. And unfortunately there are no bathroom facilities available when out on a job. Therefore you find a secluded area behind a bush, hopefully out of sight and answers natures call. If in someones anal retentive mind this is somehow related to sexually exposing yourself I question their stability.

Now if I did this on the front lawn facing the street across from a mini mall I could see your point. But for someone who in the last 46 years has been in this situation thousands of times, not to mention the hundreds of men I worked with, the whole scenario of charging someone with a sex crime is what is stupid.

Besides, this is a homesteading forum. A get back to nature kind of place.
so if you are walking in the woods or working way out in the field, and that second cup of coffee suddenly gives you the urge, do you hold it till your teeth are floating and you get back in the house?

I think not.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> Didn't they make it legal to pee in the streets of New York?


Yes, but that was only to help drown out the stench of garbage that pervades the city.
Every time I've been to New york the whole place reeked of garbage and urine.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

barnbilder said:


> Gatorade bottle and a truck door, I can pee where I wanna.:whistlin:


I agree somewhat. That system gets a little tricky on a busy residential street.
Like I said before, line of sight.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

JJ Grandits said:


> I agree somewhat. That system gets a little tricky on a busy residential street.
> Like I said before, line of sight.


Busy street means time to look for something in the back of the van. (people in service based industries like vans for more than just storing stuff.)


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

I wonder how our society has come to being all right with porn and promiscuity, but peeing behind a bush will get you arrested?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> What do you call a dog with 5 legs? Nothing; *calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.*
> 
> Repeating something doesn't make it a valid question.


So you are saying transgender isn't a gender?
We agree


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> I wonder how our society has come to being all right with porn and promiscuity, but peeing behind a bush will get you arrested?


Just one of many things, in our society, that makes no sense.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> I wonder how our society has come to being all right with porn and promiscuity, but peeing behind a bush will get you arrested?


I guess it depends on whose bush you pee behind and who gets to watch.
It's a pretty short jump from peeing in the street to pooping on the sidewalk.
The way things are going, I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't legalize that soon and for the same reason. (too many minorities being arrested or fined for it)


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Farmerga said:


> Just one of many things, in our society, that makes no sense.


Like being arrested for practicing a Constitutional right but not for being in the country illegally?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I wonder if there's a market for paint balls filled with pepper spray for bears instead of paint. 

I can imagine some guy screaming while holding his junk and running around looking for water. Do stupid things win stupid prizes.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> Like being arrested for practicing a Constitutional right but not for being in the country illegally?



Post of the day award.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Cornhusker said:


> I guess it depends on whose bush you pee behind and who gets to watch.
> It's a pretty short jump from peeing in the street to pooping on the sidewalk.
> The way things are going, I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't legalize that soon and for the same reason. (too many minorities being arrested or fined for it)


LOL. Peeing behind a bush is something your dog is allowed to do. Defecating on the sidewalk is not something either species is allowed. The pee drains.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> LOL. Peeing behind a bush is something your dog is allowed to do. Defecating on the sidewalk is not something either species is allowed. The pee drains.


It's still nasty to pee in public
People have no sense of decency anymore


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

greg273 said:


> Of course they're gonna whine, thats the whole point...they say "If boys can use the girls room, then why can't I??"... Except the policy put out by the Obama admin for schools wasn't 'all boys can use the girls room', it was 'Transgendered kids can use the bathroom they identify as'. Not 'identify' as in 'oh, I just felt like it', the criteria is a little more stringent than that, as the case in Chicago where the kid played on girls sports teams and was passing as a 'girl' for years.
> Sure, its weird, no denying that. But it would be also weird to have someone who dressed, acted, and identified as a woman using the mens room.
> Its a pretty small percentage of people who would ever fall into this category, so its a lot of bluster from both sides of the issue.


According to the information that bff posted, they can identify anytime they want to, change back tomorrow, and back again the next day. Do you know what proof is required for these changes? - None. So, it would appear as if you do not know what you are talking about. Did you read the notice that was sent out as published in bff's citation?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

These are available in San Fran. Open air urinals.











http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-abcarian-park-urinal-20160401-column.html


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/vancouver-architect-proud-of-his-public-pissoir-1.431878

Here is one in Canada.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Cornhusker said:


> It's still nasty to pee in public
> People have no sense of decency anymore


Proof the govt plan is working.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

painterswife said:


> http://bc.ctvnews.ca/vancouver-architect-proud-of-his-public-pissoir-1.431878
> 
> Here is one in Canada.


Now that one is better, it's got handles for women!!:bow:


----------



## roadless (Sep 9, 2006)

When I was in the Soho part of London, they put octagon shaped plastic urinals on some of the corners on weekends. 
They were trying to avoid the whizzing in the famous Red Telephone booths in the area by those under the influence . :buds:


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Shine said:


> According to the information that bff posted, they can identify anytime they want to, change back tomorrow, and back again the next day.


 Wow, you must have read something completely different than I did. But yeah, I am sure that's gonna work, and that kid will have no social repercussions from switching genders on a daily basis. I'l give you proper respect for having an active imagination, but you're not being remotely realistic.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by Shine View Post
> According to the information that bff posted, they can identify anytime they want to, change back tomorrow, and back again the next day.


Copy and paste the portion which states that


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JJ Grandits said:


> *How is this being stupid?* What I said about the situation in being a landscaper is very true.
> Having to urinate is not a sexual situation. And unfortunately there are no bathroom facilities available when out on a job. Therefore you find a secluded area behind a bush, hopefully out of sight and answers natures call. If in someones anal retentive mind this is somehow related to sexually exposing yourself I question their stability.
> 
> Now if I did this on the front lawn facing the street across from a mini mall I could see your point. But for someone who in the last 46 years has been in this situation thousands of times, not to mention the hundreds of men I worked with, the whole scenario of charging someone with a sex crime is what is stupid.
> ...


If you get arrested you obviously did something stupid.

It's still "illegal" to urinate in "public" where you can be seen, whether you *think* you're hidden or not. 

If someone complains, you can be arrested



> the whole scenario of charging someone with a sex crime is what is stupid.


That doesn't change any laws, and won't make a good defense in court


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

greg273 said:


> Wow, you must have read something completely different than I did. But yeah, I am sure that's gonna work, and that kid will have no social repercussions from switching genders on a daily basis. I'l give you proper respect for having an active imagination, but you're not being remotely realistic.


There will be repurcussions. An endless stream of high fives from other 15 year olds for getting into the girls locker room. He might make class president.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> http://bc.ctvnews.ca/vancouver-architect-proud-of-his-public-pissoir-1.431878
> 
> Here is one in Canada.


"The pissoir." :hysterical:


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If you get arrested you obviously did something stupid.
> 
> It's still "illegal" to urinate in "public" where you can be seen, whether you *think* you're hidden or not.


Apparently not in New York


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Copy and paste the portion which states that


It's your link, you don't read them?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

From Post #14

"The Departments interpret Title IX to require that when a student *or* the student&#8217;s parent or guardian, as appropriate, notifies the school administration that the student will assert a gender identity that differs from previous representations or records, the school will begin treating the student consistent with the student&#8217;s gender identity. Under Title IX, there is no medical diagnosis or treatment requirement that students must meet as a prerequisite to being treated consistent with their gender identity."

Whatever and whenever the student says so.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Shine said:


> From Post #14
> 
> "The Departments interpret Title IX to require that when a student *or* the studentâs parent or guardian, as appropriate, notifies the school administration that the student will assert a gender identity that differs from previous representations or records, the school will begin treating the student consistent with the studentâs gender identity. Under Title IX, there is no medical diagnosis or treatment requirement that students must meet as a prerequisite to being treated consistent with their gender identity."
> 
> Whatever and whenever the student says so.


How many parents will be calling everyday to inform the school of gender changes? Self limiting.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

painterswife said:


> How many parents will be calling everyday to inform the school of gender changes? Self limiting.


Parents do not need to call. The student says what they are and when. Plain black and white. I guess you're not reading it with scrutiny.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Shine said:


> Parents do not need to call. The student says what they are and when. Plain black and white. I guess you're not reading it with scrutiny.


I read that. I however commented on the parents part. A child who changes his/her mind everyday about gender is not really identity as the other sex. I suspect it would easily be squashed in court. My opinion only.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Cornhusker said:


> It's still nasty to pee in public
> People have no sense of decency anymore


I know. But what about someone who pees behind a bush in their yard? I don't have a problem with that. Their yard, their bush. Maybe it'll wilt and die.


----------



## roadless (Sep 9, 2006)

I have worked at a high schools for over 25 years .
I believe there are kids that would do it just for the novelty of it, not thinking of any legalities involved.

Just as when Madonna kissed Britney, there was a flurry of pseudo lesbian activity ....after a time they started dating boys again.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Shine said:


> Parents do not need to call. The student says what they are and when. Plain black and white. I guess you're not reading it with scrutiny.


Shine, you are talking to people that can look at a penis and say "nice vagina girl". Dont expect rational behaviour.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

thericeguy said:


> Shine, you are talking to people that can look at a penis and say "nice vagina girl". Dont expect rational behaviour.


No one ever said that. That's in your head, along with a lot of other stuff.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

I pee outside 90% of the time, it just feels better.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

oneraddad said:


> I pee outside 90% of the time, it just feels better.


Me too. Being men, the world is our urinal.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

poppy said:


> Me too. Being men, the world is our urinal.


No no. We are fertlizing. Kidneys are a natural fertilizer plant.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Any port in a storm. If you think that peeing in public is some kind of criminal act, when reasonable measures of discreteness have been followed, you are A. less than forty, or B. don't work on the road. Unless you are flashing school children, I don't think any LEO is going to write that ticket, (they pee in gatorade bottles from time to time, too.) Now somebody might press charges, if they catch you on security camera behind the boxwoods, because people are crazy. That's why I do it in my own vehicle. Heck, I've done it at stoplights, back when I drove a truck.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Heritagefarm said:


> No one ever said that. That's in your head, along with a lot of other stuff.


Know whats not in my head? That a woman can have a penis. That is irrational.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

thericeguy said:


> Know whats not in my head? That a woman can have a penis. That is irrational.



I think you actually like typing the word penis because I notice it in a lot of your posts.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

thericeguy said:


> Know whats not in my head? That a woman can have a penis. That is irrational.


Correction: A woman can demand to be legally treated as if she was born with male genitalia. Now that's out there. It is a direct departure from the rule of law in that they have legislated make believe. 

I sincerely cannot see how anyone sees it differently.

The only thing I can come up with is that it is an agenda aimed at disrupting the historical Family Structure or a money making scheme by the pharmaceutical companies. Get a participant - lifetime medication requirements + high priced surgery. Just one more money making opportunity.

It would be better if they treated the problem and not the symptoms but we have direct evidence of that not being the case...


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

oneraddad said:


> I think you actually like typing the word penis because I notice it in a lot of your posts.


Are you uncomfortable with the idea of a penis? Shall I call it a weeeweee? Would that fit you better?


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

thericeguy said:


> Please show me a requirement of a doctors note, or a therapist, or a time delay between indentifying and access, or anything that remotely resembles any limitation of any kind.


Greg, did you miss the question? It was directed at you. You claimed there was some limits to bathroom access. Cited a Chicago case. Please show me the policy, law, letter, or guidance that defines these limits you mentioned


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> Apparently not in New York


I imagine when it's in use nothing can be seen other than the person's back


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Parents do not need to call. The student says what they are and when. Plain black and white. I guess you're *not reading it with scrutiny*.


You're not reading it with common sense.
You need an irrational interpretation to support you claim


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

barnbilder said:


> Any port in a storm. *If you think* that peeing in public is some kind of criminal act, when reasonable measures of discreteness have been followed, you are A. less than forty, or B. don't work on the road. Unless you are flashing school children, *I don't think* any LEO is going to write that ticket, (they pee in gatorade bottles from time to time, too.) Now somebody might press charges, if they catch you on security camera behind the boxwoods, because people are crazy. That's why I do it in my own vehicle. Heck, I've done it at stoplights, back when I drove a truck.


What you personally "think" has nothing to do with the reality of criminal statutes


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're not reading it with common sense.
> You need an irrational interpretation to support you claim


Please elaborate...

Here, a little mimicry of my own:

What you personally "think" has nothing to do with the reality of the written word.

Please elaborate as you seem to see something that I do not...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Please elaborate...


It's already been explained more than once.
Scroll back and read


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's already been explained more than once.
> Scroll back and read


Expected. 

If I scroll back and read, the "proof" you provided still continues to fail...

Nice try though, you are persistent...

As you once said in a concrete fashion: Words have meanings

What would the meaning of "Student OR Parent" have with regards to who might designate an altered gender mindset? Is it only the parent? Can it possible be the minor child only?

Please, with your massive level of intelligence, you might put this all to rest in one simple explanation that we all might understand.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Pls quote any responses Shine. I have certain individuals on the ignore list as I have found nothing they have to say contributory to any discussion, ever, anywhere, anytime. But I would like to see any answer to your well formed question. Thank you.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

thericeguy said:


> Pls quote any responses Shine. I have certain individuals on the ignore list as I have found nothing they have to say contributory to any discussion, ever, anywhere, anytime. But I would like to see any answer to your well formed question. Thank you.


Don't brag about having me on ignore and then ask to see what I post.
It makes you look like a hypocrite 

Shine already got his explanation before the question was even asked.
He just acts as if it's not true



> What would the meaning of "Student OR Parent" have with regards to who might designate an altered gender mindset? Is it only the parent? Can it possible be the minor child only?


That was explained in the letter itself.
You even quoted it



> "The Departments interpret Title IX to require that when a student or the studentâs parent or guardian, as appropriate, notifies the school administration that the student will assert a gender identity that differs from previous representations or records, the school will begin treating the student consistent with the studentâs gender identity. Under Title IX, there is no medical diagnosis or treatment requirement that students must meet as a prerequisite to being treated consistent with their gender identity."


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> I know. But what about someone who pees behind a bush in their yard? I don't have a problem with that. Their yard, their bush. Maybe it'll wilt and die.


What a person pees on in the privacy of their own yard is their business.
I myself have been known to pee in my own great outdoors
I even wrote a poem about peeing once, so I'm not opposed to the idea of peeing outdoors.
I am opposed to peeing in a public venue, sidewalk, on a building, where other people have to walk in it, smell it, etc.
We are not animals and shouldn't act like animals.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> I know. But what about someone who pees behind a bush in their yard? I don't have a problem with that. Their yard, their bush. Maybe it'll wilt and die.


"Their yard" is not "out in public".


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Shine said:


> Correction: A woman can demand to be legally treated as if she was born with male genitalia. Now that's out there. It is a direct departure from the rule of law in that they have legislated make believe.
> 
> I sincerely cannot see how anyone sees it differently.
> 
> ...



What is truly sad is the fact that many psychiatrists view this as an illness. The facts are there, many have remorse after the 'transfer' and far more commit suicide than the general population. But the left presses forward & thinks this is the new sliced bread.
Saul Alinsky.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Cornhusker said:


> I guess it depends on whose bush you pee behind and who gets to watch.
> It's a pretty short jump from peeing in the street to pooping on the sidewalk.
> The way things are going, I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't legalize that soon and for the same reason. (too many minorities being arrested or fined for it)


Wonder if there will be a law to place pooper scoopers on the sidewalk?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

oneraddad said:


> I pee outside 90% of the time, it just feels better.


Saves on water too. Really nice this time of year during AGW season.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That was explained in the letter itself.
> You even quoted it



Yes, it was explained, it bolstered my suggestion that the child can advise the school personnel without ANY proof that they are "transgendered". There is no hurdle to prove this assertion, only the child's word. There is no wording in the document that says: Once the child is considered to have taken an exemption so as to be understood to be the other "sex" then this exemption shall be in force for "X" days. Nor is there any wording in the document that indicates "The child can make only "X" assertion(s) during any calendar year."

So, thank you for providing the citation. Do you see it differently? What does your "common sense" tell you?

From the document so that you do not need to scroll to it:

"The Departments interpret Title IX to *require* that *when a student* or the student&#8217;s parent or guardian, as appropriate, *notifies the school administration* that the student will assert a gender identity that differs from previous representations or records, the *school will begin treating* the student consistent with the student&#8217;s gender identity. Under Title IX, there is *no medical diagnosis or treatment requirement * that students must meet as a prerequisite to being treated consistent with their gender identity."


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Shine said:


> Yes, it was explained, it bolstered my suggestion that the child can advise the school personnel without ANY proof that they are "transgendered". There is no hurdle to prove this assertion, only the child's word. There is no wording in the document that says: Once the child is considered to have taken an exemption so as to be understood to be the other "sex" then this exemption shall be in force for "X" days. Nor is there any wording in the document that indicates "The child can make only "X" assertion(s) during any calendar year."
> 
> So, thank you for providing the citation. Do you see it differently? What does your "common sense" tell you?
> 
> ...


I'll back your argument further. It would seem so long as the child claims their trans, they can use the bathroom of their choice. Knowing children tend to be, well, childish, I see boys trying to get into the girls locker room. Isn't that what they all try to do anyways?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Cornhusker said:


> What a person pees on in the privacy of their own yard is their business.
> I myself have been known to pee in my own great outdoors
> I even wrote a poem about peeing once, so I'm not opposed to the idea of peeing outdoors.
> I am opposed to peeing in a public venue, sidewalk, on a building, where other people have to walk in it, smell it, etc.
> We are not animals and shouldn't act like animals.


I was never suggesting that. I was thinking of my small local towns, where maybe someone stops to urinate along the road in emergency. Does that even qualify as indecent exposure? I've been known to use random trees on hikes alongside the road. Check for cars, passers by, and chipmunks.



Tricky Grama said:


> What is truly sad is the fact that many psychiatrists view this as an illness. The facts are there, many have remorse after the 'transfer' and far more commit suicide than the general population. But the left presses forward & thinks this is the new sliced bread.
> Saul Alinsky.


They're probably suicidal because they think people still hate them and don't accept them. I wonder where they get that idea.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> I was never suggesting that. I was thinking of my small local towns, where maybe someone stops to urinate along the road in emergency. Does that even qualify as indecent exposure? I've been known to use random trees on hikes alongside the road. Check for cars, passers by, and chipmunks.


I'm old and diabetic, so when the urge hits me, it hits me right now, so I know about peeing alongside a road somewhere.
As long as nobody is around, it's not really indecent exposure.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Heritagefarm said:


> I'll back your argument further. It would seem so long as the child claims their trans, they can use the bathroom of their choice. Knowing children tend to be, well, childish, I see boys trying to get into the girls locker room. Isn't that what they all try to do anyways?


There is no reason nor is there any prevention of any child or adult to identify with both sexes, one day female, one day male including the premise of simultaneous altered gender states. The best of both worlds. This new "Gender awareness" effectively scraps any idea of separation of the sexes.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Shine said:


> There is no reason nor is there any prevention of any child or adult to identify with both sexes, one day female, one day male including the premise of simultaneous altered gender states. The best of both worlds. This new "Gender awareness" effectively scraps any idea of separation of the sexes.


I am all for us identifying as just a person and who wears what and pees where does not really matter.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

Shine said:


> There is no reason nor is there any prevention of any child or adult to identify with both sexes, one day female, one day male including the premise of simultaneous altered gender states. The best of both worlds. This new "Gender awareness" effectively scraps any idea of separation of the sexes.


Google third gender. You will discover there is a group of people who claim to be human, but neither man nor woman. We will be building them bathrooms next. This is insanity at its finest.


----------



## CurtisWilliams (Mar 14, 2005)

JohnP said:


> Can I pee in public now?


Sure. You have my blessing.


----------



## CurtisWilliams (Mar 14, 2005)

Seriously though, we had a discussion in the family section about nudity vs. indecency. I asked a former DA aquaintence and was told that the indecency is in the intent. If you are intending to "shock and awe" (his exact words), it is indecency. Otherwise it is casual nudity.

Now bear in mind that this was about nudity on private property, that can be seen by others. Dave did mention that the Nebraska statute makes no mention of different properties, which might suggest that casual public nudity MIGHT be legal. There also might be stricter ordinances at the county or local level. And there might be sanitation ordinances. Here in Nebraska, If I urinate or defecate directly on the ground, no problem. But if I catch it in a vessel of some sort, it must be treated thru a waste system.

Which makes little sense. I can pee behind a tree, but if I use a portable urinal, I can't dump it on the grown even in my own yard. And here greywater is black water. Greywater systems are illegal.:shrug:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Yes, it was explained, it bolstered my suggestion that the child can advise the school personnel without ANY proof that they are "transgendered". There is no hurdle to prove this assertion, only the child's word. There is no wording in the document that says: Once the child is considered to have taken an exemption so as to be understood to be the other "sex" then this exemption shall be in force for "X" days. Nor is there any wording in the document that indicates "The child can make only "X" assertion(s) during any calendar year."
> 
> So, thank you for providing the citation. Do you see it differently? What does your "common sense" tell you?
> 
> ...


Where does it say they can change their minds every other day, which was the point you were trying to make.

Also note the words you ignored above


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> I'm old and diabetic, so when the urge hits me, it hits me right now, so I know about peeing alongside a road somewhere.
> *As long as nobody is around, it's not really indecent exposure*.


Of course it's not
The "crime" requires someone else to *see* you and be offended, whether you happen to be standing on your own property or not


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> What you personally "think" has nothing to do with the reality of criminal statutes


Nonsense, the rule of law is completely subjective, it is completely open to feelings, interpretation, and how the man holding the ticket book, gavel, etc, is identifying.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Shine said:


> There is no reason nor is there any prevention of any child or adult to identify with both sexes, one day female, one day male including the premise of simultaneous altered gender states. The best of both worlds. This new "Gender awareness" effectively scraps any idea of separation of the sexes.





Bearfootfarm said:


> Where does it say they can change their minds every other day, which was the point you were trying to make.
> 
> Also note the words you ignored above


Where?
In the new "rule book" on gender, now that we no longer confine the definition to one's sex at birth.
"Gender Fluid" is just one of the many terms that will be coming to a regulation near you.................

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/13/living/gender-fluid-feat/

*"(CNN)For some people, gender is not just about being male or female; in fact, how one identifies can change every day or even every few hours.

Gender fluidity, when gender expression shifts between masculine and feminine, can be displayed in how we dress, express and describe ourselves.
Everyone's gender exists on a spectrum, according to Dot Brauer, director of the LGBTQA Center at the University of Vermont. Progressive gender expression is the norm for the university, which offers gender-neutral bathrooms and allows students to use their preferred names."*


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Where does it say they can change their minds every other day, which was the point you were trying to make.
> 
> Also note the words you ignored above



Um... lol - notice the placement, after "guardian" within the statement "Parent or Guardian, as appropriate". But - I know it can't possibly mean that, right?

Where is it prohibited or even defined with regards to changing their mind? 

On another thread, I posted a a link to the NYC .gov website where there is a pamphlet that describes 31 different "flavors" of "transgender", one of them being "gender bender" and another "trans-fluid" - both of those "styles" operate as both male and female genders at the same time and "androgynous" operates as neither but both so, hey! are you trying to discriminate against the school children or what?

So many new and exciting people to meet!

Oh, and you're going to have to add more letters to the LGBT string - lol


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

barnbilder said:


> Nonsense, the rule of law is completely subjective, it is completely open to feelings, interpretation, and how the man holding the ticket book, gavel, etc, is identifying.


That's not you and your "feelings" don't change the laws


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Where?
> In the new "rule book" on gender, now that we no longer confine the definition to one's sex at birth.
> "Gender Fluid" is just one of the many terms that will be coming to a regulation near you.................
> 
> ...


You're the undisputed master of answering a question no one asked, and needing lots of words and quotes to do so.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're the undisputed master of answering a question no one asked, and needing lots of words and quotes to do so.





> Where does it say they can change their minds every other day,


Wasn't the above post, yours?

I guess I should accept the compliment though.
38 words and 3 sentences didn't *seem* like a "lot of words". (The rest were CNN's)
:shrug:
I'll try to do better next time.
:indif:


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're the undisputed master of answering a question no one asked, and needing lots of words and quotes to do so.


You made the statement regarding the fact that there was no wording supporting the supposition that I placed forward. 

FarmrBrown provided information that demonstrated that, in fact, that there are people that change from the male to female genders and back again and visa-versa to illustrate the premise. 

So, while you might not have asked the specific question, The good Farmer did what any person with a helpful mindset would do, he contributed to the discussion. 

See how that works?

His reply was timely and it carried with it information that is most certainly, not readily available.

It is a nice person that is kind to people when they have been helpful, don't ya think?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

:ashamed:eep:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Wasn't the above post, yours?
> 
> I guess I should accept the compliment though.
> 38 words and 3 sentences didn't *seem* like a "lot of words". (The rest were CNN's)
> ...


You got the chronological order correct but as always you totally ignored the context


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's not you and your "feelings" don't change the laws


The Law is fairly much constant, you are correct there. However, the application of the "law" is fairly fluid from case to case. There can be vast differences between one case and another and between one judge in another. Feelings do play a large part in the administration of the "law".


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> *You made the statement regarding the fact that there was no wording supporting the supposition that I placed forward.
> *
> FarmrBrown provided information that demonstrated that, in fact, that there are people that change from the male to female genders and back again and visa-versa to illustrate the premise.
> 
> ...


And you still haven't shown any in the document being discussed, because it's not there.

You're also quite adept at arguing against statements never made


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> The Law is fairly much constant, you are correct there. However, [the application of the "law" is fairly fluid from case to case. There can be vast differences between one case and another and between one judge in another. Feelings do play a large part in the administration of the "law".


Again you argue against something unrelated to what I said


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> And you still haven't shown any in the document being discussed, because it's not there.
> 
> You're also quite adept at arguing against statements never made


Naturally, I anticipated the next reply..................



> And you still haven't shown any in the document being discussed,


This of course is only one organization from my link, I'm sure it is not an exhaustive example, but as I said, coming soon - a regulation near you........

A list of newly proposed laws, being discussed, in the very context of the last few posts.
:whistlin:
http://b.3cdn.net/trevor/7c61c74d1f7d3285a5_gam6bcggr.pdf


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Naturally, I anticipated the next reply..................
> 
> This of course is only one organization from my link, I'm sure it is not an exhaustive example, but as I said, coming soon - a regulation near you........
> 
> ...


More unrelated trivia.



> Naturally, I anticipated the next reply


And yet you continue talking about something different.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> More unrelated trivia.
> 
> 
> And yet you continue talking about something different.


Trivia you say?
Now that's not a nice thing to say about those concerned with how we define "gender" is it?
:nono:

We had the NYC new policy which included some new terminology.
(There's no shame in admitting how hard it is to keep up. I'm right there in the same boat with ya, brother)
:lookout:

On the other side of the country is Oregon, which passed new policy regulations too.............
They even referenced the federal Title IX new policy and recent court case, just to make sure everything was relevant and in context.
The rest of the letter includes examples of the exact scenario in question, BTW.
http://media.oregonlive.com/education_impact/other/Transgender Student Guidance 5-5-16.pdf


*&#65532;&#65532;Oregon Department of Education
&#65532;&#65532;Kate Brown, Governor
Guidance to School Districts:
Creating a Safe and Supportive School Environment for
Transgender Students Issued May 5, 2016
ODE fosters excellence for every learner, and recognizes that academic success depends on a safe school environment. As an organization, we value equity for every student; this includes an educational environment safe and free from discrimination and harassment, ensuring that every student has equal access to educational programs and activities.
Under Oregon law, &#8220;[a] person may not be subjected to discrimination in any public elementary, secondary or community college education program or service, school or interschool activity or in any higher education program or service, school or interschool activity where the program, service, school or activity is financed in whole or in part by moneys appropriated by the Legislative Assembly.&#8221;1 Discrimination includes &#8220;any act that unreasonably differentiates treatment, intended or unintended, or any act that is fair in form but discriminatory in operation, either of which is based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, age or disability.&#8221;2 Oregon law broadly defines, &#8220;sexual orientation&#8221; as an individual&#8217;s actual or perceived heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality or gender identity, regardless of whether the individual&#8217;s gender identity, appearance, expression or behavior differs from that traditionally associated with the individual&#8217;s sex at birth.3
Additionally, federal law under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX) generally prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in federally funded programs and activities.4 The United States Department of Education&#8217;s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has issued guidance recognizing that Title IX protects transgender and gender nonconforming students.5 Additionally, the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice have stated that under Title IX, &#8220;discrimination based on a person&#8217;s gender identity, a person&#8217;s transgender status, or a person&#8217;s nonconformity to sex stereotypes constitutes discrimination based on sex&#8221; and has asserted a significant interest in ensuring that all students, including transgender students, have the opportunity to learn in an environment free of sex discrimination in public schools.6 Recently, a federal court upheld this interpretation of federal law by the U.S. Department of Education.7*






Can I get you their address so you can send them a letter, chastising them for "rambling" and "irrelevancy"?

:teehee:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Can I get you their address so you can send them a letter, chastising them for "rambling" and "irrelevancy"?


You're the only one doing that if you think any of what you have posted is related to *what I was talking about.*

I already explained you're taking it out of context, as you so often do
I think you just like to hear yourself ramble


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're the only one doing that if you think any of what you have posted is related to *what I was talking about.*




:teehee:

Maybe I misread your posts?

You *weren't* talking about Title IX policies on gender discrimination and the impossibility that they would allow a TG student to change their gender identity at will?

I know!
Scroll back, right?

:heh:





Bearfootfarm said:


> You've also seen nothing that says that's true either, but it hasn't stopped anyone from repeating the hype.
> 
> https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-d...int-guidance-help-schools-ensure-civil-rights
> 
> ...





Shine said:


> According to the information that bff posted, they can identify anytime they want to, change back tomorrow, and back again the next day. Do you know what proof is required for these changes? - None. So, it would appear as if you do not know what you are talking about. Did you read the notice that was sent out as published in bff's citation?





Bearfootfarm said:


> Copy and paste the portion which states that





Bearfootfarm said:


> You're not reading it with common sense.
> You need an irrational interpretation to support you claim



Irrational?
As in the governments of NY and Oregon?.................


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

BFF, it's "support your claim", by the way, "support you claim" is not good grammar. Maybe just a typo. Since you appear to enjoy correcting people's grammar, I thought I would help you out. I'm sure you are not doing it to try to marginalize the intelligence of people whose world views are contrary to your own.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

farmrbrown said:


> Irrational?
> As in the governments of NY and Oregon?.................


A lot of people would agree with that.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> :teehee:
> 
> *Maybe I misread your posts?
> *
> ...


I told you that several posts back



> You *weren't* talking about Title IX policies on gender discrimination and the impossibility that they would allow a TG student to change their gender identity at will?


Go back and read what I said if you're still confused.
I made a specific request, and nothing you have posted has anything to do with it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

barnbilder said:


> BFF, it's "support your claim", by the way, "support you claim" is not good grammar.
> 
> *Maybe just a typo.*
> 
> Since you appear to enjoy correcting people's grammar, I thought I would help you out. I'm sure you are not doing it to try to marginalize the intelligence of people whose world views are contrary to your own.


Thank you! 



> Last edited by barnbilder; Today at 09:15 AM. Reason: typo


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Heritagefarm said:


> A lot of people would agree with that.


That's the point of my supposed "rambling", LOL.

There's no language in the Title IX statutes about "gender is differently defined than sex", yet we have a new federal policy and a court ruling that now says so.
There's nothing in Title IX that *specifically* says a TG student can change their mind daily, then again transgender isn't mentioned at all........but the law has changed in spite of that language limit.

No one can possibly keep up with the changes by quoting the statutes, when proof is demanded, the written legislation isn't even current.

Nevertheless the laws are becoming exactly as these crazy scenarios have predicted they would be.
That's all the "proof" anyone should need.




Bearfootfarm said:


> I told you that several posts back
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nope, I'm not confused at all.
The links from NY and Oregon were very clear to me.
:whistlin:

I *am* occasionally confused by those who deny the obvious truth, but I've reconciled that with their inability to face the truth.
That's becoming very clear as well.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Speaking of rambling...........



Bearfootfarm said:


> You still are laboring under the delusion I am somehow "upset" when I told you before that's not the case
> 
> I'm just here for *my* entertainment, and your twist and spin is* mildly* entertaining, even though it shows you really have no real credibility.
> 
> You also keep pretending I somehow "lost" something other than the time wasted





Bearfootfarm said:


> Where in the Constitution does it say every law has to be *contained in* the text of Constitution?
> 
> That argument is just empty parroted rhetoric with no real meaning aside from not being able to think of something original





Bearfootfarm said:


> Because you keep repeating "show me in the Constitution where it says...".
> Congress is authorized to make laws and the courts are authorized to interpret them.
> 
> You don't have to like them nor agree with them for them to be legally valid
> ...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Nope, I'm not confused at all.
> The links from NY and Oregon were very clear to me.
> :whistlin:
> 
> ...


Those links have nothing to do with what I said.
That's the truth you keep denying


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Those links have nothing to do with what I said.
> That's the truth you keep denying



Yes, I understand.
No where in Title IX can anyone show you the specific language containing the words, "Transgender students have the right to define their own gender on a daily basis".

You have no doubt caught some of us in a bald faced lie. 

That is the only "truth" you can possibly see today, in spite of your own words......


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Bearfootfarm View Post
> Where in the Constitution does it say every law has to be contained in the text of Constitution?
> 
> That argument is just empty parroted rhetoric with no real meaning aside from not being able to think of something original




Maybe after you quote a few of my words out of context in a victorious gloat, you can move on to the rest of your day.

Hope springs eternal...........


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

bff asked for the cut and pasted portion that enables the students to change at their will, I pasted a portion that does not disallow this, of course it is not specifically laid out that a person can change at will but the most important part is it does not PROHIBIT the student from changing at will. If there is no language prohibiting something then it is not prohibited.

It is as simple as that...

If bff wants to continue to state that his question has not been answered then we will never be able to satisfy his request. He will just continue to refuse that which has been provided for his enlightenment. If he does not connect the dots, we cannot help him.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yep.
Meanwhile the chorus sings, "Oh that'll NEVER happen!"
:sing::sing::sing:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> bff asked for the cut and pasted portion that enables the students to change at their will, *I pasted a portion that does not disallow this*, of course it is not specifically laid out that a person can change at will but the most important part is it does not PROHIBIT the student from changing at will. If there is no language prohibiting something then it is not prohibited.
> 
> It is as simple as that...
> 
> If bff wants to continue to state that his question has not been answered then we will never be able to satisfy his request. He will just continue to refuse that which has been provided for his enlightenment. If he does not connect the dots, we cannot help him.


You'll get dizzy with all that spin.



> If there is no language prohibiting something then it is not prohibited.


You're confusing "laws" with "guidelines"

Guidelines allow some leeway, and the teachers involved will know when someone is trying to scam them



> He will just continue to refuse that which has been provided for his enlightenment.


You haven't provided any enlightenment.
You just keep saying people will change their genders every day for a cheap thrill, and you want to think teachers will allow that to happen. It goes back to what I said about you needing an irrational interpretation to make it fit your agenda


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Yes, I understand.
> No where in Title IX can anyone show you the specific language containing the words, "Transgender students have the right to define their own gender on a daily basis".
> 
> You have no doubt caught some of us in a bald faced lie.
> ...


Much like your melodrama.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Just grab some popcorn and some soda folks.....


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You'll get dizzy with all that spin.
> 
> 
> You're confusing "laws" with "guidelines"
> ...


Hmm... Guidelines. Interesting. How is Obama suggesting that schools could lose Federal funding... get back to me on that - OK?

"Scam them" - I think that they are already being scammed.

"Enlightenment" - You have provided NOTHING showing ANYTHING that would deter ANYONE from doing so, got any citations that direct against someone changing genders on a daily basis? I've already provided information from a .gov website that says that there are those that do identify as both genders and those that change between genders on a regular basis AND that site states that these too are in a protected class.. What do you have to refute that?

"Irrational", again interesting. You seem to place your trust in the teachers as the arbiters of who is what. How many times has this process failed horribly? How many law suits do you think would occur because some "insensitive" teacher does not allow one of the misguided "Utes" to do as they please when their "choice" about "gender" has been sanctioned by the "Commander in Chief"?

Go ahead... Cheerlead us down this path that I and many others caution against. I find it to be against reason as well as being totally illogical.

And as to your first statement, yes spin, who in this string of posts seems to be spinning the truth?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Hmm... *Guidelines*. Interesting. How is Obama suggesting that schools could lose Federal funding... get back to me on that - OK?


Yes, guidelines.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-d...int-guidance-help-schools-ensure-civil-rights



> U.S. Departments of Justice and Education Release Joint ...
> www.justice.gov &#8250; &#8230; &#8250; Briefing Room &#8250; Justice News
> U.S. Departments of Justice and Education Release Joint *Guidance* to Help Schools Ensure the Civil Rights of Transgender Students


http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/12/politics/transgender-bathrooms-obama-administration/index.html



> Obama administration to issue guidance on transgender access to school bathrooms
> www.cnn.com/2016/05/12/politics/transgender-bathrooms-obama...
> May 13, 2016 Â· A joint letter from the Departments of Education and Justice will go out to schools on Friday with *guidelines* to ensure that "transgender &#8230;


http://www.fox13memphis.com/news/do...ooms-causing-concern-in-mississippi/292058022



> DOJ guidlines on transgender bathrooms causing &#8230;
> www.fox13memphis.com/news/doj-guidlines-on-transgender-bathrooms...
> Mississippi Superintendent of Education began catching heat after saying she would follow the U.S. Department of Justice *guidelines* for transgender bathroom use





> who in this string of posts seems to be spinning the truth?


That was already answered.
It's still you 



> "Irrational", again interesting. You seem to place your trust in the teachers as the arbiters of who is what. How many times has this process failed horribly? How many law suits do you think would occur because some "insensitive" teacher does not allow one of the *misguided "Utes"* to do as they please when their "choice" about "gender" has been sanctioned by the "Commander in Chief"?


There's that hatred shining through again :nono:


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Shine said:


> Hmm... Guidelines. Interesting. How is Obama suggesting that schools could lose Federal funding... get back to me on that - OK?
> 
> "Scam them" - I think that they are already being scammed.
> 
> ...





Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, guidelines.
> 
> https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-d...int-guidance-help-schools-ensure-civil-rights
> 
> ...


Yes, "guidelines".
That's why there's no "official" language in the Title IX statute, to show you "proof" that isn't needed as the courts have already ruled on this by "interpreting" the guidelines for us (us includes you, BTW).

It WON'T be in the statute unless it's amended by Congress, in the meantime the other 2 branches of gov't are using the law as they please.
That way the deniers can continue to deny and claim they are telling the truth, even though the truth is exactly the opposite. 



> There's that hatred shining through again :nono:





> How many law suits do you think would occur because some "insensitive" teacher does not allow one of the* misguided "Utes"* to do as they please when their "choice" about "gender" has been sanctioned by the "Commander in Chief"?



"My Cousin Vinny"?
A bigoted, hate filled movie?
Come on now, Fred Gwynne (?) was funny as a straight man can be. Straight man = comedy term, not heterosexual term........not that there's anything _wrong_ with it. LOL (Seinfeld)
That line and Joe Pesci's "What's a grit?" are classic, one liner, giveaways on a movie thread.
Stretching that much will likely tear a muscle.
:teehee:


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, guidelines.
> 
> https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-d...int-guidance-help-schools-ensure-civil-rights
> 
> ...


Interesting. You are acting as if I said that there were no guidelines when I referred to the guidelines that the Obama Administration provided. I indicated that the children could run circles around the school administration operating within the limits of said guideline. 

You wanted me to cut and paste the proof of my statement. I did, those guidelines was the proof. 

Now you post those exact same guidelines as proof of what???

OK, the first citation is the original document cited, it shows no wording that would not allow a child to swap back and forth from either gender.

The second citation references the original document, refers to the Law Suit in NC and highlights how neither Texas nor Mississippi will comply.

The third citation speaks more about what is going on in Mississippi and refers to the guidelines supplied in the first citation.

So, I provide you with proof to assert that what I said is true [see first paragraph] and then you reply with citations that point specifically to the proof that I showed to support my contention and you think that you have won some sort of a medal? 

The is not the Ron White Debate School here, if you want to make your point or prove someone else wrong, you have to rebut their contentions, not support them.

More and more I am beginning to think that you augment your spending money with fees for being a click-generator.

ETA: Hatred? lol You have a strange way of looking at things...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Yes, "guidelines".
> That's why there's no "official" language *in the Title IX statute*, to show you "proof" that isn't needed as the courts have already ruled on this by "interpreting" the guidelines for us (us includes you, BTW).


I never asked for anything *from the statute*.
I've told you that repeatedly


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> More and more I am beginning to think that you augment your spending money with fees for being a click-generator.


You have a strange way of looking at things..


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

greg273 said:


> Of course they're gonna whine, thats the whole point...they say "If boys can use the girls room, then why can't I??"... Except the policy put out by the Obama admin for schools wasn't 'all boys can use the girls room', it was 'Transgendered kids can use the bathroom they identify as'. Not 'identify' as in 'oh, I just felt like it', the criteria is a little more stringent than that, as the case in Chicago where the kid played on girls sports teams and was passing as a 'girl' for years.
> Sure, its weird, no denying that. But it would be also weird to have someone who dressed, acted, and identified as a woman using the mens room.
> Its a pretty small percentage of people who would ever fall into this category, so its a lot of bluster from both sides of the issue.





Bearfootfarm said:


> You've also seen nothing that says that's true either, but it hasn't stopped anyone from repeating the hype.
> 
> https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-d...int-guidance-help-schools-ensure-civil-rights
> 
> ...





Shine said:


> According to the information that bff posted, they can identify anytime they want to, change back tomorrow, and back again the next day. Do you know what proof is required for these changes? - None. So, it would appear as if you do not know what you are talking about. Did you read the notice that was sent out as published in bff's citation?





Bearfootfarm said:


> Copy and paste the portion which states that





Shine said:


> It's your link, you don't read them?


OK, the statute, Obama memo and two education boards from different states were all quoted that said the same thing.
Throw out whichever you don't like, it's been proven.
You're welcome.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> OK, the statute, Obama memo and two education boards from different states were all quoted that said the same thing.
> Throw out whichever you don't like, *it's been proven*.
> You're welcome.


None of them said people would be allowed to change their minds from day to day, which was Shine's claim

You've proven nothing that wasn't already stated before you even started posting


----------



## Elevenpoint (Nov 17, 2009)

CAN they change their mind if they want to? CAN they?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> None of them said people would be allowed to change their minds from day to day, which was Shine's claim
> 
> You've proven nothing that wasn't already stated before you even started posting


So where's the line of discrimination? The person who changes their mind every week? Month? Biannually?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> So where's the line of discrimination? The person who changes their mind every week? Month? Biannually?


That's for the individuals involved to decide, using their common sense, as I already stated.
I've seen no evidence that suggests it really happens so often as to present any problems


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

elevenpoint said:


> CAN they change their mind if they want to? CAN they?


 What amazes me is you think there is a significant percentage of kids who would 'fake' being transgendered just to take a peek in the ladies locker room. There are far more socially acceptable ways to see girls naked. Be nice to them, go to parties, and you just might get lucky. The social and potential legal consequences of pretending to be a girl would far outweigh the temporary thrill afforded by a peek into the locker room.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> None of them said people would be allowed to change their minds from day to day, which was Shine's claim
> 
> You've proven nothing that wasn't already stated before you even started posting


I've shown proof to you that there are transgenders that identify with both sexes, and transgenders that move between sexes. That right there is proof that what I supposed does in fact happen. So, you have failed in your suggestion that it won't or doesn't happen. 

It is also disingenuous to think that because there is no wording that specifically outlines the process to change back and forth that there will be none. There is, however, a strong indication demonstrated by the above proof on dual sexed transgendered people and on those that shift between gender. It happens in NYC, it's a fact that they will prosecute discrimination of any of the 31 styles of transgenderism so there you have it. End of story. 

The worst possible case scenario is being executed now, without regard to the wishes of the people. What other countries do things in this same fashion?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

greg273 said:


> What amazes me is you think there is a significant percentage of kids who would 'fake' being transgendered just to take a peek in the ladies locker room. There are far more socially acceptable ways to see girls naked. Be nice to them, go to parties, and you just might get lucky. The social and potential legal consequences of pretending to be a girl would far outweigh the temporary thrill afforded by a peek into the locker room.


Why worry about just a peek when you can waltz right in there and shower as you see fit? This is what the reality of it is. 

A boy wants in, he tells his teacher - I want in, if she does not allow it, and his parents are so disposed - lawsuit. If she does, co-ed showers and the school is forced to keep that information from the parents. Like it that way? 

It is in the "Guidelines" - you cannot get around that.

So, go ahead and think about how stupid it is about us worrying for our children's privacy, they'll be safe, and if it happens, we'll never know about it unless our kids tell us about it.

I can't wait to see if some father sues the school when he finds out that there is a male showering with his daughter. 

Film at eleven...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> *I've shown proof* to you that there are transgenders that identify with both sexes, and transgenders that move between sexes. That right there is proof that what I supposed does in fact happen. So, you have failed in your suggestion that it won't or doesn't happen.
> 
> *It is also disingenuous to think that because there is no wording that specifically outlines the process to change back and forth that there will be none. *
> 
> ...


You've shown no "proof"
It's pure speculation to think they will be allowed to change from day to day.
Lose the hysteria and substitute some common sense


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You've shown no "proof"
> It's pure speculation to think they will be allowed to change from day to day.
> Lose the hysteria and substitute some common sense


OK, then you refuse to see. Try this:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/cchr/downloads/pdf/publications/GenderID_Card2015.pdf

This is the proof I offered from NYC. Google Gender-Bender, Gender Fluid, Androgynous. You fail.

Now, you used the phrase "allowed to change", tell me where there is anything that prohibits it. You cannot. Another fail. 

You want us to trust that you are correct. You can forget that, I already know that you will be proven wrong for the simple fact that human nature is what it is.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You've shown no "proof"
> It's pure speculation to think they will be allowed to change from day to day.
> Lose the hysteria and substitute some common sense


So you think peeping toms (i.e., people who REALLY want to use the wrong restroom for the WRONG reason) aren't going to be allowed in? How do you differentiate between a transgdnered person and someone who wants to shower with the opposite sex to "get off?" Do you ask them? Watch their eye movements?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> None of them said people would be allowed to change their minds from day to day, which was Shine's claim
> 
> You've proven nothing that wasn't already stated before you even started posting


All righty then.
How about a lawsuit filed in Boulder Colorado on behalf of her "gender fluid" child?

http://kdvr.com/2015/05/18/mother-f...school-district-support-transgender-students/

*"&#8220;Sky was assigned male at birth but is increasingly saying, &#8216;Don&#8217;t use those male pronouns on me. I haven&#8217;t figured this stuff out yet,&#8217;&#8221; Kai said.

That explanation wasn&#8217;t easily understood when the siblings enrolled at Creekside Elementary in February.

&#8220;The children started teasing both Elsa and Sky about that because no adult was actually standing up and saying, &#8216;This is gender queer. This is what it means. It&#8217;s in the middle. It&#8217;s beautiful,&#8217;&#8221; Kaid said. &#8220;The children didn&#8217;t know.&#8221;

Kai tried working with the school, writing a children&#8217;s story about gender issues in hopes of educating the students. The lesson was denied.

&#8220;For us the experience was, &#8216;Oh, you&#8217;re not really welcome here. We don&#8217;t want your story,&#8217;&#8221; Kai said. &#8220;In fact, Elsa&#8217;s teacher told me in an email, &#8216;We don&#8217;t teach about transgender identity in second grade.'&#8221;

That&#8217;s when Kai decided to file a federal civil rights complaint against the district, alleging, "it doesn&#8217;t adequately protect the rights and integrity of its gender fluid and transgender children."

&#8220;As soon as I put in that complaint (the district) found the funding in two days to train staff,&#8221; McKenzie said."*



Real case, real student.
Real "proof" enough?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

farmrbrown said:


> All righty then.
> How about a lawsuit filed in Boulder Colorado on behalf of her "gender fluid" child?
> 
> http://kdvr.com/2015/05/18/mother-f...school-district-support-transgender-students/
> ...



Although there is a comment made about 'gender fluid', the lawsuit involves a transgender kid. 

If the transgender population is small, I would think that gender fluid would be even smaller.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Copy and paste the portion which states that


Your link........

https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/850991/download

*

2. How do schools confirm a student&#8217;s gender identity?
Schools generally rely on students&#8217; (or in the case of younger students, their parents&#8217; or guardians&#8217 expression of their gender identity. Although schools sometimes request some form of confirmation, they generally accept the student&#8217;s asserted gender identity.





Parents are often the first to initiate a conversation with the school when their child is transgender, particularly when younger children are involved. Parents may play less of a role in an older student&#8217;s transition. Some school policies recommend, with regard to an older student, that school staff consult with the student before reaching out to the student&#8217;s parents.
&#61623; The District of Columbia Public Schools issued guidance (&#8220;DCPS Guidance&#8221 noting that &#8220;students may choose to have their parents participate in the transition process, but parental participation is not required.&#8221; The guidance further
2
recommends different developmentally appropriate protocols depending on grade level. The DCPS Guidance suggests that the school work with a young student&#8217;s family to identify appropriate steps to support the student, but recommends working closely with older students prior to notification of family. The guidance also provides a model planning document with key issues to discuss with the student or the student&#8217;s family.
&#61623; Similarly, the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education issued guidance (&#8220;Massachusetts Guidance&#8221 that notes: &#8220;Some transgender and gender nonconforming students are not openly so at home for reasons such as safety concerns or lack of acceptance. School personnel should speak with the student first before discussing a student&#8217;s gender nonconformity or transgender status with the student&#8217;s parent or guardian. For the same reasons, school personnel should discuss with the student how the school should refer to the student, e.g., appropriate pronoun use, in written communication to the student&#8217;s parent or guardian*



And finally at the end, the definitions that you have already been told of, copy and pasted from the link you provided..............


*Terminology
18. What terms are defined in current school policies on transgender students?
Understanding the needs of transgender students includes understanding relevant terminology. Most school policies define commonly used terms to assist schools in understanding key concepts relevant to transgender students. The list below is not exhaustive, and only includes examples of some of the most common terms that school policies define.
&#61623; Gender identity refers to a person&#8217;s deeply felt internal sense of being male or female, regardless of their sex assigned at birth. (Washington State Guidelines)
&#61623; Sex assigned at birth refers to the sex designation, usually &#8220;male&#8221; or &#8220;female,&#8221; assigned to a person when they are born. (NYSED Guidance)
&#61623; Gender expression refers to the manner in which a person represents or expresses gender to others, often through behavior, clothing, hairstyles, activities, voice or mannerisms. (Washoe County Regulation)
&#61623; Transgender or trans describes a person whose gender identity does not correspond to their assigned sex at birth. (Massachusetts Guidance)
&#61623; Gender transition refers to the process in which a person goes from living and identifying as one gender to living and identifying as another. (Washoe County Regulation)
&#61623; Cisgender describes a person whose gender identity corresponds to their assigned sex at birth. (NYSED Guidance)
&#61623; Gender nonconforming describes people whose gender expression differs from stereotypic expectations. The terms gender variant or gender atypical are also used. Gender nonconforming individuals may identify as male, female, some combination of both, or neither. (NYSED Guidance)
&#61623; Intersex describes individuals born with chromosomes, hormones, genitalia and/or other sex characteristics that are not exclusively male or female as defined by the medical establishment in our society. (DCPS Guidance)
&#61623; LGBTQ is an acronym that stands for &#8220;lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning.&#8221; (LAUSD Policy)*



So, a student defines their gender, they may have one gender at home and a different one at school, and if they are "gender non conforming or as some districts use, "gender fluid", they can be whatever they want, whenever they want and protected by law.
Read and enjoy.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> All righty then.
> How about a lawsuit filed in Boulder Colorado on behalf of her "gender fluid" child?
> 
> http://kdvr.com/2015/05/18/mother-f...school-district-support-transgender-students/
> ...





wr said:


> Although there is a comment made about 'gender fluid', the lawsuit involves a transgender kid.
> 
> If the transgender population is small, I would think that gender fluid would be even smaller.



You may have missed it, so I increased the size.
The definitions of transgender *include* gender fluid.

And it has been pointed out many times, it only takes *one* to be discrimination. 
One link I didn't post was from NM I think, where the lawyer bluntly said, "Go ahead. If you pass this discriminatory policy it'll cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars and you'll lose anyway."

As I've said before, this isn't about fairness, it's about vengeance. 
If it hurts every kid in the state, so be it.

What was interesting in the federal letter on guidelines was the part about offering private or separate facilities in the shower/locker rooms for NON transgender students if they were uncomfortable showering with TG students.
It was an option mind you, not a directive, so if the school declined, no choice.
BUT the irony is, that is EXACTLY what was offered to the student in the federal case that changed all of this - a private separate bathroom. The court ruled THAT was discrimination.
No double standard there, nope.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> OK, then you refuse to see. Try this:
> 
> http://www.nyc.gov/html/cchr/downloads/pdf/publications/GenderID_Card2015.pdf
> 
> ...


That's not "proof" of anything contained in the DOJ guidelines.
Like your cohort, you're rambling about things unrelated to my comment


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> All righty then.
> How about a lawsuit filed in Boulder Colorado on behalf of her "gender fluid" child?
> 
> http://kdvr.com/2015/05/18/mother-f...school-district-support-transgender-students/
> ...


That isn't proof
It's just the "allegations" from the suit, and have nothing to do with the content of the "guidelines which were written later

It also has no relation to anyone changing their gender from day to day to gain access to facilities, since it clearly says they claimed the same gender for at least 6 years

As always you argue the wrong issue


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> So you think peeping toms (i.e., people who REALLY want to use the wrong restroom for the WRONG reason) aren't going to be allowed in? *How do you differentiate* between a transgdnered person and someone who wants to shower with the opposite sex to "get off?" Do you ask them? Watch their eye movements?


That's for the individuals *directly involved* to decide, as I've stated multiple times now.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That isn't proof
> It's just the "allegations" from the suit, and have nothing to do with the content of the "guidelines which were written later
> 
> It also has no relation to anyone changing their gender from day to day to gain access to facilities,* since it clearly says they claimed the same gender for at least 6 years*
> ...


OK, then copy and paste from that link where it says that.
I have bolded in the link where it said otherwise and even enlarged it for wr.
Otherwise, you are once again falsifying the truth.
This IS allowed on HT as you know.
Lies can be printed here with no consequences from the moderators.
It's the telling of the truth that often gets reprimanded or deleted.
:croc:


I'll even make it easy for you. Here is the portion where you claim that the child has identified her gender for 6 years, from age 2 to 8.

* Kai&#8217;s oldest, Elsa, was assigned male at birth but began rejecting that identity at just two years old.

&#8220;When I told her she was a boy she just screamed, &#8217;No!&#8217;&#8221; Kai said. &#8220;I still didn&#8217;t get it.&#8221;

During the next six years, Kai says Elsa continually drew self portraits of herself as a girl and dressed that way when she was allowed to. Kai says Elsa eventually refused to go to the bathroom and, at 8 years old, began showing signs of physical sickness when gender conversations came up.

&#8220;She started increasingly just breaking down any time anyone called her a boy. I mean, just collapsing and sobbing,&#8221; Kai said. &#8220;She came to me and said, &#8216;If I&#8217;m a boy, why is there no one like me? There must be something wrong with me. I wish I didn&#8217;t exist.&#8217; And those words. Those words are a wake-up call to any parent.&#8221;

Kai&#8217;s wake-up call happened a year ago. The family fully embraced Elsa as a girl. At the same time, 8-year-old Sky decided not to select a gender, also referred to as gender queer.*



Please don't overlook the really big letters, ok?



Bearfootfarm said:


> That's for the individuals *directly involved* to decide, as I've stated multiple times now.



:umno:

If it is a criminal act, you are misinformed if you think it is the offender's opinion that decides the outcome.
Nice try at falsifying the truth again, though.
You get an "A" for effort.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

It says what I stated, no huge letters needed:



> During the next *six years, Kai says Elsa continually drew self portraits of herself as a girl* and dressed that way when she was allowed to. Kai says Elsa eventually refused to go to the bathroom and, at 8 years old, began showing signs of physical sickness when gender conversations came up.


Again, you want to use this as a *diversion* from the original discussion about statements contained in the DOJ guidelines

It's what "deceptive con men" do when trying to further their agendas


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It says what I stated, no huge letters needed:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yep.
That's why I made it easy for a not-so-good con man as you to use it.
Your deception is a clear to read as the letters I enlarged.

Your father would be proud.


Gradually, we are educating people on the two seedlines from the Garden.
Cain's seed line is from his father, not Adam's.
Cain's descendent's are alive and well, active on this forum to this day.


Now you know the answer to a question you asked before.........."who appointed YOU watchman?"

MY Father did.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

It's no use with this person. However, the proof is there is black, red and white. A normal person reading this exchange will see the truth and also see a person that appears to be being dishonest on purpose.

Nothing more is needed. We have proved our point.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

And that is all that is required of the watchman.


Unfortunately what Bearfoot is claiming to be produced as "proof" is a signed confession accompanied with a certified video of an event in order to be accepted as proof.
That is the point when it is too late.
When someone tells you there's a large headlight coming down the tunnel, the tracks are shaking, and there is a loud audible train whistle blowing.......only the very stupid or very deceitful, will ask for the evidence of flattened human remains, to prove a person was hit by a train while standing on the tracks.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> It's no use with this person. However, the proof is there is black, red and white. A normal person reading this exchange will see the truth and also see a person that appears to be being dishonest on purpose.
> 
> Nothing more is needed. *We have proved our point*.


You keep repeating that when you've offered nothing beyond the speculation you offered to begin with.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

The watchman sounds the alarm.
It is up to the fool on the tracks whether to accept the warning as "proof".

Repeating "No, that's NOT a train" is not going to change the outcome, no matter how many times it's repeated.
Sound familiar?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> And that is all that is required of the watchman.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately what Bearfoot is claiming to be produced as "proof" is a signed confession accompanied with a certified video of an event in order to be accepted as proof.
> ...


I'd settle for one documented example of someone changing gender from day to day, since that's the "fear" being used as an argument.

You know it doesn't exist because it's totally unrealistic.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Yep.
> That's why I made it easy for a not-so-good con man as you to use it.
> Your deception is a clear to read as the letters I enlarged.
> 
> ...


You're educating folks alright, but not in the way you believe.



> *Your deception is a clear* to read as the letters I enlarged.


Says the self described "deceptive con man" who is now using his "religion" to call me a "liar" and the son of Satan.

All because you can't just stick to the topic.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're educating folks alright, but not in the way you believe.
> 
> 
> Says the self described "deceptive con man" who is now using his "religion" to call me a "liar" and the son of Satan.
> ...


It helps justify being morally superior to others when you can claim they're of Satan or something. Pretty much anyone who disagrees with you could call into that category.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yep.
Whether or not any of that is TRUE.
You either are or you aren't, it doesn't matter what *I* say.
The truth is apparent for ALL to see, accept it or not.:shrug:


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're educating folks alright, but not in the way you believe.
> 
> 
> Says the self described "deceptive con man" who is now using his "religion" to call me a "liar" and the son of Satan.
> ...




My topic is the same.

LIES, and who is telling them..............

This is the same lie that you have told about me in many posts.
I am prohibited from calling you a liar by the moderators, but you have free reign to continue telling lies about me on this forum with no repercussions from them.
I know, because I asked already, so as long as the lies are told, I will continue to point them out to others so they will not be deceived.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'd settle for one documented example of someone changing gender from day to day, since that's the "fear" being used as an argument.
> 
> You know it doesn't exist because it's totally unrealistic.


Says the man who can't hear the train whistle.........
:whistlin:


Where is Ron White when you need him?



> .....only the very stupid or very deceitful, will ask for the evidence of flattened human remains, to prove a person was hit by a train while standing on the tracks.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

farmrbrown said:


> The truth is apparent for ALL to see, accept it or not.:shrug:


You mean like the part where BFF is descended from Cain?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Heritagefarm said:


> You mean like the part where BFF is descended from Cain?



Can you show me where *I* said that?
If you or him decide that is the case, you have to look at yourselves and why you think that.
We all have free will in this case, as to which father we will follow.
Choose wisely.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

"Cain's descendent's are alive and well, active on this forum to this day."

The reference is obvious.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Heritagefarm said:


> "Cain's descendent's are alive and well, active on this forum to this day."
> 
> The reference is obvious.


True, it is obvious.
It's also true "bff" isn't in that quote, is it?


"Oh what a tangled web we weave........"


I've had to learn how to communicate on this forum with the restrictions and obstacles given to me.
How do ya like me now?
LOL


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

farmrbrown said:


> True, it is obvious.
> It's also true "bff" isn't in that quote, is it?
> 
> 
> ...


"Like" is irrelevant, but maybe you should have been a lawyer, since you're as hard to pin down as a greased pig.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

It is written.......

"Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves."


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Heritagefarm said:


> "Like" is irrelevant, but maybe you should have been a lawyer, since you're as hard to pin down as a greased pig.


Obfuscation, diversion, and obscuring the truth isn't an honorable way of living, in my opinion.


----------

