Fallen Prophet
Well-Known Member
You may need to edit this "edit" - because I never "admitted" that "predators in bathrooms" wasn't a concern.NOTE: Edited to drop much of the discussion about "predators in bathrooms", since FP admitted that wasn't really a concern.
Why are you always trying to put me in a box?
You began this discussion by inferring that I was a bigot. That the only reason I could take issue with men using the women's restroom was because I hate transgender people.
Then you tried to make it seem that my only motivation was to protect children - (which you claimed was just a feint from my true motivation - hatred of transgender people - all the while taking wide swings at Christianity for some reason) - when I never said that was my only motivation.
Then you moved on to the "predators in bathrooms" motivation when I talked about the potential abuse of these bathroom policies - which has happened and will continue to happen - I never claimed was my only motivation either.
Remember when you blamed the girl for her own rape?
And now when I finally mentioned the simple biological fact that men are not women and women are not men - so they should only use the restrooms that correspond to their biology - you claim that I "admitted" that "predators in bathrooms" is no longer a concern?
Maybe - just maybe - I want to protect children and I want to reject policies that can be abused by "predators in bathrooms" and I point to facts and biology to support my case that men are not women and women are not men - so they should only use the restrooms that correspond to their biology and that I don't hate transgender people.
You may feel the need to label and limit me - because once we dive into the issues your arguments fall apart - but you can't.
Ooh. Did you take the Psych 101 class too?Of course you do. It's part of the bigger picture.
No - I don't advocate that because it would be stupid - as well as violate the First Amendment.Exactly. Your concern about protecting kids from abuse is a charade.
Your argument that, "Abuse happens at Christian settings - so we should not allow children to go to Christian churches, schools and camps" - is dumb.
That would be like me arguing that since abuse happens at public schools - we should ban all children from public schools.
No - instead - everyone needs to do better to protect children while also allowing them to live their lives as freely as possible.
Public school needs to monitor the halls better and not allow any girl to be alone with any boy on school grounds.
Since restrooms cannot be monitored - they should try to stop any boy from entering the girl's restroom or girl from entering the boy's restroom - to avoid the potential of a girl and boy being alone and unmonitored on school grounds.
I said in Post #282, "I never once claimed that transgender people were criminals.Incorrect. I never said a single word about her being at fault. I simply cited the facts of the case to show how it had nothing at all to do with transgender bathroom policies.
I was talking about that policies that were made about public restrooms - in order to appease the transgender community - has caused situations where the safety and privacy of our children is at risk.
That boy should not have been allowed in the girl's restroom in the first place. He is a predator."
To which you responded in Post #285, "If you're talking about the incident in Loudoun County, are you aware that the victim had previously met the boy in the girls' bathroom and had agreed to meet him there again when the attack occurred? Are you also aware that the school's transgender bathroom policy hadn't even gone into effect yet?"
What does the victim agreeing to meet with this predator in the girl's bathroom - not once but twice - have anything to do with the school's responsibility to make sure that boys should not be entering the girl's restroom and that a boy and girl should not be left alone and unmonitored on school grounds?
It should not have happened.
And any policy that would allow any boy to enter the girl's restroom or any girl to enter the boy's restroom is ripe for abuse by predators - like this boy in Loudon County.
Stone Bridge High School failed to protect that girl - then they quietly transferred that boy - so he could commit another sexual assault - and then the county School Board lied about it all.
And the reason that the Loudon County School Board quietly transferred this boy - so he could commit more crimes - and why they lied about there being no reports of sexual assault at their schools was because they wanted to continue to push for these restroom policies that cause "situations where the safety and privacy of our children is at risk" because they want to "appease the transgender community" - as I said.
This case has everything to do with transgender restroom policies.
And when faced with all this you say, "Didn't you know that that girl agreed to meet that boy in the girl's restroom?"
As if that somehow matters?
Yes - it is inappropriate and illegal.Except there's nothing inappropriate or illegal about a transgender person using a public bathroom.
A man entering a women's restroom could be charged with all sorts of crimes like trespass, disorderly conduct, breaking and entering - and depending on what he does in the restroom - indecent exposure and peeping.
If a cisgender heterosexual male - who presents as such - can be charged with any of these crimes for entering a women's restroom - then the same should be applied to a man in a dress.
Ok then - I'll see you in the women's restroom. Nothing wrong with that - right?As we covered, they just go into a stall, do their business, wash their hands, and leave.
No - the underlying assumption is that a boy entering a girl's restroom is "inappropriate and illegal" - not transgender people.Again we see that your underlying assumption is that transgenders are akin to "inappropriate or even illegal content" on the internet.
I will point out again - I never claimed that people cannot be transgender - or that transgender students shouldn't be in the classrooms, halls, cafeteria, etc.
It only comes down to restrooms - and locker rooms - where children's "biology" may be exposed - that I and the law take issue.
If it is "inappropriate and illegal" for a cisgender boy to enter the girl's restroom - then it should be just as "inappropriate and illegal" for a transgender student - who is a biological boy - to enter as well.
There are many rules at a public school to protect children - because the school is responsible for them.
So - even if the parents of a child allows them to go on certain websites at home - the school may not allow that same child to view those sites at school.
If you don't like the internet analogy - then think of traffic rules and laws - they ain't there because we are worried about the safe drivers - but the crazies.
I'm not saying that transgender people are crazy - but that there are crazy people out there that would abuse the transgender restroom policy - to prey upon people while they are alone and vulnerable.
What if we implemented a new traffic law that said, "Everyone needs to stop at red lights - unless you believe the Earth is flat - then you can ignore them and drive on through."
No problems there right?
So - even though a transgender student believes they should be allowed to use the restroom of their choosing - we can't allow it - because it can - and has - led to abuse.
Technically - the master criminal analogy was just about those post-op transgender people who have done everything to appear as the opposite sex.Before it was analogizing them with master criminals.
A guy putting on a wig ain't no "master criminal" - you know what I'm saying?
It's not very difficult to see what's going on there.
Ok - roads exists whether or not there are crosswalks -right?Exactly. We don't ban all crosswalks because someone might use them as a means to kill pedestrians, and by the same token we don't ban transgenders from using the bathrooms of their gender because someone might use that as a means to commit assaults.
You don't technically need a crosswalk to cross one - do you?
We make crosswalks to mitigate the risk of crossing the street - because cars are huge bullets that can kill people.
We care about people's safety so much - that we can charge them with jaywalking and fine them if they don't use the crosswalk.
Does this mean that everyone who crosses the street without using the crosswalk is a crazy and unreasonable person?
No - but there some crazy and unreasonable people out there who can - believe it or not - not cross the street well.
I had a friend who was hit by a car back in middle school. He wasn't using a crosswalk. He survived - but he had to go to the hospital for a while.
It's funny - but I was once driving by that same middle school years later - and one kid out of a group of students walking on the sidewalk suddenly shot out - as if he was about to run across the street - but then he shot back into the group.
I braked - because I thought the kid was jumping out into the road - and after he didn't I pulled over and parked - got out of my car - and yelled at them. I told them how dumb and dangerous that was. It could cause an accident.
I digress - but let it be known that there are crazy and unreasonable people out there and we use things like crosswalks to help keep them in check - so we can all use the roads safely.
This is all reasonable. A method of mitigating risk. Controlling a portion of the chaos.
So - just like with the crosswalks - all bathrooms can technically be used by everyone.
I mean - they all got toilets - right? And we are all - evacuating - the same mess - right?
However - we separate the restrooms on the grounds of biology to mitigate the risk associated with being in such a vulnerable position.
People can literally be caught all alone with their pants down.
And up until recently - since we cared about everyone's privacy and safety - we could charge those who entered into the opposing sex's restroom with various crimes depending on the circumstance.
Because we want people to only use the restroom that corresponds to their biology - in order to help mitigate any risks and keep people safe - just like how we want people to use crosswalks - to help mitigate any risks and keep people safe.
Not allowing boys into the girl's restroom is equivalent to making sure kids only cross the street using the crosswalk.
I understand that there will always be some kids out there who don't want to use the crosswalk - but as long as they are the school's responsibility - those orange-vested ladies should make sure they use them.
I understand that there will always be some kids out there who don't want to use the restroom that corresponds to their biology - but as long as they are the school's responsibility - those hall-monitors should make sure they use them.
There is no hate here. Just a desire to keep everyone safe.
Do you understand where I am coming from?
Last edited: