Tennessee sees new step in wave of anti-Trans bills

[metis]

Just because there are some master criminals out there who are capable of circumventing the law without leaving any evidence - that doesn't mean we should throw out the law.

The question is why is the law important in the first place?

IMO, it's sexual discrimination based on ignorance of how hormones work, which are not always in unison with the "equipment".

 

[Fallen Prophet]

In an earlier conversation we had, you lamented having a college professor refer to you as "bigoted" (or something similar). Given your posts in this thread (e.g., analogizing between transgenders and criminals), I'm now wondering if that professor's assessment wasn't accurate.

I never once claimed that transgender people were criminals.

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.

You seem to have exaggerated angst over transgenders and them being allowed to live openly and freely in society (which includes using the public restrooms that correspond to their gender). Why is that? With all the other things going on in the world right now, how does a transgender woman using a stall in a men's restroom generate so much concern? From the other mens' perspective, all they see is someone come in, go into a stall, close the door, feet appear, flushing sounds follow, the person comes out, washes their hands, and leaves.

How is that a problem?

You mean other than the fact that it is not true? Men cannot become women and women cannot become men?

It's the opportunity for abuse which has happened - and will continue to happen.

Predators are going to use these policies to find vulnerable prey.

We have laws and policies to protect people. Even if they may seem inconvenient at times.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

The question is why is the law important in the first place?

IMO, it's sexual discrimination based on ignorance of how hormones work, which are not always in unison with the "equipment".

Yet it is the "equipment" and chromosomes that determine our sex - not hormones.

 

[metis]

Yet it is the "equipment" and chromosomes that determine our sex - not hormones.

Not true.

Each of us have levels of both estrogen and testosterone that vary from person to person. In some cases, the level of the hormone may not match the "equipment", thus the desire is likely more with a same sex person. It is hormones that drive desire, not the "equipment", and both are generated by genetics: Biology 101.

Thus, what difference is to you that some may have the desire to have someone of the same sex and link up? After all, from a religious perspective, isn't that utlimately between God and them?

 

[Jose Fly]

I never once claimed that transgender people were criminals.

Pay closer attention; I said you analogized between transgenders and criminals.

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.

Except it hasn't. If you were truly worried about protecting kids from predators, you'd be working to keep kids away from Christian settings (churches, schools, camps), since waaaaaaaaaay more abuse occurs in those places than in bathrooms with transgender-friendly policies.

That boy should not have been allowed in the girl's restroom in the first place. He is a predator.

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?

You mean other than the fact that it is not true? Men cannot become women and women cannot become men?

You completely dodged the point. Again, if you're concerned about privacy, explain how a person's privacy is violated when a trans person goes into a stall, closes the door, does their business, washes their hands, and leaves.

It's the opportunity for abuse which has happened - and will continue to happen.

Given the prevalence of abuse that's occurred in Christian settings, explain why we shouldn't ban kids from Christian churches, camps, and schools. After all, those places are well proven to be "opportunities for abuse", right?

Predators are going to use these policies to find vulnerable prey.

We have laws and policies to protect people. Even if they may seem inconvenient at times.

It seems to me that you just don't like transgenders and you're feigning concern for kids as a cover for that. The number of cases of transgenders lurking in bathrooms waiting to abuse kids is vanishingly small, whereas the number of cases of kids being abused in Christian settings is in the tens of thousands (at least), yet you demand policy be crafted to address the former while you completely ignore the latter.

That kinda gives away the game.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

It's flabbergasting on how unisex isn't considered in other areas. Just remodel restrooms into ultra private stalls. They look good too and men and women can wash at the same sink after they are done. Nobody is labeled and privacy is assured while doing one's business.

Totally agree!

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Not true.

Each of us have levels of both estrogen and testosterone that vary from person to person. In some cases, the level of the hormone may not match the "equipment", thus the desire is likely more with a same sex person. It is hormones that drive desire, not the "equipment", and both are generated by genetics: Biology 101.

Thus, what difference is to you that some may have the desire to have someone of the same sex and link up? After all, from a religious perspective, isn't that utlimately between God and them?

Are you talking about sexual orientation or sexual identity?

Because those are not the same thing.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Pay closer attention; I said you analogized between transgenders and criminals.

I read what you said.

You seem to think that I don't understand - so explain what you meant.

What do you mean when you said I "analogized between transgenders and criminals".

Except it hasn't. If you were truly worried about protecting kids from predators, you'd be working to keep kids away from Christian settings (churches, schools, camps), since waaaaaaaaaay more abuse occurs in those places than in bathrooms with transgender-friendly policies.

What makes you think I don't have an opinion about policies at churches, and religious schools and camps?

Also - did you know - that WAAAAAAAAAAAY more abuse of children happen at their homes with their parents?

Do you think I should be advocating that all children should be taken from their parents?

Or - rather - are you just trying to "pan away" from the topic at hand by trying to assassinate my character while making a jab at Christianity at the same time?

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?

Ok.

So what are you arguing?

That giving consent once implies continual consent forever?

That rape can only occur with a girl the attacker had never been with before?

That any time a girl agrees to meet with a boy - she has given consent to sex?

Are you also aware that the school's transgender bathroom policy hadn't even gone into effect yet?

Not relevant considering that they were pushing for the policy and even lied about the incident in order to continue to push for that policy.

If you need to cover up alleged sexual assault to push for a policy - maybe it's not a good policy?

You completely dodged the point. Again, if you're concerned about privacy, explain how a person's privacy is violated when a trans person goes into a stall, closes the door, does their business, washes their hands, and leaves.

You need to define what a "trans person" is - because a boy in a skirt can claim to be one - or at least "gender fluid" - and still rape girls in their bathroom.

Because what I see is anyone of any gender can claim to be whatever they want in order to go wherever they want.

How can you prove that a man is not just claiming to be "trans" in order to be alone with women in their bathroom?

Given the prevalence of abuse that's occurred in Christian settings, explain why we shouldn't ban kids from Christian churches, camps, and schools. After all, those places are well proven to be "opportunities for abuse", right?

Let's get to that right after we ban all kids from their parents.

Because we care - right?

It seems to me that you just don't like transgenders and you're feigning concern for kids as a cover for that.

I do not like the transgender ideology and political narrative - that's for sure.

Other than that - they can live any way they want - but they also have to accept that not everyone is going to agree with them about their sexual identity.

They need to respect that society has rules to protect the general public.

The number of cases of transgenders lurking in bathrooms waiting to abuse kids is vanishingly small, whereas the number of cases of kids being abused in Christian settings is in the tens of thousands (at least), yet you demand policy be crafted to address the former while you completely ignore the latter.

My church has taken great lengths to avoid any compromising situations with children.

I have no authority to tell any other church what they can and cannot do.

I can - however - vote out public figures that want to impose policies that have the potential to hurt our children.

So - when do you want to sign my petition to take all children away from their parents - since most abuse to children happens from their parents - and we both care so much about children - don't we?

That kinda gives away the game.

You just took a bunch of unrelated issues and put them in a blender.

Then made many baseless assumptions about me.

You know - caring about people - doesn't mean we throw our freedoms and objective reality out the window - we have to work within certain confines.

 

[Jose Fly]

What do you mean when you said I "analogized between transgenders and criminals".

I thought that was a clear enough statement....you analogized between transgenders and criminals. For example...

"The argument that, "They look and act just like a woman - so they should be allowed to use the women's restroom." is the same as saying, "The criminal left no evidence - so they should be allowed to get away with the crime they committed."​

What makes you think I don't have an opinion about policies at churches, and religious schools and camps?

Can you show me the threads where you've been advocating that we must not allow any children to be in any Christian settings because of the risk of abuse?

Also - did you know - that WAAAAAAAAAAAY more abuse of children happen at their homes with their parents?

Do you think I should be advocating that all children should be taken from their parents?

It would make more sense that what you're trying to present here.

Or - rather - are you just trying to "pan away" from the topic at hand by trying to assassinate my character while making a jab at Christianity at the same time?

Well, I think you've revealed your character pretty well here.

Ok.

So what are you arguing?

That giving consent once implies continual consent forever?

That rape can only occur with a girl the attacker had never been with before?

That any time a girl agrees to meet with a boy - she has given consent to sex?

Really? You can't figure out the point? Sigh.....

The point is, pointing to the Loudoun County case to argue "this is what can happen if you have transgender friendly bathroom policies" is either a mistake based on ignorance of the facts of the case, or is an attempt to use lies to bash transgenders. The case had absolutely nothing to do with transgender bathroom policies.

If you need to cover up alleged sexual assault to push for a policy - maybe it's not a good policy?

WTH? I'm covering up the case? Are you okay?

You need to define what a "trans person" is - because a boy in a skirt can claim to be one - or at least "gender fluid" - and still rape girls in their bathroom.

So? Any rapist can lurk in any bathroom where there's no security. Arguing "someone might exploit X to commit a crime, therefore we can't do X" is terrible logic. By that reasoning, we can't have crosswalks because someone might exploit them to run over people. Or we can't have co-ed public schools because someone might exploit that to commit sexual assault.

Because what I see is anyone of any gender can claim to be whatever they want in order to go wherever they want.

And anyone of any gender can dress up as the opposite gender and do the same. What's your point?

How can you prove that a man is not just claiming to be "trans" in order to be alone with women in their bathroom?

You can't, just as you can't prove that every woman in the women's bathroom is really a woman, and not a man dressed up as one just for kicks, or to commit assault, or to do whatever.

Let's get to that right after we ban all kids from their parents.

Because we care - right?

You're missing the point here. You've offered two reasons why we can't have transgender friendly bathroom policies....privacy and the risk of exploitation by predators.

The first isn't a realistic, practical concern as we covered earlier (in both cases the trans person would just go into a stall and close the door).

The second seems to be just an excuse you're using to deflect away from the real issue here (you just don't like transgenders). That's made evident when we actually examine the true risk and put it in some context. The ratio of "people abused by predators who exploited transgender bathroom policies" to "people abused in Christian settings" is outrageously skewed to the latter. Yet you cite the risk of the former as justification for a blanket ban on all transgender friendly bathroom policies, but with the latter you say there's nothing we can do about it.

That disconnect immediately sets off alarm bells indicating that "protecting kids" isn't really your motivation here...it must be something else. Fortunately, you tell us what that is.....

I do not like the transgender ideology and political narrative - that's for sure.

Obviously.

Are you also grossed out by them? Does being around them make you uncomfortable? Are you okay with transgenders being school teachers? Running day cares? Reading books to kids during story time at the library?

Other than that - they can live any way they want - but they also have to accept that not everyone is going to agree with them about their sexual identity.

No one cares if you agree with anything.

They need to respect that society has rules to protect the general public.

Are you aware that transgenders are the victims of abuse far more often that they are the perpetrators of it? So in all, the data is clear that "transgender predators" or "predators exploiting transgender friendly bathroom policies" are not widespread problems that require us to force transgenders to put themselves at risk to solve.

If you're truly worried about "predators in bathrooms", then the obvious solution is to increase security in bathrooms.

My church has taken great lengths to avoid any compromising situations with children.

Like what?

I have no authority to tell any other church what they can and cannot do.

I can - however - vote out public figures that want to impose policies that have the potential to hurt our children.

Ah, and now we see the double standard.

A tiny handful of cases where predators exploited transgender bathroom policies = we must universally ban all transgender friendly bathroom policies.

Tens of thousands of cases where predators exploited Christian settings = I can't do anything about it.

I think it's pretty obvious by now what's really going on here.

So - when do you want to sign my petition to take all children away from their parents - since most abuse to children happens from their parents - and we both care so much about children - don't we?

As soon as you start one.

You know - caring about people - doesn't mean we throw our freedoms and objective reality out the window - we have to work within certain confines.

What freedoms and objective reality are you referring to?

 

[Fallen Prophet]

I thought that was a clear enough statement....you analogized between transgenders and criminals. For example...

"The argument that, "They look and act just like a woman - so they should be allowed to use the women's restroom." is the same as saying, "The criminal left no evidence - so they should be allowed to get away with the crime they committed."

​

Oh! I thought you were talking about me bringing up the boy raping the girl in the bathroom - that I was somehow claiming that all transgender - or rather "gender-fluid" people were criminals.

I didn't know you were referring to this.

Yeah - I was thinking about people who would wear disguises in order to trick other people so they can get away with breaking the rules that everyone else is following - so I went with master criminals who leave no evidence behind.

I stand by it.

Can you show me the threads where you've been advocating that we must not allow any children to be in any Christian settings because of the risk of abuse?

I am fully capable of having an opinion on a topic without posting it on this site.

Do you believe I can only have an opinion that I have shared on some thread?

And also - I don't advocate for that.

I would advocate that all these organizations do more to protect children - like how our public schools should make sure that no boys and girls are left alone and unmonitored at school - rather than us not allowing children to go to public school anymore.

Because that would be stupid.

It would make more sense that what you're trying to present here.

Really?

Me advocating to remove a basic human right from all people - to be parents - makes more sense than having only girls use the girls restrooms and boys use the boys restrooms.

That makes more sense to you?

Well, I think you've revealed your character pretty well here.

Yeah - keep focusing on my character - so it distracts you from the absurdity you are defending.

Really? You can't figure out the point? Sigh.....

No no no no - we can't sweep this under the rug.

You said - "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?"

Do you know what this is? This is called blaming the victim. You are blaming that 9th grade girl for being raped by her "gender-fluid" classmate.

"She agreed to meet with him once before - and she agreed to meet him the time the attack happened - so consent is implied."

The circumstances don't matter - the school should have been monitoring these children and the halls - no students should be having sex - consensual or otherwise - at school.

However - there is one place that cannot be monitored - the bathrooms - so we should keep the girls and boys bathrooms separate.

This classmate's crime was covered up by the county's School Board - they claimed no sexual assaults had occurred at their schools - and they quietly transferred that boy to another school - where he committed more sexual assault.

They did this because they were pushing for their agenda to let boys use the girl's bathrooms.

That agenda was more important than removing a threat - protecting the students - and having common sense.

The point is, pointing to the Loudoun County case to argue "this is what can happen if you have transgender friendly bathroom policies" is either a mistake based on ignorance of the facts of the case, or is an attempt to use lies to bash transgenders. The case had absolutely nothing to do with transgender bathroom policies.

Ok - but the problem was that a girl and a boy were alone in an unmonitored bathroom.

And you want to enact a policy that would ensure that boys and girls can be alone in unmonitored bathrooms.

Being transgender doesn't really matter at this point since anyone can claim to be anything.

WTH? I'm covering up the case? Are you okay?

Yeah - read my point in its entirety.

"Not relevant considering that they were pushing for the policy and even lied about the incident in order to continue to push for that policy.

If you need to cover up alleged sexual assault to push for a policy - maybe it's not a good policy?"

The "they" and the "you" were references to the county's School Board.

So? Any rapist can lurk in any bathroom where there's no security.

Sure - but if someone finds a man "lurking' in a woman's restroom today - they are reported and hopefully arrested.

If that same scenario happens after your policy is in place - nothing happens to that man.

Arguing "someone might exploit X to commit a crime, therefore we can't do X" is terrible logic.

Yeah - but people on the left use it all the time.

"Someone might use a gun to commit a crime - so let's get rid of all guns!"

I believe a better example would be something like internet use at schools. They use the internet - but they block many websites from being accessed - because they can lead to inappropriate or even illegal content.

Anyways - all bathrooms are unmonitored - and since our schools have a responsibility to protect our children - they should mitigate risk.

Everyone can use the restroom of their biological sex.

By that reasoning, we can't have crosswalks because someone might exploit them to run over people.

No - that's idiotic. Everything needs to be balanced with freedom and objective reality.

People are free to go places - use the roads - cross the streets - but objective reality dictates that there needs to be limits to how fast cars should be able to go, where people can cross the street, etc.

It's about mitigating risks while allowing people to be free - all coordinated by observing objective reality..

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Or we can't have co-ed public schools because someone might exploit that to commit sexual assault.

I'm all for that. Don't students at all boys and all girls schools tend to test better?

And anyone of any gender can dress up as the opposite gender and do the same. What's your point?

That it's wrong. Only women should use women's restrooms and vice versa.

Just because you are the master criminal who can get away with it - doesn't mean you should do it.

You can't, just as you can't prove that every woman in the women's bathroom is really a woman, and not a man dressed up as one just for kicks, or to commit assault, or to do whatever.

I'd rather women be on alert than to be lulled into a false sense of security.

You're missing the point here. You've offered two reasons why we can't have transgender friendly bathroom policies....privacy and the risk of exploitation by predators.

And men are not women and women are not men. Biology. Objective reality.

The first isn't a realistic, practical concern as we covered earlier (in both cases the trans person would just go into a stall and close the door).

You still have yet to define what a "trans person" is.

Because if your policy is in place what's stopping me - a cisgender heterosexual male who presents as such - from walking into a women's restroom?

How could anyone legally claim that I have no right to be there? That I can't stand at the mirror for as long as I want? And taking pictures.

Someone on this thread showed photos of transgender people taking pictures in public restrooms (Post #211).

What's stopping me or any other man?

The second seems to be just an excuse you're using to deflect away from the real issue here (you just don't like transgenders).

I don't like men using the women's restroom and vice versa.

Notice - I have am not advocating that transgender kids shouldn't be in the classrooms, hallways, cafeteria, or anywhere else on public campus.

I only take issue when the boys want to use the girl's restroom and vice versa.

That's made evident when we actually examine the true risk and put it in some context.

Even if there was zero risk - magically - I would still not want boys using the girls restroom and vice versa.

Boys are not girls and girls are not boys. The restrooms separate the children based on their biological sex - not on how they identify.

The ratio of "people abused by predators who exploited transgender bathroom policies" to "people abused in Christian settings" is outrageously skewed to the latter.

Yeah - but that whole separation of Church and State things give me no authority over any church - but I can vote out public officials I disagree with.

Yet you cite the risk of the former as justification for a blanket ban on all transgender friendly bathroom policies, but with the latter you say there's nothing we can do about it.

Correct. I mean - you could write letters to those "Christian settings" - but you cannot vote on how churches decided to organize themselves.

That disconnect immediately sets off alarm bells indicating that "protecting kids" isn't really your motivation here...it must be something else. Fortunately, you tell us what that is.....

I don't think I ever claimed that I had only the one motivation.

We have been discussing all public restrooms - not just those at the schools.

Men are not women and women are not men.

Obviously.

Are you also grossed out by them?

Not particularly.

Does being around them make you uncomfortable?

I have a bad tendency to believe that any and all transgender people are leftists - because every single one I have met so far has been - so I do sometimes prejudge and believe I'm not going to get along with them.

It happened to this girl I knew in high school - she dated my older brother - then claimed to be a lesbian - got a girlfriend - super B-word - they started hanging out with other people - invited them to a bonfire - whipped out marshmallows for some s'mores - the new girlfriend threw a huge fit about animal products - I told her she didn't need to have any s'mores but she couldn't stop us from enjoying them - they both left.

My friend later "transitioned" - but she didn't really talk to me anymore - nothing more than a "hi" now and then.

I think it kinda spawns from that. Lost a friend - not to transgenderism - but to leftist garbage.

Are you okay with transgenders being school teachers? Running day cares? Reading books to kids during story time at the library?

It's honestly a toss up and would depend on the individual.

If they are capable of not being transgender activists - I'd be fine - most of the transgender people I have met are not activists - and don't feel the need to push their beliefs on others.

It's mostly liberal white women pushing this garbage.

So - if my child had a transgender teacher - I would pay close attention to what my child is learning and jump on anything I felt was indoctrination.

But - that's not really different than how I act with their teachers now. I don't think any of them are transgender.

Is the "story time at the library" a reference to all the drag queen readings? Cuz those are weird.

Anyways - now you - would you be comfortable having Christians teaching your kids? Running day cares? Reading books to kids during story time at the library?

What about Christian churches, schools and camps?

Are you going to judge all members of a religion?

No one cares if you agree with anything.

And that is the transgender ideology I despise so much.

"We don't care about objective reality! You have to use our pronouns of choice - which change every day."

"We don't care if your are uncomfortable - we are going to use whatever bathroom we want - which changes every day."

"We don't care about all of human history - our feelings shape reality now - you need to conform or be destroyed."

Most transgender people don't give a flying f**k about any of these issues - and they aren't interested in trying to control other people.

I take issue with the activism and ideology - not the people.

Are you aware that transgenders are the victims of abuse far more often that they are the perpetrators of it?

Yes - and I think it is so sad.

I believe that a lot of it stems from misguided ideas like "you don't need to tell your date that you are trans" - which can lead to bad situations.

Transgender people need to do everything they can to stay safe - which includes informing potential partners that they are trans.

So in all, the data is clear that "transgender predators" or "predators exploiting transgender friendly bathroom policies" are not widespread problems that require us to force transgenders to put themselves at risk to solve.

A boy in a skirt in the boys restroom is at risk?

If you're truly worried about "predators in bathrooms", then the obvious solution is to increase security in bathrooms.

Yeah - you are forgetting about freedom and objective reality again.

You cannot monitor inside bathrooms.

Like what?

No closed doors. More combined classrooms. Never one adult alone with kids. Having other adults making rounds checking on the classrooms throughout the hour.

Ah, and now we see the double standard.

A tiny handful of cases where predators exploited transgender bathroom policies = we must universally ban all transgender friendly bathroom policies.

Tens of thousands of cases where predators exploited Christian settings = I can't do anything about it.

I think it's pretty obvious by now what's really going on here.

Separation of Church and State.

I do what I can at my own church - where I have some authority - but I cannot dictate what other religions do.

I can vote to remove local, State, and Federal leaders I disagree with.

As soon as you start one.

Naw - I'm not an authoritarian dictator like you who doesn't care if anyone else agrees with you - you're going to ram your doctrine down their throat.

Parents have the right to raise their children. The State cannot intervene unless abuse can be proven.

It's kinda this whole "due process" thing - can't judge all Christians based on the actions of bad apples - and this whole freedom and objective reality thing - can't change all the rules based on the confusion of a handful of people.

What freedoms and objective reality are you referring to?

All of them.

 

[metis]

Are you talking about sexual orientation or sexual identity?

Because those are not the same thing.

Former, but it may have implications for the latter.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

Then keep you kids out of church and never let them be left unattended with the church leader. Lots of abuse has happened there.
Trans people being let in the appropriate restroom? Not happening.
The military, however? Even John McCain urged parents to not let their daughters join because the sexual abuse is severe.

 

[Jose Fly]

NOTE: Edited to drop much of the discussion about "predators in bathrooms", since FP admitted that wasn't really a concern.

Yeah - I was thinking about people who would wear disguises in order to trick other people so they can get away with breaking the rules that everyone else is following - so I went with master criminals who leave no evidence behind.

I stand by it.

Of course you do. It's part of the bigger picture.

And also - I don't advocate for that.

Exactly. Your concern about protecting kids from abuse is a charade.

You said - "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?"

Do you know what this is? This is called blaming the victim. You are blaming that 9th grade girl for being raped by her "gender-fluid" classmate.

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.

Yeah - but people on the left use it all the time.

"Someone might use a gun to commit a crime - so let's get rid of all guns!"

I believe a better example would be something like internet use at schools. They use the internet - but they block many websites from being accessed - because they can lead to inappropriate or even illegal content.

Except there's nothing inappropriate or illegal about a transgender person using a public bathroom. As we covered, they just go into a stall, do their business, wash their hands, and leave.

Again we see that your underlying assumption is that transgenders are akin to "inappropriate or even illegal content" on the internet. Before it was analogizing them with master criminals.

It's not very difficult to see what's going on here.

No - that's idiotic. Everything needs to be balanced with freedom and objective reality.

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.

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm all for that. Don't students at all boys and all girls schools tend to test better?

Oh...I didn't realize you were such a Puritan. Also, since you effectively gave up the game in your last post, I'm not going to respond to any of your comments about bathrooms, abuse, or predators.

And men are not women and women are not men. Biology. Objective reality.

In biology, one learns that all traits exhibit variability across populations, especially complex, multi-faceted traits like gender. This variability will be even more pronounced in species with complex social behaviors and large populations. So that H. sapiens show variability in gender across the population is expected.

It's also born out by the fact that gender fluidity has existed throughout human history.

You still have yet to define what a "trans person" is.

You seriously don't know?

Even if there was zero risk - magically - I would still not want boys using the girls restroom and vice versa.

There ya' go, you've just admitted to the charade.

Boys are not girls and girls are not boys. The restrooms separate the children based on their biological sex - not on how they identify.

So it's not that you're against transgenders using certain bathrooms, you're just against transgenderism as a whole.

That's what I figured.

I have a bad tendency to believe that any and all transgender people are leftists - because every single one I have met so far has been - so I do sometimes prejudge and believe I'm not going to get along with them.

It happened to this girl I knew in high school - she dated my older brother - then claimed to be a lesbian - got a girlfriend - super B-word - they started hanging out with other people - invited them to a bonfire - whipped out marshmallows for some s'mores - the new girlfriend threw a huge fit about animal products - I told her she didn't need to have any s'mores but she couldn't stop us from enjoying them - they both left.

My friend later "transitioned" - but she didn't really talk to me anymore - nothing more than a "hi" now and then.

I think it kinda spawns from that. Lost a friend - not to transgenderism - but to leftist garbage.

That's so weird, I'm not really sure what to do with it. Do you hate all "leftists"?

It's honestly a toss up and would depend on the individual.

If they are capable of not being transgender activists - I'd be fine - most of the transgender people I have met are not activists - and don't feel the need to push their beliefs on others.

It's mostly liberal white women pushing this garbage.

So - if my child had a transgender teacher - I would pay close attention to what my child is learning and jump on anything I felt was indoctrination.

But - that's not really different than how I act with their teachers now. I don't think any of them are transgender.

Is the "story time at the library" a reference to all the drag queen readings? Cuz those are weird.

So you're okay with transgenders being openly transgender and holding jobs where they're around kids, just as long as they aren't "activists"? What exactly does that mean?

Anyways - now you - would you be comfortable having Christians teaching your kids? Running day cares? Reading books to kids during story time at the library?

What about Christian churches, schools and camps?

They already do...have been for years.

And that is the transgender ideology I despise so much.

"We don't care about objective reality! You have to use our pronouns of choice - which change every day."

"We don't care if your are uncomfortable - we are going to use whatever bathroom we want - which changes every day."

"We don't care about all of human history - our feelings shape reality now - you need to conform or be destroyed."

Most transgender people don't give a flying f**k about any of these issues - and they aren't interested in trying to control other people.

I take issue with the activism and ideology - not the people.

That's quite a rant. It seems you want trans folks to be quiet about who they are, passively accept whatever treatment they get from people like you, and not counter hateful nonsense directed at them.

IOW, your view is they can be out, but they have to be quiet about it and stay in their place.

Yeah - you are forgetting about freedom and objective reality again.

You're just using those as empty buzzwords. No one's freedoms are affected and objective reality is that trans people have always existed in human history, and always will.

Naw - I'm not an authoritarian dictator like you who doesn't care if anyone else agrees with you - you're going to ram your doctrine down their throat.

I think you have it backwards. I'm on the side of freedom here.....freedom for transgenders to live openly and freely as they please, to use bathrooms that correspond to their gender, to talk openly about being trans, to be referred to as they ask, and for folks like you to not agree with any of it.

All of them.

And here you've given up the charade that this has anything to do with "freedom".

So it's not about abuse, it's not about privacy, and it's not about freedoms. So far, it seems like this is mostly about you not liking transgenders (because you associate them with "leftists"), not liking transgenderism as a whole, and getting upset because society has decided to side with transgenders and has rejected your views.

I see this a fair bit in conservative Christians these days. Y'all are getting increasingly angry as America moves to a post-Christian society that is tolerant and accepting of LGBTQs but is not tolerant of views like yours (which are often seen as bigoted). It's fascinating to watch, but it makes me wonder......what are your long-term plans? I see no indication that our society is about to pivot in your direction (the signs actually show the opposite), so what are you going to do?

Are you going to try and find a way to just accept this state and live within it? Are you going to fight it? Are you going to wait for God to fix it all?

I'm really curious.

 

[Kooky]

Predators are going to use these policies to find vulnerable prey.

Yes, as the article in the OP has shown us, the State of Tennessee has already found vulnerable prey to target with legal persecution, in the form of trans people.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I have a bad tendency to believe that any and all transgender people are leftists - because every single one I have met so far has been - so I do sometimes prejudge and believe I'm not going to get along with them.

Well, hello.

You may be interested in my thread here:
The current 'transgender' community and 'movement'

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Former, but it may have implications for the latter.

How so?

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Then keep you kids out of church and never let them be left unattended with the church leader. Lots of abuse has happened there.

I am not accusing all transgender people of anything - so let's try not to accuse all churches.

Every church should take measures to ensure the safety of the children who attend - same goes for schools.

Bathrooms are not monitored - but hallways are - so stopping a boy from entering the girl's restroom will prevent the possibility of a boy being alone with a girl unmonitored.

Trans people being let in the appropriate restroom? Not happening.

"Appropriate" being the operative word.

Completely arbitrary and ambiguous.

The military, however? Even John McCain urged parents to not let their daughters join because the sexual abuse is severe.

I don't think transgender people should serve in the military either.

 

[metis]

How so?

Basic genetics that effects both the hormones and the "equipment", but sometimes they don't match.