• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Tennessee sees new step in wave of anti-Trans bills

Fallen Prophet

Well-Known Member
NOTE: Edited to drop much of the discussion about "predators in bathrooms", since FP admitted that wasn't really a concern.
You may need to edit this "edit" - because I never "admitted" that "predators in bathrooms" wasn't 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.
Of course you do. It's part of the bigger picture.
Ooh. Did you take the Psych 101 class too?
Exactly. Your concern about protecting kids from abuse is a charade.
No - I don't advocate that because it would be stupid - as well as violate the First Amendment.

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.
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 said in Post #282, "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."

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?
Except there's nothing inappropriate or illegal about a transgender person using a public bathroom.
Yes - it is inappropriate and illegal.

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.
As we covered, they just go into a stall, do their business, wash their hands, and leave.
Ok then - I'll see you in the women's restroom. Nothing wrong with that - right?
Again we see that your underlying assumption is that transgenders are akin to "inappropriate or even illegal content" on the internet.
No - the underlying assumption is that a boy entering a girl's restroom is "inappropriate and illegal" - not transgender people.

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.
Before it was analogizing them with master criminals.
Technically - the master criminal analogy was just about those post-op transgender people who have done everything to appear as the opposite sex.

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.
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.
Ok - roads exists whether or not there are crosswalks -right?

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:

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
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.
Very typically a boy doesn't enter the girl's restroom unless it was a mistake.
"Appropriate" being the operative word.

Completely arbitrary and ambiguous.
It is. Many places don't even segregate them.
I don't think transgender people should serve in the military either
Military commanders have disagreed.
 

Fallen Prophet

Well-Known Member
Oh...I didn't realize you were such a Puritan.
My seeing no issue with all-boys and all-girls schools makes me a "Puritan"? Why?
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.
I still don't get this. I reread my last post to double check what you mean - but I still don't see what you are talking about.

It is possible for a person to believe that a man cannot become a woman or a woman a man and also believe that there are bad policies out there that expose our children to unnecessary risk.

Those two beliefs are not mutually exclusive and I don't understand why you are operating as if they are.
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.
Are you talking about biological sex or the social construct known as "gender"?

Because if you are talking about "gender" - then that would be in the field of "gender studies" - not biology.

Biology dictates that there are only the two biological sexes and that no mammals (or birds) can change their biological sex.

That is biology.
You seriously don't know?
I want you to define it - that way we both know what we are talking about - no confusion.
There ya' go, you've just admitted to the charade.
You got me!:p

How did you know that a person that believes that which restroom we use should be determined by our biology is incapable of believing that our children should be kept safe?

Most people don't know that you can't believe both of those things at the same time. It's impossible.

By the way - I know it doesn't translate well through text - but I am being sarcastic right now.

It is possible for a person to believe that - no matter what - which bathroom we use should be determined by our biology - and also believe that children should be kept safe.
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.
What's there to "figure"?

I said as much back in Post #288,

"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."

There are a lot of ideologies and "-isms" that I don't agree with.

Not agreeing with someone does not mean I hate or fear them. I just disagree.
That's so weird, I'm not really sure what to do with it.
What's weird about it?
Do you hate all "leftists"?
I never claimed that I hated anyone. Well - I didn't like her old girlfriend - that's for sure - but it wasn't because she was leftist - but because she was a big ol'B-word.

I claimed to hate "leftist garbage" otherwise none as "leftism" - the ideologies of the left.

I'm inclined to believe that I won't get along with leftists - because we disagree on so much - but that's not hate.
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?
I believe I already answered that - but in a nutshell - indoctrination.

As long as they are not trying to convert children to their values and unscientific opinions about biological sex - what's to worry about?
They already do...have been for years.
That didn't answer any of my questions.

I didn't ask if Christians teach your children - I asked the same question you asked me - but about Christians instead of transgender people,

"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?"

Doesn't asking condescending questions like that just make you feel all fuzzy and warm in your patronizing superiority? :p
That's quite a rant.
I've seen bigger.

Remember when Biden went to Tennessee to help McAuliffe? He just ranted about Trump the entire time.

And they lost. Funny.
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.
What "treatment" are they getting from me? Me sharing my opinion that they should use the restroom that corresponds to their biology?

Wow. How hateful! To believe that I would demean them by treating them the same as any and all other people on the planet! What nonsense! I need to repent!

They are so much better than me! They deserve special treatment! Roll out the red carpet! Get me that golden crown!

I should never have believed that I had the right to share my views with them! They are above me!

I should have just remained passive - and accepted all the changes they wanted to make - kept my opinions to myself.

What a minute...
IOW, your view is they can be out, but they have to be quiet about it and stay in their place.
No - I want them to afford me the same freedoms and considerations that I afford them.
You're just using those as empty buzzwords.
No - you cannot monitor the inside of restrooms - you just can't.
No one's freedoms are affected and objective reality is that trans people have always existed in human history, and always will.
People who believe that they are more like the opposing sex have always existed - but this concept of "transgenderism" that we see being preached today is very very new.
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.
You just said that you would sign my petition to have children taken away from their parents to keep them safe - not a freedom-loving attitude.

Everyone has the right to live openly - but none of us live "freely as [we] please" - that's crazy.

"Gender" is a new and disturbing concept and public restroom use has always been determined by biology - not social constructs.

I believe that all transgender people should talk openly about being trans. I said as much when I spoke about how I wanted them to stay safe.

By the way - you can tell most transgender people at a glance - so not much of a priority in my opinion.

I agree - somewhat - that we should refer to transgender people by the pronoun they request - but it is up to the individual.

For example - if a transgender person is being rude about pronouns - I most likely won't comply.

I feel the same about people with PhDs - I'll call them "doctor" if they ask - but not if they are rude about.

I also definitely won't use any pronouns outside the traditional he/him her/she. And I won't use they/them to refer to an individual.

Either way - you can't force people to use certain words - the fact that you seem to be leaning toward people being compelled to refer to transgender people as they ask is not "the side of freedom" - as you professed to be on.

That's the opposite of freedom.

Also - you understand that my not agreeing with it means that I would have the right to speak out against it - don't you?
And here you've given up the charade that this has anything to do with "freedom".
Oh?
So it's not about abuse, it's not about privacy, and it's not about freedoms.
No - it's about all of those things. They are not mutually exclusive.
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 never said that I don't like transgender people.

I admitted that I tend to prejudge - a flaw of mine - because I assume that I am not going to get along with them because I assume they are leftists.

I definitely do not like the transgender ideology - because it is not based in science - confuses children - leads to abuse and it is being rammed down our throats.

As to society "deciding to side with transgenders" - no - I don't believe that for a minute.

I believe that the loudest among us - those with the biggest microphones - such as celebrities, left-wing politicians and big tech - are pushing the transgender ideology - but they don't represent society.

They are a minority - but they are loud and powerful - but that tide is turning. People are waking up.
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?
Neither you nor I need to worry too much about that.

If our society does continue to creep that way - it will crumble to dust - just like many other civilizations.

And I wouldn't say angry - it's more - dismayed? Incredulous? Something more along those lines.
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.
I will always be an advocate for what I believe is true.

It's funny - because Christians have always been mocked for not "believing in science" - yet science is on our side more than ever before - and no one sees it.

Science is dead - no one notices - all they care about is how they feel - a society without God or science is DOA.

I'll share what I believe to be true and teach my children to filter out the nonsense.

And before the Lord comes again - there will be many trials and tribulations - and during that time all these "problems" we are currently facing will seem like nothing.

We are going to laugh at how absurd we were being.
 
Last edited:

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
A new Tennessee law forces businesses to post a 'policy' sign if they allow transgender people to use bathrooms matching their gender identity

Tennessee is requiring that businesses where trans people can use bathrooms which match their gender post warning signs.

The signs look like this:
View attachment 50702
And the law outlines that the colors and text cannot be changed. Which is too bad, as I'd turn this transpanic induced BS into an affirmation like this:
View attachment 50703
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
My seeing no issue with all-boys and all-girls schools makes me a "Puritan"? Why?
Never mind, not important.

I still don't get this. I reread my last post to double check what you mean - but I still don't see what you are talking about.

It is possible for a person to believe that a man cannot become a woman or a woman a man and also believe that there are bad policies out there that expose our children to unnecessary risk.

Those two beliefs are not mutually exclusive and I don't understand why you are operating as if they are.
You specifically said that even if we could magically eliminate the risk to kids in bathrooms, you still wouldn't want transgenders to use the bathrooms of their identity.

So we know this isn't about "freedoms", since you can't name any that are affected; we know it's not about privacy, since you can't specify how one's privacy is affected; and we know it's not about safety, since you admitted that even if everything were 100% safe your position wouldn't change.

That means there's something else behind all this.

Are you talking about biological sex or the social construct known as "gender"?

Because if you are talking about "gender" - then that would be in the field of "gender studies" - not biology.

Biology dictates that there are only the two biological sexes and that no mammals (or birds) can change their biological sex.
Of course I'm talking about gender.....it's the root word behind the phenomenon we're discussing! "Transgenderism"

That is biology.
LOL.....you think "gender" is outside of biology? Hilarious.

I want you to define it - that way we both know what we are talking about - no confusion.
I agree with the APA's definition and description....

Transgender is an umbrella term for persons whose gender identity, gender expression or behavior does not conform to that typically associated with the sex to which they were assigned at birth.

How did you know that a person that believes that which restroom we use should be determined by our biology is incapable of believing that our children should be kept safe?

Most people don't know that you can't believe both of those things at the same time. It's impossible.

By the way - I know it doesn't translate well through text - but I am being sarcastic right now.

It is possible for a person to believe that - no matter what - which bathroom we use should be determined by our biology - and also believe that children should be kept safe.
You've already admitted that this isn't about public safety for you.


they can live any way they want
Not if you got your way. Part of "what they want" is to use the bathroom of their identity.

but they also have to accept that not everyone is going to agree with them about their sexual identity.
In general, no one really cares what you think about it.

I believe I already answered that - but in a nutshell - indoctrination.

As long as they are not trying to convert children to their values and unscientific opinions about biological sex - what's to worry about?
Let's get specific here.....what exactly do you mean by "indoctrination"? Let's say there's a transgender 3rd grade teacher. What specifically would you consider to be "indoctrination" on their part?

Also, are you a scientific expert in gender studies? Are you a biologist? Are you some other type of scientist?

That didn't answer any of my questions.

I didn't ask if Christians teach your children - I asked the same question you asked me - but about Christians instead of transgender people,

"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?"
Yes.

What "treatment" are they getting from me?
Is this the extent of your participation in this issue? If all you've ever done is post your thoughts into RF, then practically you haven't done much of anything. Of course if you had your way, things would be rather different.

People who believe that they are more like the opposing sex have always existed - but this concept of "transgenderism" that we see being preached today is very very new.
No it's not.

You just said that you would sign my petition to have children taken away from their parents to keep them safe - not a freedom-loving attitude.
No I didn't.

"Gender" is a new and disturbing concept
Um......what? o_O

and public restroom use has always been determined by biology - not social constructs.
No it hasn't. You should read up on history more. In many parts of the world even today people go to the bathroom around others of the opposite sex.

I believe that all transgender people should talk openly about being trans. I said as much when I spoke about how I wanted them to stay safe.
When do you think they cross the line into "indoctrination"?

By the way - you can tell most transgender people at a glance - so not much of a priority in my opinion.
Can I see your data on that?

I agree - somewhat - that we should refer to transgender people by the pronoun they request - but it is up to the individual.

For example - if a transgender person is being rude about pronouns - I most likely won't comply.

I feel the same about people with PhDs - I'll call them "doctor" if they ask - but not if they are rude about.

I also definitely won't use any pronouns outside the traditional he/him her/she. And I won't use they/them to refer to an individual.

Either way - you can't force people to use certain words - the fact that you seem to be leaning toward people being compelled to refer to transgender people as they ask is not "the side of freedom" - as you professed to be on.

That's the opposite of freedom.
Huh? If a coworker wanted to refer to me as "Stupidhead" do I have the right to ask him to refer to me by my name? What if he wanted to call me "Mary"? Do I have the right to get him to stop?

Also - you understand that my not agreeing with it means that I would have the right to speak out against it - don't you?
Sure, just as we still have open and loud racists and we don't lock them up for expressing their views.

I never said that I don't like transgender people.

I admitted that I tend to prejudge - a flaw of mine - because I assume that I am not going to get along with them because I assume they are leftists.

I definitely do not like the transgender ideology - because it is not based in science - confuses children - leads to abuse and it is being rammed down our throats.
What is "the transgender ideology"?

Neither you nor I need to worry too much about that.

If our society does continue to creep that way - it will crumble to dust - just like many other civilizations.

And I wouldn't say angry - it's more - dismayed? Incredulous? Something more along those lines.

I will always be an advocate for what I believe is true.

It's funny - because Christians have always been mocked for not "believing in science" - yet science is on our side more than ever before - and no one sees it.

Science is dead - no one notices - all they care about is how they feel - a society without God or science is DOA.

I'll share what I believe to be true and teach my children to filter out the nonsense.

And before the Lord comes again - there will be many trials and tribulations - and during that time all these "problems" we are currently facing will seem like nothing.

We are going to laugh at how absurd we were being.
So you take kind of an end times approach to it all. Understood.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
You may need to edit this "edit" - because I never "admitted" that "predators in bathrooms" wasn't a concern.
You said that even if the risks were entirely eliminated, you still wouldn't want transgenders to use the bathroom of their gender.

Remember when you blamed the girl for her own rape?
I did no such thing.

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.
Nope, you've already given that up.

No - I don't advocate that because it would be stupid - as well as violate the First Amendment.

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.
Again, I'm not going to respond to your arguments about "protecting kids in bathrooms", since you've admitted that to be a charade.

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 means exactly what I said the first time....that the incident had nothing to do with transgenderism or transgender bathroom policies (despite bigots' attempts to paint it that way).

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.
And you know this how?

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.
So again....the transgender woman goes into a woman's bathroom, goes into the stall, closes the door, does her business, flushes, leaves the stall, washes her hands, and leaves.

What's your concern with that?

Ok then - I'll see you in the women's restroom. Nothing wrong with that - right?
Why?

No - the underlying assumption is that a boy entering a girl's restroom is "inappropriate and illegal" - not transgender people.

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?
Again, you've already admitted that your rhetoric about public safety is a charade.

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.
By the same logic, we can't allow children into Christian settings because it can, and has, led to abuse.

People can literally be caught all alone with their pants down.
First, that's true regardless of the gender of the others in the room. Second, again you've already admitted that this isn't about public safety for you.

There is no hate here. Just a desire to keep everyone safe.

Do you understand where I am coming from?
No it's not. You said even if we could entirely eliminate the risks, you'd still not want transgender friendly bathroom policies. So all this talk about "safety" is just a cover for something else. You can't name a single freedom that's violated, nor can you explain how anyone's privacy is violated given the logistics (trans folks would all use stalls). So it's not safety, it's not freedom, and it's not privacy.

I'm starting to think this is much more simple than I thought.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Here's a video I came across today because I went to a right-wing Christian news outlet where there was an article from a dad who is extremely upset that it was shown to his kid's 8th grade class.


I watched it all the way through, and I see absolutely nothing inappropriate in it. The speaker just talks about what it's like to be trans, names some common misconceptions, describes some of the social issues trans folks have to deal with, and makes a plea for basic civility. And that makes me think that that's exactly what bothered the dad so much......he's afraid. He's afraid that his kid will be persuaded by the video to basically not be a bigot.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
expose our children to unnecessary risk.
What risk?
My seeing no issue with all-boys and all-girls schools makes me a "Puritan"? Why?
Because puritans are about the only ones who see those as good.
Biology dictates that there are only the two biological sexes and that no mammals (or birds) can change their biological sex.

That is biology.
Except that's not true. Neuter, asexual and hermaphrodite are just a few.
biology is incapable of believing that our children should be kept safe?
Dragging children into it to hide behind them is disgusting.
transgender ideology
Transgender ideology?
They need to respect that society has rules to protect the general public."
Oh well. Society has a lot of had rules, and indeed many have had to change despite pleas and appeals to social order and the way things are.
Not agreeing with someone does not mean I hate or fear them. I just disagree.
It's how you disagree, and refusing to accept science on the subject is more than mere disagreement.
As long as they are not trying to convert children to their values and unscientific opinions about biological sex - what's to worry about?
You are the one who has not utilized a scientific position.
What "treatment" are they getting from me?
Refusal to accept them and the science behind it.
People who believe that they are more like the opposing sex have always existed - but this concept of "transgenderism" that we see being preached today is very very new
I have never known a trans person to use this "transgenderism." It's not even scientific or medical.
Gender" is a new and disturbing concept and public restroom use has always been determined by biology - not social constructs.
Public restrooms are new and often times not segregated.
I believe that all transgender people should talk openly about being trans.
Or you could mind your own business. You aren't entitled to the knowledge or to force people to talk about something that has no real bearing or risk in your life. And if someone chooses not to disclose it at all to you oh well, you aren't entitled to know.
I said as much when I spoke about how I wanted them to stay safe.
By living in accordance to wants. That is simply unacceptable. Amd you don't really show concern.
never said that I don't like transgender people.
Racists rarely admit they are.
It's funny - because Christians have always been mocked for not "believing in science" - yet science is on our side more than ever before - and no one sees it.
It really isn't.
Science is dead - no one notices - all they care about is how they feel - a society without God or science is DOA.
And yet science is fueling a technological revolution. And many societies have thrived and flourished without science. We're doing just fine moving away from god as well.
Biology dictates that there are only the two biological sexes and that no mammals (or birds) can change their biological sex.
That's not true either.
Sex-Change Chicken: Gertie the Hen Becomes Bertie the Cockerel
7 gender-bending animals in the animal kingdom
 

Fallen Prophet

Well-Known Member
Very typically a boy doesn't enter the girl's restroom unless it was a mistake.
That may be typical at the moment - but people are pushing for policies that will allow boys to enter girl's restrooms if they fell like it.
It is. Many places don't even segregate them.
And I disagree with those "places".
Military commanders have disagreed.
They have every right - but I assume they do for political reasons - not practical ones.

Same goes for women in the military.
Have you been a licensed behavioral health clinician too?
People don't become licensed behavioral health clinicians after taking a Psych 101 class.

Or do they?

I mean - one class sounds about right to qualify for that job - don't it?
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
People don't become licensed behavioral health clinicians after taking a Psych 101 class.
I have an actual degree in it and was recognized in the state of Indiana as a behavioral health professional.
That may be typical at the moment - but people are pushing for policies that will allow boys to enter girl's restrooms if they fell like it.
Where?
And I disagree with those "places".
They disagree with you and think you're making a mountain out of nothing.
They have every right - but I assume they do for political reasons - not practical ones.

Same goes for women in the military.
The military tends to be concerned with if you can do the job or not. If you are, yes. If someone wants to serve the country and is mentally sound and physically able to that tends to be what matters.
And, many countries allow women in the military. They do just fine, even on the front lines.
 

Fallen Prophet

Well-Known Member
Wow - you really went with that lie that I claimed that I didn't care about public safety - it's useful having a scapegoat isn't it?

An excuse not to acknowledge my arguments or answer my questions. To not have your worldview challenged.

Too bad it's all based on a lie. I never said what you claim - and you are applying some kookiedooks logic somersaults to make it seem like I did.

A person can believe that public restrooms should be segregated according to our biology and also believe that bad policies can lead to public safety hazards.

Anyways - I'm going to go out of order a bit.
I agree with the APA's definition and description....

Transgender is an umbrella term for persons whose gender identity, gender expression or behavior does not conform to that typically associated with the sex to which they were assigned at birth.
Ok - now you can understand why I might consider this to be too ambiguous to be used in setting policy?

For example - what does "typically associated" gender identity, expression or behavior mean?

Because I would think that - "typical" male behavior would include being sexually attracted to females - therefore - by this definition - any and all homosexuals should be considered "transgender"?

The words "umbrella" and "typically" are huge red flags - proving that there are no discernable standards - no metrics - for determining who is or is not an actual "transgender" person.

And this gives me concern - because if you are going to promote a policy that gives special or preferential treatment to "transgender" persons - you better be able to tell who is or is not "transgender" - right?

Otherwise - anyone can claim to be "transgender" in order to gain that special or preferential treatment.

We cannot set policies on "feelings" or someone's subjective view of themselves.
Never mind, not important.
;)
You specifically said that even if we could magically eliminate the risk to kids in bathrooms, you still wouldn't want transgenders to use the bathrooms of their identity.
Correct.

"Magically" being the operative word - I mean - unless you believe in magic (if you do - can we talk about that?) - so I was using that term to convey the impossibility - or the absurdity - of eliminating all risk.

If I could "magically" make sure car accidents would never happen - I would still wear my seat belt - because there is no such thing as magic.

Besides - this issue is not only about "risk" - but about people having their privacy and being comfortable.

For example - I'm a pretty big guy - even if a woman were to enter the restroom with me - I wouldn't feel threatened in terms of bodily harm to myself - unless she has a weapon of course - but I would still feel uncomfortable and want her to leave.

What happens in the restroom is an experience that I'd say the vast majority of people don't like sharing with members of even their own sex - and that unease and possible anxiety is compounded if it were to involve members of the opposite sex.
So we know this isn't about "freedoms", since you can't name any that are affected; we know it's not about privacy, since you can't specify how one's privacy is affected; and we know it's not about safety, since you admitted that even if everything were 100% safe your position wouldn't change.
I've got this thing - and it has been inconvenient from time to time - that when I am examining my core values and beliefs - I do everything in my power to make sure that I am open, honest and consistent.

I do this to avoid hypocrisy.

If ever a time came when I felt the need to withhold information, to lie or to start applying exemptions in order for me to hold a viewpoint - I begin to feel that I may be holding on to an incorrect belief or that I am on the wrong side of a given issue.

I have always maintained that the segregation of public restrooms has always been based on biology - not social constructs like gender - or that very crappy definition of "transgender" you shared.

I believe that that is the only consistent and verifiable metric to determine who does what where in regards to bathroom use.

I also believe that this is the only consistent, verifiable and most useful metric we have to help eliminate risk in regards to public restroom use - because there is no such thing as magic - right?

By this consistent, verifiable and most useful metric - laws and policies were created - in order to best deter individuals from violating other's rights to privacy and safety.

Any other metric would not be as useful.

This same consistent, verifiable and most useful metric should apply to other things as well - like locker rooms, changing rooms and professional sports activities - basically anything where our biology is either exposed or a key factor.

For example - I do not believe that our biology really matters in a math class. In public school - there shouldn't be a math class for males and another for females - because that subject has nothing to do with our biology.

Given all this - I have also always maintained that since there is no actual metric for who is or who is not "transgender" - any policy that would exempt transgender persons from needing the biology that corresponds to the restroom they choose to use - would be a bad policy - because anyone can claim whatever they want and abuse it.

Anyone - no matter how they behave or express themselves - could claim to be "atypical" in regards to their gender and demand access to whichever restroom they want based on how they claim to identify.

And from what I know about many who claim to be "non-binary" or "gender fluid" - that could change by the day.

So - unless you can prove that a person is "really" transgender - that we don't just take their word for it - such a policy is ripe for abuse by predators.

Yet - even if there were such a "magical" metric - I would claim that we should still segregate public restrooms by biology - because it would still be the best metric to eliminate risk.

That boy in Loudon County was "gender-fluid" - but he was still able to rape that girl in the restroom.

I understand that there are places in the world that do not segregate their public restrooms by biology - I don't agree with it - but if that is what you are arguing for - then that is a different discussion altogether - and it would have nothing to do with "transgender" issues - now would it?
That means there's something else behind all this.
Why do you assume that this - or any other issue - is one-dimensional?

Why do you assume that a person can have only the one reason to believe as they do?
Of course
I'm talking about gender.....it's the root word behind the phenomenon we're discussing! "Transgenderism"
Then why are you bringing up biology?
LOL.....you think "gender" is outside of biology? Hilarious.
Aw - I see - that is an interesting position to take - because those who push the "transgender ideology" are those who claim that sex and gender are completely separate.

How do you believe gender and sex coincide?
You've already admitted that this isn't about public safety for you.
That never happened - but I applaud your commitment to the lie.

"Die with the lie" - the motto of every politician.
 
Last edited:

Fallen Prophet

Well-Known Member
Not if you got your way. Part of "what they want" is to use the bathroom of their identity.
It's weird - you are commenting on my earlier comment a second time.

Last time you simply said, "No one cares if you agree with anything." - which is super productive and adds a lot to a discussion. (Sarcasm Alert)

And let's go over exactly what I said again,

"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."

I never said that anyone was free to do whatever they wanted - I said that I opposed the "transgender ideology" - which mainly refers to demands that society conform to transgender identity and nonsense - and then I said, "Other than that - they can live any way they want"

So - I said they were free to live as they wanted - everyone has that right - but no one has the right to demand that society conform to their completely subjective, unverifiable and immeasurable "identity".

Therefore - their completely subjective, unverifiable and immeasurable "identity"- has no business being a reference for deciding laws and policies.

You see - I personally believe that I am a literal son of God - a Prince of the Universe - an heir to all Creation - that is how I identify.

Can I now make demands from society that correspond to that identity? Or would that be absurd?

And what exactly is "my way"? That all men be treated equally? That all women be treated equally?

Explain what you believe "my way" is please.
In general, no one really cares what you think about it.
"Can I see your data on that?" ;)

And again - what a super productive thing to say - adds so much to this discussion. (Sarcasm Alert)
Let's get specific here.....what exactly do you mean by "indoctrination"? Let's say there's a transgender 3rd grade teacher. What specifically would you consider to be "indoctrination" on their part?
Wait! You never told me why you thought what I said about my old friend was "weird".

And you also kind of glossed over the fact that you claimed that I hated leftists - even though I never claimed to.

Do you make a habit of claiming that people are bigots and haters if they disagree with you - or is it just me?

Anyways - a definition of "indoctrination" is "the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically."

So - if anyone were to teach my children to accept a belief without question or reason - I would consider that indoctrination.
Also, are you a scientific expert in gender studies? Are you a biologist? Are you some other type of scientist?
Are you a Psychologist - with all your analyzing me and talk of seeing my "bigger picture" and everything?

No - you don't need to be an "expert" to know BS when you hear it.
How did that make you feel? Good?

Someone assuming that you are too hateful and narrow-minded to be able to mingle with others because you disagree with them - all that condescension and nastiness - gotta love questions like that - huh?
Is this the extent of your participation in this issue?
You were the one you brought up "treatment" - not me.

You said in Post #295,

"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."

Which is what made me ask, "What "treatment" are they getting from me?"

What do you believe I have done?
If all you've ever done is post your thoughts into RF, then practically you haven't done much of anything.
What would you have me do? Who said I needed to do anything at all?

I don't live in a State or community that is pushing for this transgender ideology - but if they did I would vote it down.

I have had discussions about these issues with transgender individuals back when I lived in California.

What more would you have me do?
Of course if you had your way, things would be rather different.
Again - what is "my way"? Equal treatment under the law?

And you completely skipped over the part where I proved your hypocrisy.

You said in Post #295, "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."

Which caused me to say in Post #304,

"What "treatment" are they getting from me? Me sharing my opinion that they should use the restroom that corresponds to their biology?

Wow. How hateful! To believe that I would demean them by treating them the same as any and all other people on the planet! What nonsense! I need to repent!

They are so much better than me! They deserve special treatment! Roll out the red carpet! Get me that golden crown!

I should never have believed that I had the right to share my views with them! They are above me!

I should have just remained passive - and accepted all the changes they wanted to make - kept my opinions to myself.

What a minute..."

You claimed that I wanted "trans folks" to be quiet and passively accept whatever "treatment" I gave them (whatever that means) - however - you are also advocating that I be quiet - not share my views - and that I passively accept any and all changes they want to make in society.

You want "trans folks" to be given "special treatment". You want us to be unequal.

They can speak and do whatever they want - but I cannot. That's just hypocrisy.
No it's not.
I could tell from your earlier comment - that biology and gender are connected - that you have not been paying attention to those activists pushing transgender ideology out there.

It is very very new stuff.
No I didn't.
Yes - you did.

In Post #288 - while mocking you I asked - "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?"

You replied in Post #289 - "As soon as you start one."

You said this after you claimed that taking children away from their parents made more sense than me wanting only boys to use the boy's restroom and vice versa o_O.

So - yeah - you did claim that you would sign a petition to have children taken away from their parents.

Not a "freedom-loving" attitude.
 
Last edited:

Fallen Prophet

Well-Known Member
Um......what? o_O
The concept of "gender" - as we understand it today - is very new - started with John Money back in the 1950/60s.
No it hasn't. You should read up on history more. In many parts of the world even today people go to the bathroom around others of the opposite sex.
Not really relevant to what we have been discussing - since we have been talking about public restrooms in the U.S. and how they have been segregated by biological sex.

If you want to desegregate all public restrooms on the basis of biology in the U.S. - that's another discussion.
When do you think they cross the line into "indoctrination"?
When they teach opinions as if they were facts and claim that anyone is wrong for disagreeing with those opinions.
Can I see your data on that?
No - because it is all sensory data - just use your eyes and ears.

Besides - unless you are claiming that the majority of "trans folks" are "master criminals" that have spent the money and given the time to hormone therapy and surgeries to do their best to appear as the opposite sex - do you really need to see any data?

I mean - by the definition you supplied - a person doesn't need to make any changes at all and can still claim to be transgender so....
Huh? If a coworker wanted to refer to me as "Stupidhead" do I have the right to ask him to refer to me by my name? What if he wanted to call me "Mary"? Do I have the right to get him to stop?
Not at all relevant - because I was talking about compelling speech.

You have every right to tell your co-worker not to call you names - other than your given one - but you can't force him to say something he is not comfortable saying.

Kinda like that whole not being able to make people say the Pledge of Allegiance or prayers.

For example - since I believe that I am a literal son of God - Prince of the Universe - I could ask people to refer to me as "my Lord" - but I have no right to force anyone to.
Sure, just as we still have open and loud racists and we don't lock them up for expressing their views.
You are comparing me to racists - implying that I hate transgender people - without evidence.

Racists tend to not want people to be treated equally - while my entire argument is based on the idea of treating people equally.

And - sooner or later - we will be locking people up for expressing their views. It's inevitable.
What is "the transgender ideology"?
It is the entire reason we are talking about this.

The teaching of opinion as if it were fact. The indoctrinating of children. The attempts to change the law and policies to conform to a system of belief.
So you take kind of an end times approach to it all. Understood.
Not in the way that you are probably thinking - but it definitely helps me sleep at night.
You said that even if the risks were entirely eliminated, you still wouldn't want transgenders to use the bathroom of their gender.
Correct - because as soon as women began entering the work force and public sphere - public restrooms have been segregated by our biology.

Since there is no such thing as "magic" - biology remains the best metric for mitigating risk.
I did no such thing.
Yeah - you did.
Nope, you've already given that up.
Yes - die with the lie - we will make a politician out of you yet.
Again, I'm not going to respond to your arguments about "protecting kids in bathrooms", since you've admitted that to be a charade.
Yes - nice use of the scapegoat - you never have to have your worldview challenged ever again.
It means exactly what I said the first time....that the incident had nothing to do with transgenderism or transgender bathroom policies (despite bigots' attempts to paint it that way).
Correct - it has nothing to do with transgenderism - but it does have everything to do with policies that would allow a boy to be alone with a girl in the restroom.

Let's say we were talking about something else - like a kid in public school using a baseball bat he obtained during P.E. to hit another kid.

I would advocate that P.E. teachers better monitor their students and lock down the baseball bats - maybe only having one out at a time - to mitigate the risk of such an incident happening again.

That is not a claim that every kid who likes baseball is going to hit their peers with baseball bats.

It's just not a reason to cancel P.E. Not a reason to stop playing baseball. Not a reason to swap out all baseball bats for foam mallets or anything.

It seems that you - on the other hand - would advocate that we make baseball bats even more accessible to students - because we have some avid baseball fans in our classrooms who would really prefer to hold onto their bats throughout the day.

Sure - that doesn't make them crazies who are willing to hit people - but does it mitigate risks?

Is it a proper policy considering what happened previously?
And you know this how?
They were pushing for this policy change at the time of the incident.

Why else would they cover-up an alleged rape and allow the accused rapist to quietly transfer?

Shouldn't feminists be foaming at the mouths over this? Where are the #MeToo people?

Or - since the accused was not acting "typical" in terms of their gender - they just brush it under the rug - like it never happened?

Like BLM and black-on-black violence?
So again....the transgender woman goes into a woman's bathroom, goes into the stall, closes the door, does her business, flushes, leaves the stall, washes her hands, and leaves.
Well - what is a "transgender woman"?

Since there is no consistent or verifiable metric - you mean to say - "So again....[a man] goes into a woman's bathroom, goes into the stall, closes the door, does her business, flushes, leaves the stall, washes her hands, and leaves.."

If you allow one man to go in - you need to allow them all.

For that matter - what is a "woman" - if any man can claim to be one?

And doesn't this claim undercut your own argument?

If this is all that transgender - and essentially all people - do in a public restroom - then why would any transgender person be opposed to using the restroom that corresponds to their biology?

I mean - all they do is go into a stall, close the door, do their business, flush, leave the stall, wash their hands and leave - so why can't they do that in the other restroom?

Is it because that's not the only thing that happens in restrooms? There is more to it than that?
What's your concern with that?
A man could use the policy to corner women when they are most vulnerable in a space that is not monitored.
Because that is what you are advocating.
Again, you've already admitted that your rhetoric about public safety is a charade.
Yes - push on through - you're doing great.
By the same logic, we can't allow children into Christian settings because it can, and has, led to abuse.
Why are you acting as if child abuse only happens at a school or camp that is affiliated with Christianity?

Any time and place that children can be left alone with adults is a scenario that can lead to abuse.

This is why - at public schools - there are faculty restrooms - because they don't want any adults being left alone with any of the children.

This is another reason why they monitor the halls - to make sure that girls and boys aren't being left alone and unmonitored.

Another reason why they don't let boys into the girl's restroom - because it is the only place that cannot be monitored.

We need to mitigate risk - but life must go on.
First, that's true regardless of the gender of the others in the room.
You mean sex - right?
Second, again you've already admitted that this isn't about public safety for you.
You're on the home stretch. Just a little more.
You said even if we could entirely eliminate the risks, you'd still not want transgender friendly bathroom policies.
Correct - because the segregation of restrooms in the U.S. has always been based on biology - not gender.

It is the only consistent and verifiable metric - and there is no such thing as magic.
So all this talk about "safety" is just a cover for something else.
There is no such thing as magic.
You can't name a single freedom that's violated, nor can you explain how anyone's privacy is violated given the logistics (trans folks would all use stalls). So it's not safety, it's not freedom, and it's not privacy.
You cannot monitor restrooms - therefore - you mitigate risk by limiting access.

Girls have the right not to be raped in the restroom.

Women have the right not to feel uneasy or anxious when a man enters the restroom with them.

Since you have no consistent, verifiable or useful metric to determine who is or is not "transgender" - you can't make laws and policies based on it.
I'm starting to think this is much more simple than I thought.
And your Psych 101 class pays off - and you stuck with the lie all throughout.

How do you feel? You feeling dirty? Like a politician?

Dying with the lie will do that to you.
 
Last edited:

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Wow - you really went with that lie that I claimed that I didn't care about public safety - it's useful having a scapegoat isn't it?
You're not making sense. It now seems you're trying to say there really was no point behind saying that even if we could eliminate all risk, you still wouldn't want transgenders to be able to use the bathrooms of their gender.

Ok - now you can understand why I might consider this to be too ambiguous to be used in setting policy?

For example - what does "typically associated" gender identity, expression or behavior mean?

Because I would think that - "typical" male behavior would include being sexually attracted to females - therefore - by this definition - any and all homosexuals should be considered "transgender"?

The words "umbrella" and "typically" are huge red flags - proving that there are no discernable standards - no metrics - for determining who is or is not an actual "transgender" person.
Sigh....try reading the whole thing in context, rather than examining each and every word in isolation.

And this gives me concern - because if you are going to promote a policy that gives special or preferential treatment to "transgender" persons - you better be able to tell who is or is not "transgender" - right?

Otherwise - anyone can claim to be "transgender" in order to gain that special or preferential treatment.
"Preferential treatment"? Huh?

We cannot set policies on "feelings" or someone's subjective view of themselves.
We do all the time. "Christian" is a protected class in anti-discrimination laws for example.

"Magically" being the operative word - I mean - unless you believe in magic (if you do - can we talk about that?) - so I was using that term to convey the impossibility - or the absurdity - of eliminating all risk.
Um.....okay?

Besides - this issue is not only about "risk" - but about people having their privacy and being comfortable.
No it's not. No one's privacy is violated under these policies. We've already been over that.

For example - I'm a pretty big guy - even if a woman were to enter the restroom with me - I wouldn't feel threatened in terms of bodily harm to myself - unless she has a weapon of course - but I would still feel uncomfortable and want her to leave.

What happens in the restroom is an experience that I'd say the vast majority of people don't like sharing with members of even their own sex - and that unease and possible anxiety is compounded if it were to involve members of the opposite sex.
I thought you just said we don't base public policy on "feelings". Looks like you really meant, "I want policy to be based on my feelings, but not anyone else's".

I also believe that this is the only consistent, verifiable and most useful metric we have to help eliminate risk in regards to public restroom use - because there is no such thing as magic - right?

By this consistent, verifiable and most useful metric - laws and policies were created - in order to best deter individuals from violating other's rights to privacy and safety.
Except that no one's privacy is violated by this policy. Also, transgender people using bathrooms of their gender...by itself....poses no additional risk to anyone. More on that later.

Given all this - I have also always maintained that since there is no actual metric for who is or who is not "transgender" - any policy that would exempt transgender persons from needing the biology that corresponds to the restroom they choose to use - would be a bad policy - because anyone can claim whatever they want and abuse it.
First, there's no "actual metric" for who or who is not "Christian" either, but we still craft public policy around the concept (e.g., anti-discrimination laws). So we can cross that off as a valid objection.

Second, again transgender people using the bathroom of their gender....by itself....poses no risk to anyone. You admit this when you focus entirely on non-transgender people exploiting the situation to commit crimes.

So the issue here isn't about transgender people doing anything wrong or inappropriate. Keep that in mind.

Anyone - no matter how they behave or express themselves - could claim to be "atypical" in regards to their gender and demand access to whichever restroom they want based on how they claim to identify.

And from what I know about many who claim to be "non-binary" or "gender fluid" - that could change by the day.

So - unless you can prove that a person is "really" transgender - that we don't just take their word for it - such a policy is ripe for abuse by predators.
And anyone can claim to be a "Christian" and since there's no way to prove that they really are, we just have to take their word for it and grant them the special protections that come with it.

And note again that your issue you keep pointing to isn't about transgender people doing anything wrong or inappropriate. Your worry is 100% about cis-genders doing bad things.

That boy in Loudon County was "gender-fluid" - but he was still able to rape that girl in the restroom.
And there was no trans-friendly bathroom policy in place when that happened. So even the status quo doesn't magically eliminate 100% of risk, does it? Yet we don't eliminate public bathrooms entirely, do we?

I understand that there are places in the world that do not segregate their public restrooms by biology - I don't agree with it - but if that is what you are arguing for - then that is a different discussion altogether - and it would have nothing to do with "transgender" issues - now would it?
And do those places experience higher rates of attacks in bathrooms than we do?

Then why are you bringing up biology?
Because there are biological components to gender.

How do you believe gender and sex coincide?
Honestly, I have no interest in trying to teach a course in the biology of sex and gender. There's no shortage of reading material on the subject out there if you're truly interested.
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
Biology dictates that there are only the two biological sexes and that no mammals (or birds) can change their biological sex.

Biology "dictates" nothing, it observes and draws conclusions from these observations.
For example, some animals exhibit secondary sexual characteristics from both sexes:
Bilateral gynandromorphism also occasionally shows up in northern cardinals. Since male and female cardinals have different coloration, it’s easy to spot a gynandromorph—which has brown-gray "female" feathers on one half and bright red "male" feathers on the other. According to a study, gynandromorph cardinals not only look different, but they also act differently, at least the one researchers observed from 2008 to 2010. During that time, the “half-sider” was never seen vocalizing or mating. On the plus side, other cardinals seemed to accept it: The researchers never witnessed it being mistreated.

11 Animals That Can Change Their Sex
Gynandromorphism - Wikipedia

The idea that there are only two strictly distinguishable sexes is not the result of observation, but religious dictate.
 
Top