Tennessee sees new step in wave of anti-Trans bills

[Fallen Prophet]

You didn't actually answer the question.

I'm pretty sure I did.

You didn't answer my question either ... How do you intend on enforcing this "biological sex in the corresponding biological bathroom" thing? Have guards at the door checking the genitals of everyone coming in? What are people who have young children supposed to do?

I would not change how it is enforced today.

I bet you haven't even realized yet that transgendered people have been sharing washrooms with us for a very long time without you even noticing.

Of course I realize this - but that doesn't mean we should write discriminatory laws and policies - that effectively would allow predators to do as they please.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Why? What specifically do you find so objectionable in it?

I'm glad you asked - but less glad when I realize that providing my answer would require me to watch the video again.

First off - I see this video as no different than any religious proselytization - Jack is trying to convert her audience to her way of thinking.

And - that’s just not appropriate for a public school - for any topic.

We should be teaching observable facts - not opinions - such as - “Christians believe that Jesus was the Son of God.”

Or - “Transgender people identify as the gender opposite their biological sex.”

No teacher should be trying to convince any student that the Christians are right about Jesus or that transgender people are right about their self-identity.

Just educate - don’t indoctrinate.

Now onto the video -

Jack assuming that everyone there was dumb and uninformed at the start was irritating - not inherently wrong - but she made it seem like people only act that way or ask those kinds of questions of transgender people.

When my coworkers found out what religion I was - they all had a bunch of questions for me - most were the usual - but many were crazy and even inappropriate - but I addressed them as best I could.

So - it's not only transgender people who get that kind of treatment - anyone not considered "typical" are going to get it - that's life and there is nothing wrong with it.

People being curious is a good thing - isn't it?

Again - I don't believe that Jack is wrong for saying this stuff - but do our kids in public school need to hear about it?

I mean - all throughout my school days I was never forced to watch a video of a Christian pastor going over awkward questions that Christians might get and instruction on how best to handle them.

And that is because that video would have been inappropriate. We aren't sending our children to public school to become Christian apologists or scholars.

We aren't sending our children to public school to become transgender activists.

They should leave school knowing the basics of what Christians and transgender people believe - but we shouldn't have activists or pastors coming to school to talk to them - either in a video or in person.

Even motivational speakers are on thin ice - those people are annoying - I hated when they came.

And Jack talking about the current public restroom debate and asking how transgender people have sex - nothing our children need to be focusing on in our public schools.

I'm not against our children learning about how our government is set up and the political issues of our past - but keep current issues off the table - those have not been decided yet - and if they know enough about the systems in place and past issues - they can make their own determination.

And 8th-graders who just learned about the reproductive system and how to put condoms on bananas and such don't need to know intricacies of "atypical" sexual behavior and activity.

We shouldn't have speakers at public schools talking or even hinting about their sex life.

Honestly - none of the things I have mentioned so far are what caused my concern - yes I think they are inappropriate - but I had a couple teachers from time to time say things that smudged the line a little bit.

Yet - Jack got into the stuff I take issue with pretty early on -

At 1:04 - “Of course, that's the problem with being trans, right? People are pretty much always wondering how we have sex and what kind of equipment we're working with below the belt.”

I don’t want my children learning these “tricks of the trade” victim mentality - claiming that the “problems” she has for being herself is everyone else.

My children don’t bear any guilt if she has a problem with her life choices.

At 1:13 - "Being trans is awkward. And not just because the gender I was assigned at birth mismatches the one I really am."

This is a flat out lie.

No "gender" was assigned to Jack at birth - but rather her biology was observed - proving that she is - and will forever be - a female.

A not so subtle attempt to equate "gender" with biological sex - or rather - to replace biological sex with "gender".

Because - if they can somehow nudge that pesky biology out of the way - which continuously disproves their assertions - then they can make any claims they want about "gender" and rewrite all the "science books".

Transgender ideology aside - "gender" is not biological sex - what she said was not true - and that idea should not be given to 8th graders as if it were fact.

Immediately after that lie Jack said - at 1:20 - "Being trans is awkward because everyone else gets awkward around me."

Again - I understand that blaming everyone else for your own problems is a "goldie oldie" used by all groups of people at one time or another - but it shouldn't be peddled to our children in public school.

They are not in school to have any supposed "collective guilt" heaped on them.

They are children - they don't bear the sins of their parents - real or imagined.

There should be no activists at our public schools.

At 1:24 - "People who support me and all other trans people wholeheartedly are often so scared to say the wrong thing, so embarrassed to not know what they think they should, that they never ask.”

Didn’t Jack spend the first minute of the talk complaining that people were dumb for asking her questions?

It’s like - no matter what - ask or don’t ask - everyone is at fault for her problems - her awkwardness.

Anyways - a mixed message for the children - they are damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

Part 1 of 2

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Why? What specifically do you find so objectionable in it?

At 1:35 - “Part of what was so nerve-racking about coming out as transgender was knowing that people wouldn't know what I meant. And when someone comes out as gay, people know what that means, but when you come out as trans, you have to face the misconceptions that will color other people's impressions of you even after you've educated them ... And you will have to educate them.”

Well - technically - when I think about the completely subjective definition of “transgenderism” that you shared and the fact that people who ask questions get flamed as stupid - is there any wonder?

Of course people aren’t going to know what being transgender means if it is an “umbrella term” that covers all “atypical” people.

And notice the part at the end - about "education".

Jack said that people continue to have misconceptions even “after you’ve educated them… And you will have to educate them.”

When she said that - with that look on her face - I heard “indoctrinate” - not “educate”.

Transgender people may need to “inform” their peers - but they shouldn’t be “educating” or “indoctrinating” our children about their beliefs at public schools.

Just like how pastors shouldn’t be “educating” or "indoctrinating" our children at public schools.

At 2:23 - "When I came out to my dad, to my great relief, he was totally cool with me being trans, but as soon as I started talking about physically transitioning, he freaked. And I quickly realized it was because he, like so many other people, think that physical transition means just one thing: the surgery.”

I understand that this is Jack’s lived experience - but I don’t want my children getting the message that they shouldn’t be open and honest with me about these kinds of things - because I might “freak”.

Granted - what Jack says about the transitioning process is information that children should learn about - along with how babies form in the womb - you know - sex ed stuff.

I wouldn’t be surprised if most people - not just children - believe that transitioning is something that is done over the weekend.

Remember that episode of Family Guy when Quagmire’s dad transitions?

There were no hormones or recovery or anything - it was bizarre.

However - learning the process should not include any claims that biological sex can be changed or anything like that.

And there should most definitely be no implication that they should not be comfortable talking to their parents about these kinds of things.

At 3:45 - “There's no distinct point in physical transition at which a trans person becomes their true gender.”

Another subtle claim that gender = biological sex.

It’s just not true - and our children should only be taught facts at public school.

At 3:51 - “As soon as they tell you their new name and pronouns, that's when you start using them. It can be difficult to make the change. You might slip up here and there; I've slipped up myself with other trans people. But I always think to myself, if we can change from calling Puff Daddy to P. Diddy, and if we apologize profusely when we've used the wrong gender pronoun for someone's pet cat -- I mean, I think we can make the same effort for the real humans in our lives.”

Pure indoctrination.

The only person who decides which pronoun to use is the individual.

She can’t force me to use her pronoun - and she can’t tell my kid what to say either.

And who are the “real humans”? Is Puff Daddy not a “real human”?

At 4:17 - “Now, there is no topic that makes other people more awkward about trans people than public bathrooms. Ah, the bathrooms -- the latest political flash point for LGBT opponents. Here's a fun fact about bathrooms: more US congressmen have been convicted of assaulting someone in a public bathroom than trans people have been.”

WTF?

Not only is she talking about current politics again - but now she is talking about our Representatives raping people?

Why do our children need to see this at all - let alone at their public school?

At 4:40 - “The truth is we trans people are so much more scared of you than you are of us. It's a huge point of discussion in trans communities about which bathroom to start using and when, so we don't attract attention that could lead to violence against us. I personally started using the men's room when I started getting confused and frightened looks in the women's room, even though I was petrified to start going into the men's room. And often we opt to just not go to the bathroom at all. A 2015 national survey of trans people found that eight percent of us had had a urinary tract infection in the past year as a result of avoiding restrooms. These bathroom bills aren't protecting anyone. All they're doing is ensuring that when trans people are assaulted in bathrooms, the law will no longer be on our side when we report it.”

Setting aside the fact that anyone could abuse these policies - and Jack didn't even mention that - did you notice how Jack totally contradicted herself?

She claimed that transgender people are assaulted when they use the restroom that matches their biology - however - at the end of this bit she said, “These bathroom bills aren't protecting anyone. All they're doing is ensuring that when trans people are assaulted in bathrooms, the law will no longer be on our side when we report it.”

How does that make sense?

If the bill tells transgender people to use the restroom that matches their biology - and they abide by it - therefore committing no crime - why then would the law not be on their side when they report being assaulted in said restroom?

The bills make it so that they could be charged if they use the restroom of the opposing biological sex - not the one that the bill is advocating they use.

It makes no sense - and it is not a topic of discussion our 8th graders need to be weighing in on.

The only reason this topic would be brought up in a public classroom is if someone is trying to convert someone - someone is being an activist - not a teacher.

At 5:25 - “Being trans means a daily onslaught of these misconceptions. And I have it pretty easy. I am a white, able-bodied guy sitting nearly at the peak of privilege mountain.”

And to top it all off - white privilege - let’s get some CRT in here - right?

No. It is completely inappropriate and racist.

I just don’t believe this obvious transgender activism - pushing what is equivalent to a religious ideology - should be in our public schools.

And at the end she said, "So I've given you a starter pack of trans knowledge that I hope will lead to more learning on your own. Talk to trans people. Listen to us. Amplify our voices. Take the heat off of us and educate those around you so we don't have to every time. Maybe someday, when I say, "Hi, I'm Jack, and I'm transgender," the only response I'll get is, "Hi, nice to meet you."

If a teacher showed this video to their students - they just tried to "deputize" their students to go out and be the mouthpieces for transgender activists.

Would you be comfortable with a Christian video being viewed at a public school that told all the students to go out and testify of Christ?

And to end I will play some ad-lib with something Jack said,

"Being [non-trans] means a daily onslaught of these [indoctrinations]."

Part 2 of 2

 

[Jose Fly]

@Fallen Prophet ,

It's amazing how a few days away from the internet and RF and spending time with family and enjoying the holiday, puts things in better perspective. In sum, I've decided that trying to debate transgenderism and associated public policies with someone like you simply isn't worth my time. I appreciate you taking the time to reply to my posts in extreme detail, but I honestly see no point to it. IMO, you have some very odd views on things (and not just with transgenders) and I hope they remain, and increasingly become, outlier positions as we move forward as a country.

So, I'm going to finish here with a few main points and be done. I'm sure if the topic comes up again in another context or with someone else, I'll probably weigh in, but not with you in this thread.

First, I'll note how you persist in the falsehood that I "blamed the girl for her attack" and how horribly that reflects on you and your character. When we first began discussing that tragedy, I merely corrected the record by posting the facts of the case (as evident by the court docs). You subsequently accused me of "blaming the victim". At that time, I was willing to assume that maybe you misunderstood what I posted and/or why I posted it, so I tried to explain in the hopes that you would understand. But in your latest series of posts you simply ignored my explanation and repeated your false accusation.

To be clear, that's terrible behavior on your part, especially given the subject matter. It was one thing when you first posted the accusation....maybe you just misunderstood. But to repeat it even after I clearly told you that wasn't my intent at all? That's disgusting and you should be ashamed.

Second, it's apparent by now that you likely don't believe transgenderism is a real thing. That's evident in your latest posts about the Ted Talk video, such as when you say "No teacher should be trying to convince any student that the Christians are right about Jesus or that transgender people are right about their self-identity". That's what I'd figured earlier when I said this was likely more simple than I'd thought....a lot of what's going on here is rooted in that. So I'll just point out that by taking that stance, by asserting that transgender people are wrong about their gender, identity, and feelings, you're effectively saying that you know more about them and how they feel than they do. FYI, that sort of thing is a common tactic in dehumanizing groups of people and is a stereotypical characteristic of bigotry. I'll also finish this point by showing you this: Stop Using Phony Science to Justify Transphobia - Scientific American Blog Network

Finally, I believe your views on transgenders and bathroom policies provide further evidence of bigotry on your part. As I explained earlier, trans people have always been using bathrooms that match their gender. I'm not sure what you believe a trans person thinks and does before they go out into public, but I'm fully confident that they're just like everyone else....aware of how they present themselves. So a trans woman who presents as a woman will use the women's bathroom, and likewise a trans man who presents as a man will use the men's bathroom. Why? Because, as I showed you, the data indicates that if they did otherwise (i.e., used bathrooms opposite of their gender) they are significantly more likely to be violently attacked.

And that brings me to the main point. I showed you the data indicating that laws forcing trans people to use bathrooms opposite of their gender puts them at real, significant risk of violent attack, and you basically blew it off while continuing to focus heavily on the hypothetical risk of "predators lurking in bathrooms". Further, as I noted earlier, other countries and locations in the US have had trans-friendly bathroom policies in place for some time now, and there's no evidence of a resulting increase in attacks from "predators lurking in bathrooms".

So, we know forcing trans folks to use bathrooms opposite of their gender = more violence against transgenders.

Meanwhile, we see no evidence that allowing trans folks to use the bathrooms of their gender = more "predators lurking in bathrooms".

Nevertheless, you continue to advocate for forcing trans people to use bathrooms opposite of their gender. I think you know what the obvious conclusion there is......you're perfectly willing to have trans people put themselves at significantly greater risk of violence, just so you can feel safer from an imaginary threat. IOW, as hyper-focused on safety as you come across (non co-ed schools, bats need to be locked up) when it comes to the safety of trans people, you simply don't care.

So if you ever wonder why people conclude the worst about you....that's why.

Thanks for your time and I truly hope you find a way to be more compassionate and understanding.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If someone of the opposite biological sex is uncomfortable with you being in the restroom with them and you refuse to leave or some other criminal activity ensues - authorities may be contacted - and if they arrive you will be required to present some form of identification to them.

"Other criminal activity?" Whatever. It's not illegal for me to use the women's restroom. How about actually researching these issues before spewing very obvious ignorance and hate from your fingers?

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Ya know, they tried to use biology in arguing the proper place of the negro is servitude.

Yes - they were the equivalent of you and others who push the transgender agenda.

They made claims and offered theories about biology - and the Bible - in order to push a political narrative for personal gain.

Other than being racist - they were just plain wrong about both biology and the Bible.

They had no evidence that substantiated their claims and theories - just like you.

Now - did you bring this up to intentionally make yourself look dumb?

Or were you trying to analogize transgender people with slaves?

Either way - it made you look bad - and wasted everyone's time.

What risk? You didn't answer that.

I have answered this question umpteen times.

Predators will use these kinds of policies to take advantage and prey upon the vulnerable.

Just like what happened in Loudon County - but only worse - because these predators will legally be allowed to be in those restrooms.

Have you not been paying attention?

Mammals aren't the only ones who reproduce.

.....okay?

Sexual reproduction is not the only method of reproduction.

Very few creatures on Earth reproduce asexually - and none of them are mammals.

Human beings are mammals.

That means there must be others than male and female if that's not the only way it's done.

As I stated previously - there some some creatures that produce asexually - and even some hermaphrodites - but none of them are mammals.

Human beings are mammals.

In fact, sexual reproduction came after asexual reproduction. Meaning the first ones were sexless.

And blacks used to be slaves. What is your point?

Human beings are mammals - and mammals have only two biological sexes.

"It" is this argument you dragged children into so you can use them as a shield.

But my argument is about children. They weren't "dragged" here - they were always here.

Children care less about this than adults. They can just go on with their day while the adults get obsessed and become toxic towards others.

Yes, Pot - this is true - children could care less about the imagined plight of transgender people and what bathrooms they use.

You'be been given evidence and sources throughout this thread.

No - I have been given links to articles that don't prove the claims being made or a 120-page guide that you threw at me.

Whenever your claims and sources are scrutinized - they fall flat on their face when compared to biology.

Amd I've never heard anyone outside of those preaching about boogeymen to go on about transgenderism or some trans ideology.

Sounds like you live in an echo chamber.

How many times do you want to be shown wrong?

Once would be nice.

And it's only your fault if you haven't seen the many links provided to you. You put your own blinders on and won't remove them.

It is your blinders that stop you from seeing that your links don't support your claims.

It's well settled and solid that trans people have a brain more like the gender of their identity than their birth sex.

You have yet to offer any proof of this.

And even if it were true - so what? - that doesn't prove that there are more than two biological sexes or that a man can become a woman.

You say biology is clear and cut. Then what happened when someone is born with XY chromosomes but a female body, appearance, and identity? That Y chromosome usually isn't found until she's very late having her first period.

What happened is a female was born with a genetic condition that was not discernible until puberty.

A guy who is born with two penises (read a book about a guy who had that) isn't a "Double Guy" or a "Super Man" - he is just a male with an abnormality.

All the conditions, defects, abnormalities. mutations, etc. don't create new biological sexes or cause people to change their sex - this isn't X-Men.

That makes more sense and is how much of the world does it.

About a third of the world doesn't even have access to toilets - so I don't know about your "most of the world" claim.

And that wouldn't even matter if it were true.

But you stated earlier you believe it shouldn't be that way.

Correct - proving that my stance on this issue has nothing to do with transgender people.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

I don't think you'd want it because then it becomes very apparent how wrong you are when people use coed restrooms and nothing happens.

Then we agree - you should push for the desegregation of public restrooms by biology - no more talk about transgender people out of you in regards to this topic.

I've never met anyone trying to say biology doesn't exist.

That's weird - because you have done it many times in this thread.

Remember your list of animals? Trying to claim that them looking and acting more like the opposite sex meant they had somehow - magically - changed their sex?

The replacement of "biological sex" with "gender" is a very subtle way of trying to convince the world that biology no longer exists.

I especially remember the hyenas - your link claimed that the females had penises - but then immediately afterward clarified by stating that they were actually elongated clitorises - so not penises at all.

A lot of "word play" in your sources - because they are peddling falsehoods - and if people didn't read the whole thing they would believe that female hyenas have actual penises - but they don't.

Even in that video supplied by @Jose Fly - a woman named Jack made similar claims - that doctors had "assigned a gender" to her at birth and that transitioning made her more like her desired "gender".

She used "gender" when she was referring to "biological sex" - and she was wrong both times.

Doctors don't "assign" biological sex - they observe it at birth - and transitioning may help someone "appear" or "feel" more like their desired biological sex - but it does not make them one.

I peddle nothing.

You shared an article with me about the hen Gertie - the one that started to look and act more like a rooster - but the article literally said that she was not a rooster.

That was you peddling transgender ideology - claiming that appearance and behavior is what defines our biological sexes - but they don't.

I repeat what science and medicine have found.

You repeat the opinion and theories of "scientists" (more accurate to claim they are activists) - not actual evidence.

In the field we call this "evidence based."

Your "evidence" often disproves the claims that you are making.

You keep 'nading yourself.

What's funny is you seem to think sexual reproduction and female/male is it.

What?

If a species doesn't sexually reproduce it doesn't have female and male like mammals would have.

So?

Do you know how we came to know about how these other species reproduce? Biology.

The same biology that has proven that mammals have only the two biological sexes and that a male cannot become a female.

You are claiming you are entitled to know if I'm trans or not by your statement we should talk openly about it. A lot of us don't. We'd rather just try and go about living our life than broadcast our business to the world.
You have no privileges or rights to tell us we should openly talk about it.
You can mind your own business.

Yeah - none of this happened - you are just making stuff up.

I corrected you in the last post - but you either didn't read it or you didn't care.

That's the same approach you use when selecting your "evidence".

You don't read it - and you don't really care what it says - because you have your own "version" of reality - and nothing else matters.

And then you get a woman who is androgynous insensitive and end up needlessly embarrassing someone and with a well-deserved amd earned lawsuit against you on your hands.

What?

Except it's true. See a racist doing something racist amd there's a fair chance this person will deny being racist and maybe even point out having a black friend or two.

You cannot claim that someone is racist without evidence.

I have never claimed that I hate transgender people - yet you claimed that I did and then compared me to a racist - and when I denied your baseless accusation - you then claimed that racists rarely admit that they are racist.

So - your logic is I hate transgender people simply because you said so - and nothing I can do can ever prove otherwise.

My disagreeing with transgender ideology is not evidence that I hate anyone.

You are peddling a very evil doctrine when you claim that no one can disagree without being a bigot - and there is nothing they can do about it.

You basically set yourself up as the "Ministry of Truth".

Why do you ignore what is provided?

I don't - what you provide just does not prove what you claim.

Just like when the Church was embarrassed over putting Galileo on house arrest, the Church will again be embarrassed for clinging onto dated superstition and be so absurdly ridiculous about it they are again claiming the object of observation (the crystal in Galileo's place) is wrong and messed up for not confirming ancient superstitions.

The Church should be embarrassed - because there was evidence that backed up Galileo's claims - and none for theirs.

You should be embarrassed - because you are acting no different than the Church.

Of course. You don't like it, so it's political and died.

Science needs to stay neutral - once it is being used as a political tool - it is not science anymore.

Except we are having fewer conflicts.

I suppose that depends on what you consider a "conflict".

I would consider people arguing against biology and all human history to be a "conflict'.

Those radical Muslims, however, full of belief and zeal. They're making a lot of problems for the Middle East the way the Vatican, Inquisitors,Conquistadors, and other Euro godly types made things bad for others.

I'm grateful for all those Muslims and Christians - because of them civilization - and all its benefits - eventually spread across the globe.

Their religions were huge motivators for expanding civilization.

Did you know that before the Spanish arrived in the New World - the ancient Amerindians didn't have the wheel or pack animals?

We really seem better off without.

Agree to disagree - I believe we are getting dumber.

A hen becoming a rooster isn't an example of that?

PWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Are you serious?! Do you not read your own sources? Or my posts?

I literally quoted from your own source to destroy your claim. It said,

"The hen does not completely change into a rooster, however. This transition is limited to making the bird phenotypically male, meaning that although the hen will develop physical characteristics that will make her look male, she will remain genetically female. So while the hen will no longer lay eggs, she won't be fathering any offspring, either."

Gertie did not become a rooster.

Thank you for proving me right - yet again - about you supplying sources that don't support your claims.

That was funny. Thank you.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

As I pointed out earlier, my great aunt flew supply planes during World War Freaking Two.

Correct me if I'm wrong - but I believe you are referring to the Women's Airforce Service Pilots (WASP) - who were civilian pilots - not military.

They freed up jobs so male pilots could be out fighting.

Nobody is lowering any standards for women to serve in the military.

The United States did. They literally lowered the PT standards for women.

The military was not "physically weaker" for it either.

Yes - they literally are.

In fact, they were stronger because they had more qualified people doing jobs that needed to be done to win the war.

I honestly believe that the WASP was great - it really helped the war effort - and I believe that women can - and should - fulfill those types of supporting roles.

However - I do not believe that women belong on the front lines - because - generally speaking - they do not possess as much strength, speed and endurance as men.

Whoa, whoa.

That poster said to you, "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."

And your response to that is (well, the first half since you cut out the second half), "So - what you are saying is - women and transgender individuals shouldn't be in the military?"

I did not "cut out the second half" - I addressed the second half separately - yet it follows immediately after my response to the first half.

If you read my entire post you would have seen that.

Are you saying that woman and transgender individuals are not mentally sound and physically able?
Have I misunderstood?

What was said was, "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."

I said in response, "So - what you are saying is - women and transgender individuals shouldn't be in the military?"

I do not believe that women - in general - are physically able to "do the job" - which is why the standards were lowered to accommodate them.

I also do not believe that transgender people - depending on what stage of transition they are in - are mentally sound or physically able to serve.

Men and women with hormonal imbalances can have all kinds of adverse conditions and effects - which would affect their combat readiness.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Very few creatures on Earth reproduce asexually

The bulk and vast majority of living organisms reproduce asexually.
Amd you want to try to say we are wrong.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

However - I do not believe that women belong on the front lines - because - generally speaking - they do not possess as much strength, speed and endurance as men.

Kurdish women kicked ISIS *** on the front lines. The Apache had an all female warrior band who kicked English ***. Amd are you going to tell a Norse shieldmaiden she can't be a warrior?
Try again.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

So are you a lummox or troll? Your reasoning doesn't seem to advance beyond that.

Neither - I am continuing to refer to a running joke that I started in this thread.

In Post #294 @Jose Fly made the following comment, "Of course you do. It's part of the bigger picture."

He was intimating that I was a bigot or had some issues with transgender people by alluding to some unspoken "bigger picture".

This led me to say in response in Post #301, "Ooh. Did you take the Psych 101 class too?"

I was mocking his attempt to psychoanalyze me.

This comment caused you to butt into our conversation in Post #303 by saying, "Have you been a licensed behavioral health clinician too?"

I said in response in Post #313, "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?"

I said this to mock both you and your profession - because all I had mentioned up until this point was the the one class - Psych 101 - and I only did so to mock - not to make any claim to authority.

I never mentioned any other classes or degrees - but you asked your question as if I had - and you asked your question in order to butt-in with your argument from authority.

It was clear that you were going to start claiming that I should start agreeing with you because of your profession.

In Post #314 you responded by saying, "I have an actual degree in it and was recognized in the state of Indiana as a behavioral health professional."

You saying this confirmed my suspicion that you were indeed trying to argue from a position of authority - which made my mocking you and your profession even more funny.

However - you still had not yet acknowledged my joke about it taking only one class to be qualified for your position.

That is why I asked in Post #344, "Did you get that degree after only the one class?"

And now here we are - me still running with the same joke - and you still not getting that I am making fun of you.

So - no - I am not a lummox or a troll - just a guy with a good memory and bad dad jokes.

As I said, the state of Indiana did recognize me as a mental health professional.

That's great - go Hoosiers! - how are you liking the cold?

Nope. It just seems very poor reading comprehension is involved, such as with this fine example:

No - I was claiming that what you said - which was that the military wanted people who were both "mentally sound and physically able to serve their country"- was you admitting that women and transgender people should not be in the military.

A little tongue in cheek - but I stand by it.

The military should be comprised of our best - our most capable - and I believe that having lower physical abilities and adverse effects from hormonal imbalances tend to depreciate women and transgender people - in terms of frontline combat readiness.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Woman. Male. Obvious.

Can you define both "woman" and "male" for me?

 

[Fallen Prophet]

What do your eyes tell you?

My eyes tell me that they are not always verifiable, consistent and useful tools - because they are often deceived.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

I guess I have to ask again @Fallen Prophet, how are you intending to enforce this "biological" bathroom thing? Should we have guards at the doors checking genitals?

Patience is a virtue.

And that's better than just letting people pee where they feel comfortable ... how?

Someone else may not feel comfortable with them peeing there.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

The above has to be about the dumbest conversation I've ever run across here at RF, as my repeated question is "Who's going to check out the 'equipment' of whom comes into a bathroom?".

But I guess if it's on Fox it must be so terribly important-- earthshaking I tell ya! So, of all the serious problems going on in today's world, I'm supposed to fret over whom walks into a given bathroom? Spare me.

No - we aren't supposed to fret - which is why public restroom use should be determined by our biology. No guess work. No fretting.

 

[metis]

As I have said numerous times - we should not throw our the law just because there are some who are capable of "passing off" as the opposite sex.

If a law is basically unenforceable, then why have it in the first place. The reality is that it's just right-wing culture-wars propaganda since the Pubs have nothing to offer more than just saying "no!" to anything that the Dems propose, even if the Pubs first had originally proposed it. They did exactly the same when Obama was president.

IOW, they're just "playing" their low-information base in order to keep them in line.

 

[metis]

No - we aren't supposed to fret - which is why public restroom use should be determined by our biology. No guess work. No fretting.

You've already shown numerous times that you do not understand nor accept the "biology" even after it's been explained. You're operating out of politics, not science on this, plus you're not making even one iota of any logical sense.

 

[Lain]

Can you define both "woman" and "male" for me?

A male is someone who has a body oriented toward active generation, a woman is either someone who calls themselves that (I call this title gender, it's as meaningful as a nickname) or is living out that social role.

 

[SkepticThinker]

In the United States the majority of States have outlawed men from using the women's restroom and vice versa.

It’s only been in very recent years that bills have been proposed that could make it illegal for people to use washrooms that don’t match their biological sex. It’s the new hysteria among Republicans in their little culture war. Nobody ever says how they’re going to enforce it though, including you. Should we be checking everyone’s genitals as they enter washrooms?

I live in Canada. Just yesterday I was in a bar where they had “gender-neutral” washrooms that everybody could use. And in fact, as I was entering, a man was coming out of a stall. When I was in England about 20 years ago, they had unisex change rooms.

It all depends on what was done - who was there when it was done - and if they felt inclined to press charges.

For example - if you had entered the men's public restroom and there was a man in there who did not want you there and asked you to leave - depending on what you do at that moment may lead to you being arrested for various crimes.

That sounds pretty ridiculous to me, if all I’m doing is using the rest room. Do you think I should have been arrested for peeing in a stall, washing my hands and leaving? If so, why?

Children are not men or women - for a man is a male adult and a woman is a female adult.

Children have the same genitals as adults. You’ve made this about genitals – not me.

Therefore - if a man needs to take either a male or female child to the restroom - he should take them into the men's restroom with him.

Likewise - if a woman needs to take either a male or female child to the restroom - she should take them into the women's restroom with her.

Hmm, so what if he has a little girl and needs to change her diaper? Should he still go in the men’s room? Doesn’t your beef with this have to do with having the “right” genitals?

Because - in most States - the adult male (man) is not allowed in the women's restroom and the adult female (woman) is not allowed in the men's restrooms.

Who is enforcing this stuff? I don’t see any cops at the door when I go to the washroom.

I mean, as I’ve said, I’ve used the men’s room many times in my life. And guess what? Nobody cared. Nobody called the cops. Nobody checked my genitals. They just carried on living. As they should. And as I’ve also pointed out before, transgendered people have been using the washroom they identify with all this time before we started making these ridiculous laws that ban them. And as other posters have pointed out to you, the people that are at the highest risk of being assaulted in public washrooms are transgendered people by “straight” people and not the other way around. So what’s with all the fake hysteria? Should we really fill up prisons with people using the “wrong” washroom?

I would advise against that.

Good, so would I.

It is generally up to the parent to decide at what age they would allow their child to use a public restroom alone - but I would advise never letting them go alone - because there have been cases of even teenagers being molested or raped in public restrooms.

Parents should think ahead and do whatever they can to keep their children safe.

Do you have any examples of this that lead you to believe this is a big problem?

I would advise against the first and encourage the latter.

As you said - you are woman - which I assume means that you are a female adult - therefore you should not be entering the men's restroom.

Well, I have entered the men’s room on many occasions. Once, by accident.

No - not every crime or infraction results in arrest.

Okay, great.

Typically - those who are in the restroom at the time are those who contact authorities.

No - think of it as littering - the charges can only be brought against you if someone witnesses you doing it and decides to contact authorities.

So then what? The authorities show up and they check the person’s genitals?

What if somebody calls the cops on a woman who just looks manly or a man who is dressed in feminine fashion? Are the cops going to pull their pants down and double check for penises and vaginas? See why this is silly yet?

This is most likely because such an action - a man dressing up like a woman in order to enter the women's restroom - would result in the severe punishment of that man.

They would? What laws are those?

The enforcement of law typically deters men from committing these types of actions.

You really think so?

However - if we remove that barrier designed to help mitigate risk - then that incentivizes men who have a desire to enter women's restrooms to do so.

There really is no “barrier,” at least, until recent years with these ridiculous anti-trans bills popping up in Republican states.

You really think a law like that is going to stop a would-be rapist? There are laws against rape in general, and I was raped when I was a young girl in my friend’s home. Laws didn’t stop that guy from doing what he did.

The policies being discussed about allowing men to use the women's restrooms are ripe for abuse.

Men have had many, many years to do this and yet it’s just not a big problem. So you think all of a sudden this is going to open the door to mass public bathroom rapes?

And I encourage you - because I care - that if you see a man enter the women's restroom with you - be on your guard.

Thank you for your concern, but I was in a gender neutral bathroom with a man just yesterday. He was perfectly pleasant, as was I.

You never know.

Tell that to the men, women and children who have been raped in public restrooms.

I was raped in my friend’s house by her brother. Rape laws already in place didn’t stop him from doing that to me.

Are you saying that bathroom rapes committed by people dressed in clothing that is typically worn by the opposite sex are a huge problem in the US? How many have there been?

And why do you refuse to acknowledge that historically it’s been transgendered people who are at the greatest risk in public washrooms?

I'm sure there are - so what?

If you don't care about this subject - stop discussing it with me.

It's that simple.

Because you’re making it out to be a giant problem when that doesn’t appear to be the case. And in fact, the people at the greatest risk are actually transgendered people. That’s why I’m questioning your claims.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No - it doesn't.

Sure it does.

I had a friend growing up who was born with two thumbs on his right hand - he had one removed as a baby - and he had a scar on his hand ever since.

Does this mean that it is "inaccurate" to claim that human beings have two thumbs?

That would be a birth defect.

It’s an actual condition called “polydactylyism” that runs in families.

It wouldn’t be inaccurate to point out that there is a genetic condition that some humans suffer from where they are born with extra fingers or toes.

Exceptions and outliers do not disprove the rule. That would be ridiculous.

What “exceptions” and “outliers” mean when it comes to sexuality, is that sex isn’t this binary thing that you’re trying to make it to be.

Intersex individuals are not both male and female. They are not some third biological sex either.

They are either a male or a female with a genetic condition.

Here’s a great example of what I was pointing out above. Thanks!

Intersex is a blanket term used to describe a variety of conditions where an individual is born with reproductive/sexual anatomy that doesn’t fit the “normal” definition of male or female. Like, a person can be born with the outward appearance of a female but with “male-typical” anatomy on the inside.

Here’s a great example:

“A 46-year-old pregnant woman had visited his clinic at the Royal Melbourne Hospital in Australia to hear the results of an amniocentesis test to screen her baby's chromosomes for abnormalities. The baby was fine—but follow-up tests had revealed something astonishing about the mother. Her body was built of cells from two individuals, probably from twin embryos that had merged in her own mother's womb. And there was more. One set of cells carried two X chromosomes, the complement that typically makes a person female; the other had an X and a Y. Halfway through her fifth decade and pregnant with her third child, the woman learned for the first time that a large part of her body was chromosomally male. “That's kind of science-fiction material for someone who just came in for an amniocentesis,” says James.

Sex can be much more complicated than it at first seems. According to the simple scenario, the presence or absence of a Y chromosome is what counts: with it, you are male, and without it, you are female. But doctors have long known that some people straddle the boundary—their sex chromosomes say one thing, but their gonads (ovaries or testes) or sexual anatomy say another. Parents of children with these kinds of conditions—known as intersex conditions, or differences or disorders of sex development (DSDs)—often face difficult decisions about whether to bring up their child as a boy or a girl. Some researchers now say that as many as 1 person in 100 has some form of DSD.”

So is this person a biological male, or a biological female?

See how it’s not as binary as you’d like it to be?

Sex Redefined: The Idea of 2 Sexes Is Overly Simplistic

You are referring to gynandromorphism - which is similar to intersex among human beings.

These cardinals are not both male and female - they are either a male displaying female characteristics or a female displaying male characteristics.

There are natural hermaphrodites in nature - but mammals and birds are not among the species that can become such.

Thanks for another great example of how sex isn’t binary, as you are presenting it.

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

It doesn’t though, and you’ve just provided at least 2 examples demonstrating that.

We should always care when truth is being supplanted by falsehood.

While I can’t disagree with the sentiment, I don’t see that happening here.

Men and women cannot change their biological sex - therefore - a man cannot claim to be a woman and a woman a man.

They can change their gender all they like. So yes, a woman can claim that she feels like a man and a man can claim that he feels like a woman and both should be acceptable to you, given that you accept the existence of intersex individuals.

If they cannot claim to be a member of the opposite biological sex - they cannot claim any right to use the public restroom of the opposite biological sex.

They’re just toilets, man!

Do you think a person who has fully transitioned should be able to use the washroom of the gender they identify with? Why or why not?

I admit - the concept of gender as is being peddled today is very complex - because most of it is falsehood.

I’d say it’s a more accurate and nuanced view than it used to be, as we’ve learned more information about human sexuality and gender.

Sex - however - is very simple. Only a very small fraction of human beings have been born intersex or have a condition that requires further scrutiny to determine their biological sex.

It’s actually not that simple though, as this entire thread demonstrates very clearly.

Either way - every single human being has always fallen into one of two categories - male and female.

Oh and then there are intersex individuals. Oops. Not so simple.

There are only two sexes. There are only two genders.

You can keep repeating that about sex if you want but you’d be peddling inaccurate information which you said above that you don’t like.

Gender is a social construct.