I'm disappointed. You really didn't bring your A-game to this one - because everything you offered was emotive - no thoughtful claims or well-reasoned arguments - based on facts.
You began this conversation by claiming that I was a bigot - and you even mentioned a personal story that I had shared with you to make that claim - so it is no wonder that you would decide to end this conversation in the way you did.
No reason. No argument. No facts. Just
ad hominem.
Welp - even if you're gone - I am still going to respond to what you said for the sake of others who may stumble across it.
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.
I can picture it - you sitting with your family - eating and laughing - and then you mention this conversation that you are having online - you share the arguments being used - and then your family tells you that you are wrong - this gave you this "better perspective" - but instead of owning up to it - you decided to flee.
And unfortunately for you - those who flee are juicy targets - so get ready from some pot-shots.
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 understand - it is a waste of time
for you to argument against someone like me - because I'm the someone with facts and well-reasoned arguments.
It is always a waste of time to try and argue against truth and reality - cause you will always lose.
I appreciate you taking the time to reply to my posts in extreme detail, but I honestly see no point to it.
You are welcome - and I understand - there really is no point considering that you are going to continue to believe what you want - despite the facts.
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.
I believe that to be a strange view - you want our society to move further away from facts and reason?
I'm not surprised that you hold that view - but it is still strange - why do so many people seek their own destruction?
So, I'm going to finish here with a few main points and be done.
The guy who flees isn't the one to decide when the fight is over.
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.
Of course you would - you embarrassed yourself here.
You want "another context" - because within this "context" - you are wrong.
You shared all the false narratives and opinions and propaganda - but rather than help your case - they proved you wrong.
And all I had to do was point out all the errors.
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.
I found your reasons for mentioning that she agreed to meet with her attacker lacking.
The only reason - as I see it - is if you were trying to lay some of the blame upon her for what happened.
And look at your reasoning here - you claim that my persistence in perpetuating a supposed "falsehood" (it isn't) "horribly reflects my character".
However you - on the other hand - persist in perpetuating the falsehood that gender means biological sex and that our children should be taught that.
You also claim that restricting restroom and locker room use in public schools by biology leads to children getting sexually assaulted.
These were the only two "sources" you shared - that Jack girl and the "study" - to support your claims.
So - how horrible is the reflection of your own 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).
What do you mean "corrected the record"?
What I said was, "That boy should not have been allowed in the girl's restroom in the first place. He is a predator."
And then you said, "If you're talking about the incident in Loudoun County, are you aware that the victim had previously met the boy in the girls' bathroom and had agreed to meet him there again when the attack occurred? Are you also aware that the school's transgender bathroom policy hadn't even gone into effect yet?"
What "record" needed correcting? I never said that she didn't agree to meet with him.
If you had simply said the latter part - that the policy had not been in effect yet - then that would have been enough.
Why did you need to mention that the victim agreed to meet with her attacker?
The only reason you would have had for mentioning that was if I had somehow disputed that fact - but I didn't.
Therefore the only reason I can see that you mentioned it was to divert blame away from the rapist - or the school - and put it onto the victim.
There is no other reason that I can see.
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.
No - I did not ignore your explanation - I pointed out that it didn't make sense.
Your explanation that your mentioning that she agreed to meet with her attacker somehow proved that this incident had nothing to do with transgender bathroom policies makes no sense.
You could have made that point simply by claiming that the policy wasn't in effect yet.
But no - you blamed the victim - and no amount of trying to "weasel out of it" is going to change that.
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.
My seeing through your BS isn't terrible behavior.
Blaming the victim of rape is terrible behavior and you should be ashamed.
Second, it's apparent by now that you likely don't believe transgenderism is a real thing.
What does this even mean?
I know that there are people out there that believe they are members of the opposing biological sex - or that they at least believe that they should live and be treated as such by society.
I disagree with them.
And that somehow means I don't believe that "transgenderism is a real thing"?
You don't believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God - does that mean that you don't believe that Christianity "is a real thing"?
What does that even mean?
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.
That Ted Talk was an attempt to make all viewers mouthpieces for transgender ideology.
Children are impressionable - which is why our public schools shouldn't be feeding them propaganda.
