Ignoring gender?

[edporch]

Where does one person's rights end and another's begin? Why do the rights of a biologically male individual who identifies as female supersede the rights of a female who does not wish to be forced to use a mixed gender restroom? I feel sorry for people whose identity does not match their biological gender. I just wonder why the rights of the minority always seem to be more important than the rights of the majority. I don't want anyone to have to be forced into uncomfortable situations. What's the answer?

The line between my rights and another person's rights is that I, just like the other person, have the right to decide not to associate with somebody based on their behavior and/or lifestyle.

When it comes to the use of facilities that people will be in various stages of undress, the facility you use should be the one that matches your "plumbing".
(i.e. when everybody is undressed, nobody sees any gender related physical differences between them)

I too feel sorry for people who suffer from any kind of delusion, and would like to see them get help with recognizing reality.
"Help" doesn't mean the rest of us are supposed to make believe somebody's delusion is reality.

If a man puts on women's clothes, he's simply a man in women's clothes, no matter how much he has his body medically mutilated or changes his name.
I won't make believe he's a she.

 

[17 squirrel]

I appreciate the more thoughtful and constructive comments later in this thread, no matter what "side" they are coming from.

I get the idea of protecting girls from the males, but for a child or adult who truly is a "girl in a boy's body", the male part is, at best, an inconvenience, and at worst, a thing to be hidden and despised. It is no threat to the other girls. Then I suppose the issue becomes sorting out the imposters. I honestly can't see a boy pretending to be a girl just so he can score with a girl scout.

. let me guess, you don't have any children do you ?

 

[Snapdragon]

That's what some people do when you catch them telling a fib.

If you are attempting to accuse me of fibbing, please clarify.

 

[17 squirrel]

Quote Originally Posted by Snapdragon View Post
I did not advise lifestyles. I advised people.

And to answer your question, yes. Did I stutter

I think he makes a valid point. Your safezones likely wouldn't exist if not for the desire to make LGBT individuals feel comfortable, and it is not coincidental that the LGBT advisor became the coordinator of the safezone.... suggesting otherwise is disingenuous.

Then my responce,

That's what some people do when you catch them telling a fib.

Then back up that strait folks were more than welcome you seek help and information where you gave support to the lgbtq community. Because I sure can't find any other safe place on any college campus that advertises the strait folk are invited. Some invite straits to come there and ask questions about the lgbtq community and that's about it.
Personally I believe that you are fibbing.. But that's JMHO and nothing more.
Its not a attack and its not personal. I just don't believe it.

 

[Snapdragon]

Quote Originally Posted by Snapdragon View Post
I did not advise lifestyles. I advised people.

And to answer your question, yes. Did I stutter





Then my responce,

That's what some people do when you catch them telling a fib.

Then back up that strait folks were more than welcome you seek help and information where you gave support to the lgbtq community. Because I sure can't find any other safe place on any college campus that advertises the strait folk are invited. Some invite straits to come there and ask questions about the lgbtq community and that's about it.
Personally I believe that you are fibbing.. But that's JMHO and nothing more.
Its not a attack and its not personal. I just don't believe it.

So because you don't happen to believe me based on your attempts to compare my program to other programs you found on Google, you have "caught me in a fib"?

 

[JollyMon]

The line between my rights and another person's rights is that I, just like the other person, have the right to decide not to associate with somebody based on their behavior and/or lifestyle.

When it comes to the use of facilities that people will be in various stages of undress, the facility you use should be the one that matches your "plumbing".
(i.e. when everybody is undressed, nobody sees any gender related physical differences between them)

I too feel sorry for people who suffer from any kind of delusion, and would like to see them get help with recognizing reality.
"Help" doesn't mean the rest of us are supposed to make believe somebody's delusion is reality.

If a man puts on women's clothes, he's simply a man in women's clothes, no matter how much he has his body medically mutilated or changes his name.
I won't make believe he's a she.

So you are okay to be in the same changing room with someone that doesn't have the correct plumbing any more.... since they are still a "he"

 

[17 squirrel]

So because you don't happen to believe me based on your attempts to compare my program to other programs you found on Google, you have "caught me in a fib"?

That's correct, along with you redirecting and you have nothing but your word and have produced no proof that straits were allowed in " your " program.. I find it queer that " your program " was or is " the only safe lbgtq in the college world that invited straits. Maybe its just my poor Googlefo skills, I don't know. But like I have said none of what I have posted here is meant to be personal to anyone..

 

[Snapdragon]

That's correct, along with you redirecting and you have nothing but your word and have produced no proof that straits were allowed in " your " program.. I find it queer that " your program " was or is " the only safe lbgtq in the college world that invited straits. Maybe its just my poor Googlefo skills, I don't know. But like I have said none of what I have posted here is ment to be personal to anyone..

Since producing "proof" would involve providing documents to which I no longer have access, my word will have to do that "straits" (sic) were allowed to seek safezone shelter. To believe or imply that anyone would be excluded is preposterous and goes against the very concept of safezone. I personally spoke with students of all sexual and gender backgrounds, as well as several who felt alienated because their religious backgrounds differed from the majority.

And really, you claim that the program at my school was the only safezone "in the college world" that invited "straits"? You researched every college in the world? I'm impressed.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

This is getting pettier and pettier.

 

[Snapdragon]

This is getting pettier and pettier.

I know, right? We're totally off the topic, but for some reason people are obsessed with my credentials when nobody else is being asked to provide them.

 

[churchmouse]

 

[JollyMon]

 

[Dead Duck]

This is getting pettier and pettier.

 

[17 squirrel]

Since producing "proof" would involve providing documents to which I no longer have access, my word will have to do that "straits" (sic) were allowed to seek safezone shelter. To believe or imply that anyone would be excluded is preposterous and goes against the very concept of safezone. I personally spoke with students of all sexual and gender backgrounds, as well as several who felt alienated because their religious backgrounds differed from the majority.

And really, you claim that the program at my school was the only safezone "in the college world" that invited "straits"? You researched every college in the world? I'm impressed.

That's what I thought nothing to prove your point. Just another mordant comment at the end.
Good day.

 

[CathyInBlue]

The line between my rights and another person's rights is that I, just like the other person, have the right to decide not to associate with somebody based on their behavior and/or lifestyle.

In so far as this statement is grammaticly accurate to your position, I agree. If there is a public restroom that a person of type X, which you don't want to associate with, is using, you and your wife and your daughter and your son and your second cousin twice removed choose not to utilize that same restroom at the same time because that person of type X is already utilizing it, that's your right. It is your right to stay the Hell out of the lives of other people for whom you have disdain. That's not really what we're talking about, though, is it?

We're talking about you, or people substantially like you, who want to forcibly eject people of type X, for whatever definition of X you might care to imagine, from public restrooms and from organizations whose membership is open to the public and from public life in general, just so you and your wife and your daughter and your son and your second cousin twice removed don't have to associate with them and also never have to contemplate the question of whether a person in your vicinity is of type X in an out of sight, out of mind type arrangement. In between that and the position described above are the people who, once discovering a public restroom with a person of type X already utilizing it, think that their desire not to associate with that person of type X, coupled with their god given right to utilize those same facilities (occupy the same space, breathe the same air, etc.) means that person of type X must be dispossessed of their right to utilize those facilities and to defer their use to your use and to the use of your wife and your daughter and your son and your second cousin twice removed, because that is what your right not to associate with people of type X really means in your eyes, and if that dispossession has to be with the application of your fists to their face and your boot to their ass, that's just your right not to associate with them.

I can guarantee, unless you and your wife and your daughter and your son and your second cousin twice removed have lived a positively hermitic lifestyle, that you've associated with people of type X quite frequently and have never realized that they were of type X and in that had no problem associating with them. Therefore, the only meaningful way for you to exercise your right to not associate with people of type X is for you to adopt a lifestyle that is even more hermitic than what you may already be living, to restrain not the lifestyle decisions of people of type X, but to only exercise your right not to associate with people of type X by restraining your own lifestyle. Many people would see such a proper exercise of their rights as too confining and so continue to rail against the continued existence of people of type X, equating that mere existence in public life with them forcing you and your wife and your daughter and your son and your second cousin twice removed to associate with them against your will.

But you, ed, I know you'll do the right thing and just leave people of type X alone and allow them to utilize the facilities as they see fit, to participate in what organizations will have them, and to live as non-hermitic lifestyles as they deem appropriate for themselves.

 

[HoughMade]

7 years of post high-school education at some rather pricey liberal arts institutions and I had to look up "mordant".

I'll be pursuing at least a partial refund.

 

[chezuki]

I know, right? We're totally off the topic, but for some reason people are obsessed with my credentials when nobody else is being asked to provide them.

I offered to show my man-credentials up thread, but there wasn't much interest.

 

[churchmouse]

7 years of post high-school education at some rather pricey liberal arts institutions and I had to look up "mordant".

I'll be pursuing at least a partial refund.

I am looking it up now.
CIB loves to make us all very insecure as to our intelligence.

 

[JollyMon]

JollyMons guide to making people think you are intelligent.... Right Click -> Synonyms

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I offered to show my man-credentials up thread, but there wasn't much interest.

It's just a business card with your mustache, right? That's all that's needed.