Ignoring gender?

[AA&E]

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.

She is cheating man... she has a thesaurus on her lap as she posts.

 

[AA&E]

you splendiferous bandersnatch!

Ok, now you are just making stuff up...

 

[AA&E]

John Stuart Mill had it totally wrong when he discussed the need to safeguard from the tyranny of the majority.
Who woulda thunk that it would invert to the tyranny of the minority, one so draconian that even disagreement with the loudest, most well financed minority now routinely leads to being ostracized, losing jobs, having businesses closed down, prosecution and just about any other harm that can be dealt out short of outright killing?
If one didn't know any better, he could be excused for thinking that a great deal of this looks exactly like revenge for past slights, either personal or imagined.
That couldn't possibly be true though, right?
Right?

Right. Valid point.

 

[AA&E]

I feel like i missed a really good thread...

Really? Where was it? Can you link me to it?

 

[AA&E]

Well, you know, two wrongs making a right and all.

We've all learned two negatives multiplied equals a positive.. it's simple math dude.

 

[Bill of Rights]

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

Squirrel, I have to ask: What proof would satisfy you? Do you need to see her teaching license? A paycheck from her former employer?

Even if photos would not be a violation of current privacy laws, it would be too easy to claim that the current setup of whichever institution employed her is not what it was when she was there, or vice versa.

For that matter, we don't have proof that Cathy is indeed a woman at all. I don't want proof; some things simply are taken at face value, because the truth or falsehood of the claim is immaterial (She doesn't need to give documentation of that employer, any more than you need to document which "safe zones" you researched, but if you're claiming she's untruthful, the burden of proof is not hers but yours.

So, does seriously no one want to see my junk?

Unless you're planning on posting a picture similar to the location at which Fred G. Sanford worked, I would recommend against any publicly posted images of said "junk", Chez.

As to a point Churchmouse made... Has anyone noticed that the media is all about the former Olympian, and all about proper pronouns and names and such... but no one I've seen (which is admittedly few) is calling Citizen Jenner "she" or "her"?
That said, Churchmouse, I'm with you: I don't really care what plumbing someone else has and I've heard far more than I ever wanted to about that person in particular. If that's what s/he wants to do, fine. Go for it, I'm happy for you... but please leave me out of it.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[CountryBoy19]

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.

It's quite easy to say, "Don't use the restroom if there is somebody in there" but it gets a LOT more complicated in the actual application of that. What about a school where there is no option, your daughter MUST change for gym class or she will fail, no matter if there is a girl with a penis in the locker-room or not. Or a bathroom emergency where you can't just go elsewhere? Or, heaven forbid, you/your daughter are in the restroom and such person enters? Not many options to exercise the right to not use the restroom/locker-room with that person.

 

[churchmouse]

It's quite easy to say, "Don't use the restroom if there is somebody in there" but it gets a LOT more complicated in the actual application of that. What about a school where there is no option, your daughter MUST change for gym class or she will fail, no matter if there is a girl with a penis in the locker-room or not. Or a bathroom emergency where you can't just go elsewhere? Or, heaven forbid, you/your daughter are in the restroom and such person enters? Not many options to exercise the right to not use the restroom/locker-room with that person.

This post puts me in mind of what would happen if my daughter (29) were using the facility's with her daughters (avatar) and this happened.
I am positive said individual would leave wounded. She is a Mother and protector. She is also well trained and will scrap with anyone that presented a problem for those girls.
The Law be damned...........she would not go for any of this.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Ok, now you are just making stuff up...

[video=youtube;bj-zrPen-BQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bj-zrPen-BQ[/video]

Actually, both of those words are in the dictionary, which can be confirmed at dictionary.com.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Really? Where was it? Can you link me to it?

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/great-outdoors/159297-would-you-shoot-sasquatch.html

 

[CathyInBlue]

It's quite easy to say, "Don't use the restroom if there is somebody in there" but it gets a LOT more complicated in the actual application of that. What about a school where there is no option, your daughter MUST change for gym class or she will fail, no matter if there is a girl with a penis in the locker-room or not. Or a bathroom emergency where you can't just go elsewhere? Or, heaven forbid, you/your daughter are in the restroom and such person enters? Not many options to exercise the right to not use the restroom/locker-room with that person.

So, you're asking about exercising one's personal right not to associate with a person of type X in a… public school? When we engage in activities in a public place, we have to come to grips with the fact that those same public places may be occupied by people doing things with which we disagree: driving AMC Gremlins, wearing white after Labor Day, voting Leftist, etc. You must tolerate it, or, when you discover it happening in your vicinity, leave said vicinity. If you find yourself being hounded out of public places by people of type X forcing you to leave their vicinity (due to you exercising your own right of association by using their own right of association), then I believe I have already mentioned adopting a hermitic lifestyle as a legitimate solution. Even for a student at a public school, this is possible. It's called home schooling. When one chooses to attend a public school or whatever description, it is expected that one gives up a measure of that right of association, whether in terms of associating with the same campus, associating with the same classrooms, or associating with the same gender-segregated facilities.

Even if one's daughter is in a private school where people of type X are allowed around her, you have the option of removing her from said vicinity. With a private school, however, at least the mere threat of such removal may lead to some action on your behalf which you find agreeable. A public school is beholden under law to respect the rights of people of type X as well, and so such threats to exercise your rights of association are unlikely to move them. I support everyone's right to home school their children, bar none.

Just as there are legal balancing acts which take place between the rights of one person and the rights of another, there are balancing acts which play out within a single individual on a daily basis. You have the right not to associate with a person of type X, but you want to, are deeply desirous of, relieving one's full bowel and bladder in a convenient public restroom, which may also be occupied at the moment by a person of type X. Hmmm, decisions, decisions. You, and you alone, will have to make that decision as to which of those needs you will give priority, keeping in mind that applying fist to face or boot to ass, as I mentioned above, is an option that equates to you committing the crime of battery under Indiana law. Choose wisely.

Keep also in mind that the vast majority of people in bathrooms are there for the exact same reasons you are. But then, perhaps that is the very reason you are so trepidatious about them being there with your wife and/or daughter.

I am positive said individual would leave wounded.

So, you're saying your daughter is the type of person who would take the fist to face and boot to ass tack on a person of type X entering a public restroom to utilize the facilities in the manner for which they were designed and installed? That's the type of daughter you raised?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

This thread, in a nutshell:

http://i.imgur.com/OOA8QzF.jpg

 

[churchmouse]

So, you're asking about exercising one's personal right not to associate with a person of type X in a… public school? When we engage in activities in a public place, we have to come to grips with the fact that those same public places may be occupied by people doing things with which we disagree: driving AMC Gremlins, wearing white after Labor Day, voting Leftist, etc. You must tolerate it, or, when you discover it happening in your vicinity, leave said vicinity. If you find yourself being hounded out of public places by people of type X forcing you to leave their vicinity (due to you exercising your own right of association by using their own right of association), then I believe I have already mentioned adopting a hermitic lifestyle as a legitimate solution. Even for a student at a public school, this is possible. It's called home schooling. When one chooses to attend a public school or whatever description, it is expected that one gives up a measure of that right of association, whether in terms of associating with the same campus, associating with the same classrooms, or associating with the same gender-segregated facilities.

Even if one's daughter is in a private school where people of type X are allowed around her, you have the option of removing her from said vicinity. With a private school, however, at least the mere threat of such removal may lead to some action on your behalf which you find agreeable. A public school is beholden under law to respect the rights of people of type X as well, and so such threats to exercise your rights of association are unlikely to move them. I support everyone's right to home school their children, bar none.

Just as there are legal balancing acts which take place between the rights of one person and the rights of another, there are balancing acts which play out within a single individual on a daily basis. You have the right not to associate with a person of type X, but you want to, are deeply desirous of, relieving one's full bowel and bladder in a convenient public restroom, which may also be occupied at the moment by a person of type X. Hmmm, decisions, decisions. You, and you alone, will have to make that decision as to which of those needs you will give priority, keeping in mind that applying fist to face or boot to ass, as I mentioned above, is an option that equates to you committing the crime of battery under Indiana law. Choose wisely.

Keep also in mind that the vast majority of people in bathrooms are there for the exact same reasons you are. But then, perhaps that is the very reason you are so trepidatious about them being there with your wife and/or daughter.

So, you're saying your daughter is the type of person who would take the fist to face and boot to ass tack on a person of type X entering a public restroom to utilize the facilities in the manner for which they were designed and installed? That's the type of daughter you raised?

I hope you meant that in purple, I really do.
That she is trained to level someone when she feels threatened is on me. Yes, she is a scraper when need be. She has put my big butt on the ground more than once when we spar.
I raised a great person in my daughter. Thing is, she has 3 kids and will step up if and when needed. Seeing someone in drag come into a "Woman's" rest room is one of those times.

Not a knock but have some darling little daughters......stand in that place and let me know how you feel. Then we will revisit this conversation. If you do not understand this then you are not the person I thought you were.

 

[oldpink]

[...]So, you're saying your daughter is the type of person who would take the fist to face and boot to ass tack on a person of type X entering a public restroom to utilize the facilities in the manner for which they were designed and installed? That's the type of daughter you raised?

So, you're the type of person who wants to force young kids to be in the locker room with those who have sexual identity issues?
Apparently, the answer is "yes."

 

[CathyInBlue]

This thread, in a nutshell:

http://i.imgur.com/OOA8QzF.jpg

Sadly, I feel you are right. This thread was started by a story about letting transgirls fully participate in GSUSA, and people who don't like transsexuals, or even don't believe the extant medical literature on the proper treatment of transfolk, turned it into a "bathroom bill" discussion, a classic strawman argument. The idea of a bathroom bill is itself a knee-jerk reaction to the strawman of sexual predators in public restrooms when the topic is really transsexuals' (equal) rights to utilize said facilities. I'm glad you recognize these logical fallacies as well, GPIA.

 

[CathyInBlue]

So, you're the type of person who wants to force young kids to be in the locker room with those who have sexual identity issues?
Apparently, the answer is "yes."

We're discussing gender identity, not sexual orientation, and no, as I mentioned, I would not force anyone to attend a public school with a transsexual girl. As I mentioned, I support their parents rights to home school them.

 

[CathyInBlue]

I hope you meant that in purple, I really do.
That she is trained to level someone when she feels threatened is on me. Yes, she is a scraper when need be. She has put my big butt on the ground more than once when we spar.
I raised a great person in my daughter. Thing is, she has 3 kids and will step up if and when needed. Seeing someone in drag come into a "Woman's" rest room is one of those times.

Not a knock but have some darling little daughters......stand in that place and let me know how you feel. Then we will revisit this conversation. If you do not understand this then you are not the person I thought you were.

Let us stipulate that we are talking about public restroom facilities with an ample number of stalls to accommodate all concerned. If you are saying that the mere presence of a transsexual woman (a drag queen being a wholly different issue), entering the same restroom would illicit an immediate violent reaction from your daughter without regard to the transsexual woman's behaviour, if the mere presence of a person of type X equates to a "threat" to her, then I absolutely stand by my non-purple text. And if the area in which your daughter is taking her daughters to the restroom is one filled with people so prone to violence, then, under those conditions, I would even support the rights of drag queens to utilize the facilities which match their mode of dress, being that the threat of violence against them when they need to void bowel and bladder, or just primp their makeup, could reasonably be judged by them to be unacceptably high were they to enter a men's restroom, or if they were in such men's restroom alone and a similarly violence prone man walked in on them.

I think a lot of people in this thread are conflating two wholly different issues: behaviour and being. A transsexual person is a being. A sexual predator is a mode of behaviour. Anyone behaving as a sexual predator, even if they happen to be a transsexual person as well, is fully deserving of a proper trouncing to eject them from the vicinity of all those who are not committing voyeuristic, or worse, crimes. Some in this thread seem to be equating the mere being of a transsexual person in a public restroom with the behaviour of a sexual predator with no further basis for such a claim, as if it's natural for everyone to make that assumption.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

We're discussing gender identity, not sexual orientation, and no, as I mentioned, I would not force anyone to attend a public school with a transsexual girl. As I mentioned, I support their parents rights to home school them.

Too bad the home school movement wasn't alive back when people were complaining about people praying in school or people doing religious activities in school or the myriad other things the fallacious "separation of church and state" meme brought us...all those aggrieved and offended could have just taken their kids out of school and home schooled them, all these years.

 

[CathyInBlue]

There is a full body of Constitutional law that attests to the illegality of agents of the state directing religious practices.

There is no such body of law attesting to the illegality of LGBT people "utilizing the facilities".

 

[oldpink]

We're discussing gender identity, not sexual orientation, and no, as I mentioned, I would not force anyone to attend a public school with a transsexual girl. As I mentioned, I support their parents rights to home school them.

You say "gender identity," while I use the more grammatically correct "sexual identity."
Gender has traditionally been used to refer to inanimate objects.
I'm talking about what SEX a given person believes he is.
It's quite telling that you (and doubtless many other advocates) believe that other students should go into home schooling instead of school locker rooms.
IOW, Countryboy totally nailed it when he said that this group wants nothing to do with compromise or recognizing that there really is another side of the coin to consider; they want nothing to do with any of that; they want supremacy.