Ignoring gender?

[Joe G]

Oh and "gender Fascism"??

Sounds too much like the argument from the ones trying to take away the 2A rights of you and me. "If in doubt, call them really horrible sounding names until we get enough support."

 

[DoggyDaddy]

<---- this thread

[video=youtube;vxfi7XMS8pw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxfi7XMS8pw[/video]

 

[oldpink]

Gender fascism?
And the "support groups" wonder why they get ridiculed?
Interesting how the "support groups" have no problem directing their own overblown terminology to themselves when they seek to force open the door to the head for whomever wants to go in there.
No hint of compromise (separate facilities for the confused or those in a state of flux), just insults for the majority, terminology so overblown and ridiculous that only a Phd in Sociology from the University of Madison could love it.
Claim you're not bothered by people who themselves claim they need to use public (used in PRIVATE, though) facilities that don't correspond to their anatomy, therefore it's either a sign of intolerance or inferior intellect for anyone else to have a problem with that, right?
Then, when the "intolerant" or "inferior intellect" people, acknowledging that the folks seeking access to public facilities (used in PRIVATE, again) may need a separate area to use for that purpose, the "intollerant"/"inferior intellect" people are being "discriminatory?"
IOW, no middle ground, no compromise, no willingness to even acknowledge that there really is another side of the coin, just insults, lawsuits, boycotts, and the heavy hand of government deployed to not just force open the bathroom and locker room doors, but to force conformity with your view.
And the bathroom/locker room brigade wonders why everyone else doesn't feel like yielding ground when that's the treatment they get?
My way or the highway.

 

[gunsisgood]

Belongs in the "facepalm" thread.

Catering to mental illness, that's cute.

^This
Things are going from bad to worse in rapid fashion.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

No. I'm asking CountryBoy what the specific harm is in a child of either gender seeing a body part that either they don't have or that they're told to keep covered. I'm not saying there is none. I'm not saying there is any. He said that there was harm in it, and I'm curious as to what that harm is. For the record, no, I don't and didn't do the nudist thing. I would not have wanted my daughter seeing adult "naughty bits" of either gender, but part of that was the whole paradigm I'm questioning. At one time, I just accepted that. Many years later, I'm looking back and examining my prior actions. Not questioning them, but examining.

I get what you're saying. The basis of my question... I'm not sure if it's our societal preoccupation with sex and nudity, a desire to protect our children from some unknown and unstated harm that "we all understand" (but no one can describe), some combination of the two, or some mix with a third (or more) as-yet-unstated factor.

There's something going on here that may be unhealthy. I'm not sure exactly where that something falls, or for whom it's unhealthy, if it even is. Before I go accepting that there's harm, though, I'd like to examine what and where it is.

Blessings,
Bill

There's an whole, entirely, different angle going on here, Bill....force.

By any measure, there's only a tiny fraction of people that are either legitimately gender-"confused" or trans-gendered. So, why should it even be an issue for all of us puritans? What are the odds of ever encountering one of "them" in a public restroom? It's probably pretty small. Who even pays that close of attention to the behavior of other folks while in a restroom? And even if you saw an obvious mis-matched situation going on, say some "guy" standing up at a toilet in a woman's restroom stall, is there any real harm going on? Doubtful. Even if your young daughter is with you.

Just like any establishment that prohibits guns on their property, very few of us, on INGO, favor legislation or other government coersion to force business owners to allow guns. But there is a movement afoot to use government force to make people comply with the issue at hand. We're already seeing signs that the feds are using "anti-discrimination" laws to force schools and other public facilities to comply with this new classification of aggrieved and oppressed. Once it is SOP for public facilities, it's only a lawsuit or two away from it being required in private property-"public accomodations".

It's all about government force. And why so many INGOers, that on so many other issues reject the notion of government force, are acquiescent on this (and other issues related to sex, gender, etc.)......

 

[jmills]

How is in that such a small group have so much power? What scares the politicians?

 

[churchmouse]

How is in that such a small group have so much power? What scares the politicians?

Race, gender cards.

 

[churchmouse]

Did this thread start out about the Girl Scouts?????

Seems so long ago.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Yes. It started out with people wanting to use force against the GSUSA to force them to refuse services, membership, and participation to children, even using the authoritarian power of government to force them.

Somehow, it mutated into a "Everyone else wants to use the authoritarian power of government to force GSUSA to allow in wierdoes" argument. Not completely sure how that works.

 

[churchmouse]

Thread has pretty much ran it's course.

 

[Birds Away]

Thread has pretty much ran it's course.

Finally, a post in this thread I can completely agree with.

 

[churchmouse]

Finally, a post in this thread I can completely agree with.

I did like the posts.

 

[Snapdragon]

 

[churchmouse]

This has ran it's course.