• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Trans Bathroom issue easily explained.

ecofarm

global liberation
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
127,795
Reaction score
39,038
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The anti-transgender position is based on the false belief that transgender people are more likely to molest children. That position is based in the false belief that homosexuality is a choice of evil people, and transgender is a choice by even more evil people.

If we drop the "idea" that transgenders are more likely to molest children, the objections dissipate.
 
Last edited:

Bodhisattva

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
100,457
Reaction score
21,265
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent

Nailed it. End of story.

I would happily talk to that guy and tell him to **** off for being a total ****ing moron... End of Story.
 

Bodhisattva

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
100,457
Reaction score
21,265
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
U Mad Bro?

Nope. Just like telling assholes that they are assholes especially cocky little ****ers like that idiot.
 

chromium

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2013
Messages
16,968
Reaction score
3,770
Location
A2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The anti-transgender position is based on the false belief that transgender people are more likely to molest children. That position is based in the false belief that homosexuality is a choice of evil people, and transgender is a choice by even more evil people.

If we drop the "idea" that transgenders are more likely to molest children, the objections dissipate.

It's funny how gay bashing has shifted so quickly to trans bashing huh. Just like the homophobes of yesterday were the racists before that

Mostly that's the reason, but i have heard some claim the new bathroom laws are to prevent non transgender peeping toms from going into female restroom under guise that they're transgender. This is still wrong, but i see it as a less hatefully hysterical position than what really inspired laws like in north carolina
 

Jane

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2016
Messages
695
Reaction score
153
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
I guess I should watch that video. But all I can see is that, as usual, it is some dude mansplaining why women shouldn't mind having dudes in their private spaces. Quelle surprise.
 

CLAX1911

Supreme knower of all
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
54,879
Reaction score
11,360
Location
Houston, in the great state of Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The anti-transgender position is based on the false belief that transgender people are more likely to molest children. That position is based in the false belief that homosexuality is a choice of evil people, and transgender is a choice by even more evil people.

If we drop the "idea" that transgenders are more likely to molest children, the objections dissipate.

Where i agree with the video, it's really simple, the bathroom issue is this. Here in Houston our city voted on whether to remove gender from restrooms completely. And typically people don't want their daughters in restrooms with men. That's prefectly understandable. As far as trans folks go, there is no real way to tell if they ate the appropriate sex for the bathroom they chose. It isn't an issue.
 

CLAX1911

Supreme knower of all
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
54,879
Reaction score
11,360
Location
Houston, in the great state of Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I guess I should watch that video. But all I can see is that, as usual, it is some dude mansplaining why women shouldn't mind having dudes in their private spaces. Quelle surprise.

So anything a man says is bs because he is a man? I think you're sexist.
 

matchlight

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 25, 2014
Messages
9,869
Reaction score
3,495
Location
Los Angeles area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It's funny how gay bashing has shifted so quickly to trans bashing huh. Just like the homophobes of yesterday were the racists before that

Mostly that's the reason, but i have heard some claim the new bathroom laws are to prevent non transgender peeping toms from going into female restroom under guise that they're transgender. This is still wrong, but i see it as a less hatefully hysterical position than what really inspired laws like in north carolina

Once again, the tired and silly attempt to liken discrimination against homosexuals for what they do to discrimination against black people for what they are. Next you'll be trying to peddle the falsehood that the people who wrote and ratified the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 intended it not to protect the basic civil rights of newly freed black slaves, as all the historic evidence indicates, but also to protect the right of people to engage in homosexual acts.

Nothing in the Constitution requires any state to cater to sexual deviants of any type in its laws. The people of each state are free to cater to them at every opportunity, not to cater to them at all, or to do anything in between. Many people consider it immoral and disgusting to be forced to occupy any room at the same time as people of the opposite sex, when the nature of that room--e.g. a restroom or locker room--requires private parts to be exposed. And they find it all the more so where some of the people involved are children.
 

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
36,168
Reaction score
21,581
Location
Didjabringabeeralong
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
Once again, the tired and silly attempt to liken discrimination against homosexuals for what they do to discrimination against black people for what they are.

:lol: You really believe celibate gay people face no discrimination?
 

roguenuke

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
53,140
Reaction score
19,678
Location
Rolesville, NC
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Once again, the tired and silly attempt to liken discrimination against homosexuals for what they do to discrimination against black people for what they are. Next you'll be trying to peddle the falsehood that the people who wrote and ratified the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 intended it not to protect the basic civil rights of newly freed black slaves, as all the historic evidence indicates, but also to protect the right of people to engage in homosexual acts.

Nothing in the Constitution requires any state to cater to sexual deviants of any type in its laws. The people of each state are free to cater to them at every opportunity, not to cater to them at all, or to do anything in between. Many people consider it immoral and disgusting to be forced to occupy any room at the same time as people of the opposite sex, when the nature of that room--e.g. a restroom or locker room--requires private parts to be exposed. And they find it all the more so where some of the people involved are children.

Interracial couples choose to be together just as much as same sex couples do. Why people want to discriminate against either doesn't matter. That are still choosing to be in that sort of relationship.

Those who wrote the 14th could have easily limited its scope to just freed slaves or even all black people people or nonwhites, only limit the protection on race, but they didn't. Instead they left it very broad for us. Your interpretation is not important, and neither is their reasoning since any insight into that and how far any of them intended it to cover is subjective speculation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Jane

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2016
Messages
695
Reaction score
153
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Not sure what you guys are blathering on about. First it's that we should want men in the ladies room and now it's something about homosexuality and racism? Just let us know when you have it all figured out. Thank you.
 

TheGoverness

Little Miss Sunshine
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
35,063
Reaction score
37,701
Location
Houston Area, TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Not sure what you guys are blathering on about. First it's that we should want men in the ladies room and now it's something about homosexuality and racism? Just let us know when you have it all figured out. Thank you.

Who's "us" exactly?
 

Jane

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2016
Messages
695
Reaction score
153
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
I'm sorry (not kidding here). Did you make a contribution to this thread? I took a quick look at your comment history overall and it seems to consist almost entirely of one-liners and/or passive/aggressive comments about other posters. Nothing inherently wrong with that, or course, if that's your style. It just doesn't engage me.
 

TheGoverness

Little Miss Sunshine
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
35,063
Reaction score
37,701
Location
Houston Area, TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I'm sorry (not kidding here). Did you make a contribution to this thread? I took a quick look at your comment history overall and it seems to consist almost entirely of one-liners and/or passive/aggressive comments about other posters. Nothing inherently wrong with that, or course, if that's your style. It just doesn't engage me.

No, that's not my usual style. I only act passive/agressive towards people I don't like.
 

Jane

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2016
Messages
695
Reaction score
153
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
No, that's not my usual style. I only act passive/agressive towards people I don't like.

Can't speak to what your "usual style" might be elsewhere; I was going simply on your comment history here. If I ever notice that you've started to spend some time discussing issues instead of cracking one liners, I'll be glad to revise my assessment.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
I guess I should watch that video. But all I can see is that, as usual, it is some dude mansplaining why women shouldn't mind having dudes in their private spaces. Quelle surprise.

It's an excellent video.
 

Jane

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2016
Messages
695
Reaction score
153
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
It's an excellent video.

Dang. You tricked me. So, I took your recommendation and watched it. You are wrong. It is not excellent. But I guess a one minute jokey vid where the dude calls anyone who doesn't agree with his jokey explanation, "****ing idiots" might appear excellent in some quarters. :shrug:
 

countryboy

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2014
Messages
18,765
Reaction score
7,408
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The anti-transgender position is based on the false belief that transgender people are more likely to molest children. That position is based in the false belief that homosexuality is a choice of evil people, and transgender is a choice by even more evil people.

If we drop the "idea" that transgenders are more likely to molest children, the objections dissipate.

That's not it at all. The worry is that molesters will exploit the restroom issue. And it doesn't even have to be a molester, what parent wants pervy men in changing rooms and restrooms ogling their young daughters? What woman wants pervy men in the locker room ogling them at the gym?

People who pretend not to get this are fooling nobody.
 

polgara

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
20,215
Reaction score
17,786
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Once again, the tired and silly attempt to liken discrimination against homosexuals for what they do to discrimination against black people for what they are. Next you'll be trying to peddle the falsehood that the people who wrote and ratified the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 intended it not to protect the basic civil rights of newly freed black slaves, as all the historic evidence indicates, but also to protect the right of people to engage in homosexual acts.

Nothing in the Constitution requires any state to cater to sexual deviants of any type in its laws. The people of each state are free to cater to them at every opportunity, not to cater to them at all, or to do anything in between. Many people consider it immoral and disgusting to be forced to occupy any room at the same time as people of the opposite sex, when the nature of that room--e.g. a restroom or locker room--requires private parts to be exposed. And they find it all the more so where some of the people involved are children.

Greetings, matchlight. :2wave:

Well said! :thumbs: The main reason most people have doors that can be closed in their own homes - specially bathrooms and bedrooms - is for personal privacy, especially if there are young children living there. I have yet to visit anyone who has no doors in their home, so it seems to be a common thing. Why anyone should be told that visiting the mall or a restaurant changes everything doesn't make sense, since no one can read minds. I am definitely not prudish, but I've lived long enough to know the physical difference between a man and a woman - young children usually don't - and I wouldn't want some stranger doing the explaining!

The irony in all this is that while some are actively demanding special rooms in public places to breastfeed a baby, all the rest of us, no matter what sex, should use the same restroom to pee, no matter who else is in there? :shock:
 

chromium

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2013
Messages
16,968
Reaction score
3,770
Location
A2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Once again, the tired and silly attempt to liken discrimination against homosexuals for what they do to discrimination against black people for what they are. Next you'll be trying to peddle the falsehood that the people who wrote and ratified the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 intended it not to protect the basic civil rights of newly freed black slaves, as all the historic evidence indicates, but also to protect the right of people to engage in homosexual acts.

Nothing in the Constitution requires any state to cater to sexual deviants of any type in its laws. The people of each state are free to cater to them at every opportunity, not to cater to them at all, or to do anything in between. Many people consider it immoral and disgusting to be forced to occupy any room at the same time as people of the opposite sex, when the nature of that room--e.g. a restroom or locker room--requires private parts to be exposed. And they find it all the more so where some of the people involved are children.

Yeah whatever pal, tell it to the scores of gay teens who have been abandoned, expelled, abused, and driven to suicide simply for who they *are* Tell it to the adults who have lost their job simply for who they *are*

Next you will say there's no such thing as homophobia, when it's clear from your 1st paragraph you hate homosexuals and from your 2nd that you fear them
 
Top Bottom