What the Bathroom Wars are Really All About (1 Viewer)

[ChezC3]

This new activism involves the empowering of fantasy, which by definition is the power or process of creating unrealistic or improbable mental images in response to psychological whims. In times past, those with fantasies were called down to the reality found in society and nature. Today, society as a whole is being asked to pander to and be complicit with the unnatural fantasies of a few.

What the Bathroom Wars are Really All About - Crisis Magazine

Best article I've read that explains exactly what is going on.

(read it in its entirety before you post.. it will take 3 min at most, if you don't want to invest your time into reading it, don't waste my time responding.)

 

[Jack Fabulous]

What the Bathroom Wars are Really All About - Crisis Magazine

Best article I've read that explains exactly what is going on.

(read it in its entirety before you post.. it will take 3 min at most, if you don't want to invest your time into reading it, don't waste myy time responding.)

Couldn't disagree more. It's not the "next phase" of some master plan. It's an election year noise maker. Now that gay marriage has been upheld there needs to be a new group of "oppressed" who need saving.

Ho hum. I could give a **** about what bathroom a transgendered person uses. I could also give a **** about all of the loonies out there crying about how oppressive it supposedly is to have to use a bathroom that is specific to a person's birth gender. Cry me a river... or piss me a river. I don't care!


P.S. This is the lamest election year wedge issue I have ever seen.

 

[azgreg]

Couldn't disagree more. It's not the "next phase" of some master plan. It's an election year noise maker. Now that gay marriage has been upheld there needs to be a new group of "oppressed" who need saving.

Ho hum. I could give a **** about what bathroom a transgendered person uses. I could also give a **** about all of the loonies out there crying about how oppressive it supposedly is to have to use a bathroom that is specific to a person's birth gender. Cry me a river... or piss me a river. I don't care!


P.S. This is the lamest election year wedge issue I have ever seen.

You must have missed the Teletubbies fiasco of 2000.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

You must have missed the Teletubbies fiasco of 2000.

Was that the one where people were freaking out because the Teletubbies were supposedly gay or something?

 

[TheGoverness]

Was that the one where people were freaking out because the Teletubbies were supposedly gay or something?

I think that's what it was about.

 

[azgreg]

Was that the one where people were freaking out because the Teletubbies were supposedly gay or something?

That's the one. Mayhem!







:mrgreen:

 

[ChezC3]

Couldn't disagree more. It's not the "next phase" of some master plan. It's an election year noise maker. Now that gay marriage has been upheld there needs to be a new group of "oppressed" who need saving.

Ho hum. I could give a **** about what bathroom a transgendered person uses. I could also give a **** about all of the loonies out there crying about how oppressive it supposedly is to have to use a bathroom that is specific to a person's birth gender. Cry me a river... or piss me a river. I don't care!


P.S. This is the lamest election year wedge issue I have ever seen.

If only that it were...

 

[KevinKohler]

I liken all of this to the costume designs of from the "Hunger Games" movies. Movies were meh, but those costume designs were evil genius...they are where we are headed. That is what our society will be. District one.

 

[Chomsky]

What the Bathroom Wars are Really All About - Crisis Magazine

Best article I've read that explains exactly what is going on.

(read it in its entirety before you post.. it will take 3 min at most, if you don't want to invest your time into reading it, don't waste my time responding.)

Sounds to me the author can't or won't make a Constitutional argument, so they're hanging their hat on a conspiracy theory.

 

[brothern]

I liken all of this to the costume designs of from the "Hunger Games" movies. Movies were meh, but those costume designs were evil genius...they are where we are headed. That is what our society will be. District one.

That doesn't make a lick of sense. The #1 concern of most transgender people is to "pass." Pass is the terminology.
As in look 100% like their gender without anyone ever realizing that they were born a different sex.

Why would a transgender person want blue hair when that'd achieve the exact opposite?



[Edit: Besides we've been there done that. It was called 80s fashion.]

 

[David G]

I haven't really formed any firm opinion about Unisex bathrooms, or ChooseYourOwn loos.

But as I read the article... I get twitchy. It actually offends me, as it uses bud logic built upon layers of unsubstantiated assertions. Self-referential circular logic that will mostly appeal to those who already agree. And some Sophistry just plausible enough to bamboozle those not honed in on the critical reading mode.

The so-called bathroom wars have nothing to do with bathrooms but are all about war. And then he goes on without backing up his initial assertion.

The push to allow a person to use the bathroom of his or her choice is merely the latest phase of the sexual revolution. Well... maybe it could be interpreted that way... but that's a shaky one.

It is part of a relentless war to bring about an irrational equality that now seeks to break down the final public barriers that make the sexes different. OK... that's not just hyperbolic, it's also flat incorrect. Loaded language like 'irrational equality' is one clue.

Pfffft on it - for convincing content. But kudos to the author for writing it. Not for us... but for himself. It has long been my experience that sitting down and writing an essay on some hypothesis you want to put forward can really help clarify your thinking. Assuming, of course, he's not simply a closet misogynist attempting to rationalize his bigotry... and is therefore not actually looking to clarify his thinking - only to justify his pre-conceived notions. There's enough bad writing, and rhetorical reaching there... that this COULD be the situation with him. I haven't looked into the Organization he represents... but their beliefs could clarify that question for us.

 

[KevinKohler]

That doesn't make a lick of sense. The #1 concern of most transgender people is to "pass." Pass is the terminology.
As in look 100% like their gender without anyone ever realizing that they were born a different sex.

Why would a transgender person want blue hair when that'd achieve the exact opposite?



[Edit: Besides we've been there done that. It was called 80s fashion.]

My post wasn't entirely directed at transgender. They represent a very small percentage of society.

 

[Chomsky]

I haven't really formed any firm opinion about Unisex bathrooms, or ChooseYourOwn loos.

But as I read the article... I get twitchy. It actually offends me, as it uses bud logic built upon layers of unsubstantiated assertions. Self-referential circular logic that will mostly appeal to those who already agree. And some Sophistry just plausible enough to bamboozle those not honed in on the critical reading mode.

The so-called bathroom wars have nothing to do with bathrooms but are all about war. And then he goes on without backing up his initial assertion.

The push to allow a person to use the bathroom of his or her choice is merely the latest phase of the sexual revolution. Well... maybe it could be interpreted that way... but that's a shaky one.

It is part of a relentless war to bring about an irrational equality that now seeks to break down the final public barriers that make the sexes different. OK... that's not just hyperbolic, it's also flat incorrect. Loaded language like 'irrational equality' is one clue.

Pfffft on it - for convincing content. But kudos to the author for writing it. Not for us... but for himself. It has long been my experience that sitting down and writing an essay on some hypothesis you want to put forward can really help clarify your thinking. Assuming, of course, he's not simply a closet misogynist attempting to rationalize his bigotry... and is therefore not actually looking to clarify his thinking - only to justify his pre-conceived notions. There's enough bad writing, and rhetorical reaching there... that this COULD be the situation with him. I haven't looked into the Organization he represents... but their beliefs could clarify that question for us.

I pretty much agree with everything in your post.

But specifically to that I bolded: "Yeah, that pretty much describes most partisan pieces"!

 

[David G]

I pretty much agree with everything in your post.

But specifically to that I bolded: "Yeah, that pretty much describes most partisan pieces"!

Well... I'll go as far as 'too many' partisan pieces. But it's entirely possible to be partisan without being sloppy. And the whole False Equivalence is a hobby-horse of mine... so don't get me wound up.

 

[ChezC3]

Sounds to me the author can't or won't make a Constitutional argument, so they're hanging their hat on a conspiracy theory.

Hmmm....Can't? Won't? How about, didn't. He made the argument he made, you though, have yet to make one...

 

[ChezC3]

I haven't really formed any firm opinion about Unisex bathrooms, or ChooseYourOwn loos.

But as I read the article... I get twitchy. It actually offends me, as it uses bud logic built upon layers of unsubstantiated assertions. Self-referential circular logic that will mostly appeal to those who already agree. And some Sophistry just plausible enough to bamboozle those not honed in on the critical reading mode.

The so-called bathroom wars have nothing to do with bathrooms but are all about war. And then he goes on without backing up his initial assertion.

The push to allow a person to use the bathroom of his or her choice is merely the latest phase of the sexual revolution. Well... maybe it could be interpreted that way... but that's a shaky one.

It is part of a relentless war to bring about an irrational equality that now seeks to break down the final public barriers that make the sexes different. OK... that's not just hyperbolic, it's also flat incorrect. Loaded language like 'irrational equality' is one clue.

Pfffft on it - for convincing content. But kudos to the author for writing it. Not for us... but for himself. It has long been my experience that sitting down and writing an essay on some hypothesis you want to put forward can really help clarify your thinking. Assuming, of course, he's not simply a closet misogynist attempting to rationalize his bigotry... and is therefore not actually looking to clarify his thinking - only to justify his pre-conceived notions. There's enough bad writing, and rhetorical reaching there... that this COULD be the situation with him. I haven't looked into the Organization he represents... but their beliefs could clarify that question for us.

Walk Left side, safe. Walk Right side, safe Walk middle, sooner or later, *Squish* just like grape

Well, apparently your delicate sensibilities have gotten the better of you.. you're guilty of what you accuse.

I think you better recalibrate your "critical reading mode".

As is your post thus far.

How is it incorrect? You've a seven layer cake here of unsubstantiated assertions. Irrational equality is an apt description, I'd have used bat **** crazy, myself...


I'm gonna have to "Pffft" on your post here. Projection, Ridicule, and what's truly loaded language, words like "bigotry" and "closet misogynist" is all you've show "us".

Kudos for actually reading the article though. That's an improvement.

 

[HonestJoe]

There doesn’t seem to be anything backing the contention in the article that it describes what is but I get the impression that it represents what the author wants to be. They don’t like the way in which society is developing so needs to present these changes as being in conflict with something and thus to be opposed by default. I also find it disturbingly telling that the imagery presented is of a “war” rather than a debate or disagreement. War is what happens when discussion and compromise fails and suggest the only foreseeable conclusion is the establishment of two clear sides (“for us or against us”) and complete defeat and destruction of the “enemy”.

Of course it could just be an example of writing something deliberately controversial to get attention.

 

[ChezC3]

There doesn’t seem to be anything backing the contention in the article that it describes what is but I get the impression that it represents what the author wants to be. They don’t like the way in which society is developing so needs to present these changes as being in conflict with something and thus to be opposed by default. I also find it disturbingly telling that the imagery presented is of a “war” rather than a debate or disagreement. War is what happens when discussion and compromise fails and suggest the only foreseeable conclusion is the establishment of two clear sides (“for us or against us”) and complete defeat and destruction of the “enemy”.

Of course it could just be an example of writing something deliberately controversial to get attention.

"war", as states in the article, refers to the "culture war". Which the author didn't invent.

As to your is and wants, not getting it man...

These degradations are in conflict with "something".

 

[HonestJoe]

"war", as states in the article, refers to the "culture war". Which the author didn't invent.

He certainly didn’t create the concept and it is certainly the case that some people with alternative views are just as combative. The fact remains that this article is actively promoting unconditional conflict over discussion, understanding and compromise.

These degradations are in conflict with "something".

Alternatively, your “something” is in conflict with individual freedoms. It’s all too easy to create conflicts here. Better people take the more difficult path of trying to resolve them.

 

[David_N]

The only reason this is even an "issue" is because of some right wing fundamentalist lunatic.

 

[David G]

The only reason this is even an "issue" is because of some right wing fundamentalist lunatic.

Seems harsh to label Chez thusly. I'd say instead that he's suffering from a common malady: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

 

[Ikari]

What the Bathroom Wars are Really All About - Crisis Magazine

Best article I've read that explains exactly what is going on.

(read it in its entirety before you post.. it will take 3 min at most, if you don't want to invest your time into reading it, don't waste my time responding.)

It's faux outrage that the Republocrats can use as a talking point in order to pretend that there is some difference between the R and D. But it's null. Transgendered folk were already using the bathroom of the gender they associate with.

 

[Chomsky]

Hmmm....Can't? Won't? How about, didn't. He made the argument he made, you though, have yet to make one...

I have no argument to make.

It is the author that is asserting a conspiracy, not I. And he presented no evidence in support of his assertions. His article is an unsupported opinion piece.

If you'd like to make his argument by providing evidence, I'm all ears.

 

[ChezC3]

I have no argument to make.

It is the author that is asserting a conspiracy, not I. And he presented no evidence in support of his assertions. His article is an unsupported opinion piece.

If you'd like to make his argument by providing evidence, I'm all ears.

I see.

True, except it isn't. Surely he did. Because you say so.

Why would I add to anything when your own, prejudiced opinion is all we'll receive in return?

You reiterate the all too common retort "You're wrong, just cuz I said so" like others here have done as well.

That kind of nonsense falls on deaf ears...

 

[Chomsky]

I see.

True, except it isn't. Surely he did. Because you say so.

Why would I add to anything when your own, prejudiced opinion is all we'll receive in return?

You reiterate the all too common retort "You're wrong, just cuz I said so" like others here have done as well.

That kind of nonsense falls on deaf ears...

Hah!

You really don't have any supporting evidence of the article's assertions, do you?