What happens to the Republican Party now? (2 Viewers)

[MT15]

This election nonsense by Trump may end up splitting up the Republican Party. I just don’t see how the one third (?) who are principled conservatives can stay in the same party with Trump sycophants who are willing to sign onto the TX Supreme Court case.

We also saw the alt right types chanting “destroy the GOP” in Washington today because they didn’t keep Trump in power. I think the Q types will also hold the same ill will toward the traditional Republican Party. In fact its quite possible that all the voters who are really in a Trump personality cult will also blame the GOP for his loss. It’s only a matter of time IMO before Trump himself gets around to blaming the GOP.

There is some discussion of this on Twitter. What do you all think?

 

[LA - L.A.]

I thought we were supposed to forget about chromosomes and go by what people identify as.

Since gender is a social construct why as about XX or XY?

As you yourself have stated several times, there is a difference between biological-chromosomal sex and gender.

You use the term male for biological XY and female for XX. I decided to indicate the biological difference in the scientific biological terms when referring to biological differences. When I write XX, that means female to you. When I write XY, that means male to you.

You keep saying you know what people born with XX chromosomes feel and think. You've even argued with a person who is XX when they told you what they feel and think. If you're not XX yourself, then what makes you think that you know better than someone who is XX, what XX people actually fear and think.

I know you identify as a man, because I've seen you refer to yourself as a man. I'm just asking whether or not you were born XX, because you keep speaking for XX people and argue with an XX person about what XX people feel and think. Gender has nothing to do with what I'm asking.

 

[Snarky Sack]

When making policies one needs to make the desired outcome of the policy the foundation of that policy.

It seems that Snarky Sack's desired outcome is for people born with XX chromosomes to be safe from verbal and physical attack while in a public restroom.

Does anyone here object to this goal? I haven't seen anyone object to that goal.

There seems to be a unanimous agreement that we should do what we can to make XX people safe from verbal and physical attacks while in a public restroom. I think we should do that in all places, not just restrooms, and for all people, not just those born with XX chromosomes.

So we all agree that XX born people should be protected from verbal and physical attack while in public restrooms.

The disagreement is over how do we go about accomplishing that. Snarky Sack argues for banning people with XY chromosomes from using the same restrooms as people born with XX chromosomes to protect people with XX chromosomes. They think that banning XY people will protect people with XX chromosomes from being verbally and physically assaulted in public restrooms.

That policy is based on the incorrect assumption that only XY people verbally and physically assault XX people. That's not factually accurate and policies should be grounded in facts, not feelings. Some XX people verbally and physically assault other XX people, so Snarky Sack's policy would not accomplish the desired outcome of keeping XX people safe from verbal and physical assault.

The best way to protect XX, and XY, people from verbal and physical assault in public restrooms is to have a policy that all public restrooms must be individually isolated and secure., like the bathrooms at a fast food restaurant.

If that is not practical, then all public restrooms should be required to have individually locking and completely private stalls with the only communal areas being the hand washing and diaper changing areas.

That policy would provide a safe environment for everyone without the need to know anyone's intention ahead of time. That would also mean it wouldn't matter what a person's chromosomes, gender identity or sexual preferences are when they enter a public restroom, so we wouldn't have to try to prejudge anyone's intentions or identity.

Can we all agree that private bathrooms or stalls would be the best way to accomplish making public restrooms safe from verbal and physical assaults for everyone?

You're spot on about the danger of public restrooms. Males in women's restrooms obviously increase that danger sharply but we fool ourselves if we think single sex bathrooms are safe. I never allowed my young kids to go into public restrooms alone.

So I would agree with your idea as long as the outside of the stalls are open to view. So if my child goes into a restroom with such stalls I can ensure that no one goes in the stall with him or her.

I doubt that radical transactivists would go along with it. They'd see it as a transphobic reaction because we never did it that way for hundreds of years and now suddenly we do because of trans people.

Keep in mind that their goal is to be "affirmed" not to make anyone safer.

The second victim was raped in a classroom, not a bathroom. Do you support keeping trans people out of classrooms as well?

Gosh, cuddlemonkey. I don't want rapists going into school bathrooms or classrooms. How about you?

I think that rapist should have been sent to The Slammer the first time he raped a girl.

At the minimum, while waiting for his case, he should have been at the district alternative education program, where such misbehaving students are kept an eye on. I'm not sure why he was not sent there. Well, yes I am.

Trans people will be fine in the classroom, so long as there is adult supervision. Lack of adult supervision seems to be the theme in that particular district.

What that guy did was rape. He didn't do it because trans kids were allowed to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity. He did it because he's an butt crevasse rapist.

Yes he actually committed the bathroom rape right before the policy of using whichever bathroom you choose went into effect. Apparently the administrator decided to cover up the rape, because implementing that policy right after such a rape would seem as foolish as . . . well as foolish as it is.

So, in order for that administrator to implement his woke policy without so much of an outrage, another victim was sacrificed to the rapist.

As you yourself have stated several times, there is a difference between biological-chromosomal sex and gender.

You use the term male for biological XY and female for XX. I decided to indicate the biological difference in the scientific biological terms when referring to biological differences. When I write XX, that means female to you. When I write XY, that means male to you.

Okay, then as long as we are on the same page on that.

You keep saying you know what people born with XX chromosomes feel and think.

I know many of them. Mother, sister, wife, daughter, countless female colleaguess in teaching, many females in other professions, cousins former girlfiends, former just friends, etc.

You've even argued with a person who is XX when they told you what they feel and think.

Who is that? How do you think I know who is xx and XY on a message board?

If you're not XX yourself, then what makes you think that you know better than someone who is XX, what XX people actually fear and think.

I don't, but when some XX people tell me one thing and other XX people tell me another, I have to use my common sense to figure out which is in the majority. Since this is so that gum important to you, are you xx? If not why are you even discussing it?

I know you identify as a man, because I've seen you refer to yourself as a man. I'm just asking whether or not you were born XX, because you keep speaking for XX people and argue with an XX person about what XX people feel and think. Gender has nothing to do with what I'm asking.

For a person who claims that gender is a choice, you seem stuck on this chromosome thing. Well, I won't disappoint! I am not only a man by gender, I also am a biological male.

 

[MT15]

The second victim was raped in a classroom, not a bathroom. Do you support keeping trans people out of classrooms as well?

What that guy did was rape. He didn't do it because trans kids were allowed to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity. He did it because he's a butt crevasse rapist.

Exactly. The facts of the case keep being mis-stated. It might be on purpose, idk.

To clarify - of course the school administrators were wrong to put the boy in another school. That much is obvious at this point, when we can see the consequences of that decision. I do realize that when the perpetrator is a minor, sometimes peoples‘ hands are tied, and from what I read they didn’t have proper procedures in place to deal with the type of individual they found themselves confronted with. They should (and may have) fixed that problem.

As I recall, there was no cover-up of the first rape. It was a misunderstanding about a question during a school board meeting. The question was had there been any issues with trans students using their preferred restroom, and the administrator answered negatively. Because this perpetrator wasn’t trans. This is going from memory because I don’t feel like going over this again.

This kid was used to walking into that particular restroom and using one of the stalls to have sex during the school day. It should have been stopped and dealt with before he decided to rape the girl for refusing his advances. It has nothing to do with trans kids.

 

[MT15]

Lol:

 

[LA - L.A.]

You're spot on about the danger of public restrooms.

Please read what I write more carefully, because I never said that I think there is a danger in public restrooms. What I said is that we all agree people should be safe in restrooms. I never said public restrooms are not safe. In fact, I think you are trying to make a mountain out of single electron in regards to your concerns about the safety of public restrooms.

My point is that if our goal is to make restrooms safer, then we need to eliminate communal restrooms all together and make them all individual, instead of unjustly targeting one group of people like you keep doing.

Males in women's restrooms obviously increase that danger sharply but we fool ourselves if we think single sex bathrooms are safe.

No, it doesn't obviously increase the danger.

You're taking rare and isolated incidents and claiming they are typical examples when in fact they are the very rare exceptions. Thousands of XY people use the same restrooms as thousands of XX people every day without any negative interactions. You're fear of it happening is much greater than the factual occurrence. Using your rational, lesbians shouldn't be allowed to use the same restrooms as other XX people either. No one pounding the table about transgenders in "women/girls" restrooms cares about lesbians using "women/girls" restrooms. Why is that?

The greatest risk of any XX person being raped comes from an XY person that they know. Why are you not pounding the table for a law that forbids any XX person from ever being alone with any XY person? That would protect a lot more XX people from the possibility of being raped than banning XY transgender people from using "women/girl" restrooms.

You keep falling prey to the "common sense fallacy." Here's an article on the common sense fallacy and a quote that summarizes it:

Common sense fallacy

by Tim Harding The American writer H L Mencken once said “There is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.” He was referring to ‘common sense’, which can b…

yandoo.wordpress.com

Instead, common sense relies on the vague notion of ‘obviousness’, which means something like ‘what we perceive from personal experience’ or ‘what we should know without having had to learn.’ In other words, common sense is not necessarily supported by evidence or reasoning. As such, beliefs based on common sense are unreliable. The fallacy lies in giving too much weight to common sense in drawing conclusions, at the expense of evidence and reasoning.

I never allowed my young kids to go into public restrooms alone.

That's your right and I will always defend your right to do that, just like I will always oppose you or anyone else from trying to make other people do what you want them to do based only on your "common sense."

So I would agree with your idea as long as the outside of the stalls are open to view. So if my child goes into a restroom with such stalls I can ensure that no one goes in the stall with him or her.

That's how those type of restrooms are designed. It's like an open room with sinks, diaper changing stations and a row of multiple locking toilet stall/closets. Parents can even go into the stall/closets with their children if they want.

I doubt that radical transactivists would go along with it. They'd see it as a transphobic reaction because we never did it that way for hundreds of years and now suddenly we do because of trans people.

Why not just say "yes, that works for me" and let others speak for themselves without assuming you know what they'll think or say?

In all sincerity, you really seem like you don't like people who are transgender and the people that support their rights. You seem that way because you make so many hostile, insulting and completely unnecessary comments like the one above about them.

Keep in mind that their goal is to be "affirmed" not to make anyone safer.

That's your very judgmental and incorrect generalization of them. You use the language of war and enemies anytime you speak about transgenders born XY. They are the only ones you ever talk about. I've not heard you complain about XX transgender people.

Almost all transgender people and the people that support their rights are actually empathic and caring toward everyone, just like the rest of us. They also want everyone to be safe. Their goal in pushing for being accepted and affirmed is so that they can be as safe as the rest of us are.

Gosh, cuddlemonkey. I don't want rapists going into school bathrooms or classrooms. How about you?

Let me give you an example of how absurd your question is and how anyone can do it to anyone.

Snarky Sack, are you still letting your children hang out unsupervised with your child raping friends?

It's a really insulting and absurd thing to ask someone, isn't it?

Trans people will be fine in the classroom, so long as there is adult supervision.

Please clarify what you mean by this statement. Within the context of your answer and the question that was asked, it seems like you're saying that there is no danger of a transgender child raping XX children as long as there is an adult around. I really hope that's not what you think about transgender children.

Okay, then as long as we are on the same page on that.

I want to point out that here you are agreeing that one's biological-chromosomal sex is a different thing than one's gender. We'll circle back to this farther down.

I know many of them. Mother, sister, wife, daughter, countless female colleaguess in teaching, many females in other professions, cousins former girlfiends, former just friends, etc.

Then you should have learned from them that not all XX people feel and think the same things about anything, so you should know it's incorrect the make a blanket statement about what the majority of XX people actually feel and think based only on your personal interactions with only the XX people you know. We tend to interact with people who mostly agree with us on most things, so the majority of people we know are going to agree on most things.

The majority of people we know having the same view on an issue doesn't mean the majority of all people have that same view on that issue.

I don't, but when some XX people tell me one thing and other XX people tell me another, I have to use my common sense to figure out which is in the majority.

This is the fallacy of "common sense" again. We can't determine who is in the majority by using our "common sense." We have to actually ask a large sample size of people that equally represent a cross section of all demographics.

Your "common sense" approach led you to a factually incorrect conclusion. 41% is not a majority. It's a significant amount of people, but it's not the majority of people. Most of the restrooms laws that were passed have been repealed because the majority of people are against them, not for them.

Americans’ Complex Views on Gender Identity and Transgender Issues

Most favor protecting trans people from discrimination, but fewer support policies related to medical care for gender transitions; many are uneasy with the pace of change on trans issues.

www.pewresearch.org

41% would favor requiring transgender individuals to use public bathrooms that match the sex they were assigned at birth rather than the gender they identify with

Most of the people you know agree with you on restroom restrictions, but it's not because they reflect the majority of all of us. It's because of this:

Republicans are more likely than Democrats to express support for laws or policies that would ... require transgender individuals to use public bathrooms that match the sex they were assigned at birth (67% vs. 20%)...

Since this is so that gum important to you, are you xx? If not why are you even discussing it?

I'm XY, since you asked.

It's not important to me at all, really. I was merely pointing out that you keep speaking for all XX when you're not an XX. You've gone as far as dismissing and denying the thoughts and feelings shared by someone who's XX, as if you're more of an authority on what XX people think and feel.

I'm discussing it because I care about everyone and right now you and others are disrespecting people because of their differences and you want to force people to do what you want them to do.

For a person who claims that gender is a choice, you seem stuck on this chromosome thing.

And here's were we circle back to you previously agreeing that one's biological-chromosomal sex is a different thing than one's gender.

First, I'm not "stuck on this chromosome thing." You're the one that is stuck on this chromosome thing. You want to force people to act the way that you think they should act based on there biological sex. Our biological sex is completely determined by "this chromosome thing," which means you want to force people to act the way you think they should based on their chromosomes.

I know this is a BS and absurd question. I ask it only to make a valid point:

• What's your next move, calling for the forcing of people to act the way you think they should based on the chromosomes that determine skin color, eye color or hair color?

Second, I've never claimed that gender is a choice. I never implied it either, because I know that for almost everyone gender is an innate feeling that we are born with. Recent discoveries in genetics and neuroscience confirm that. Some people are making the same mistake with gender as they make with sexuality. For almost everyone gender and sexuality is a feeling we are born with, it is not a choice that we make.

There are times I really feel like punching some people, but I choose not to punch anyone. That's the difference between what we feel and what we choose. With gender and sexuality, there is no reason other than bigotry that we should try to make people choose to act in a way that is not consistent with how they feel.

Punching someone is a violation of the person who is punched, that's why I choose not to punch people and why there are laws against any of us punching people just because we feel like punching them. Someone dressing in a way that someone else disagrees with or using a restroom that someone else disagrees with does not violate anyone. So none of us have any right to demand how people dress or what restroom they use.

We already have laws in place that forbid anyone from raping anyone else. Those laws apply to everyone. We don't need to specifically target transgender XY people with restroom policies to protect anyone from rape. That's another flawed "common sense" idea. Case in point:

• The greatest risk of an XX person getting raped comes from an XY person that they know. No one is pounding the table demanding that we pass a law that forbids XY people from ever being alone with any XX person to protect XX people from being raped by XY people.

We don't have that law, because the damage that law would do to personal liberty would be far greater than any harm that it might prevent. The same is true of restroom laws.

If you're truly concerned about enacting policies to protect XX people from rape, then you're barking up the wrong tree with wanting to force transgender XY people from using "women/girl" restrooms:

Statistics

Learn more on our Questions and Answers page.

www.nsvrc.org

More than half (51.1%) of female victims of rape reported being raped by an intimate partner and 40.8% by an acquaintance; for male victims, more than half (52.4%) reported being raped by an acquaintance and 15.1% by a stranger.

Scope of the Problem: Statistics | RAINN

Sexual Violence has Fallen by More than Half Since 1993.

www.rainn.org

What was the survivor doing when the crime occurred?

• 48% were sleeping, or performing another activity at home
• 29% were traveling to and from work or school, or traveling to shop or run errands
• 12% were working
• 7% were attending school
• 5% were doing an unknown or other activity

What do you think about the fact that transgender teens forced to use restrooms that conform to their biological sex get sexually assaulted at a higher rate than those who are allowed use restrooms that conform to their gender?

Transgender teens with restricted bathroom access at higher risk of sexual assault

Transgender and gender-nonbinary teens face greater risk of sexual assault in schools that prevent them from using bathrooms or locker rooms consistent with their gender identity, according to a re…

www.hsph.harvard.edu

Researchers looked at data from a survey of nearly 3,700 U.S. teens aged 13-17. The study found that 36% of transgender or gender-nonbinary students with restricted bathroom or locker room access reported being sexually assaulted in the last 12 months, according to a May 6, 2019 CNN article. Of all students surveyed, 1 out of every 4, or 25.9%, reported being a victim of sexual assault in the past year.

“Unfortunately, kids’ access to restrooms and locker rooms has become very politicized in some communities,” said Gabriel Murchison, PhD candidate in population health sciences at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and lead author of the study. Murchison noted that although the study only shows an association, not whether the restrictions themselves caused the sexual assaults, “they are certainly a strong indicator of environments where kids are at risk.”

Well, I won't disappoint! I am not only a man by gender, I also am a biological male.

Why on Trump's green earth would you think I, or anyone else, would be disappointed that you are biologically male and feel like a man?

 

[brandon]

You're spot on about the danger of public restrooms. Males in women's restrooms obviously increase that danger sharply but we fool ourselves if we think single sex bathrooms are safe. I never allowed my young kids to go into public restrooms alone.

So I would agree with your idea as long as the outside of the stalls are open to view. So if my child goes into a restroom with such stalls I can ensure that no one goes in the stall with him or her.

I doubt that radical transactivists would go along with it. They'd see it as a transphobic reaction because we never did it that way for hundreds of years and now suddenly we do because of trans people.

Keep in mind that their goal is to be "affirmed" not to make anyone safer.

Gosh, cuddlemonkey. I don't want rapists going into school bathrooms or classrooms. How about you?

I think that rapist should have been sent to The Slammer the first time he raped a girl.

At the minimum, while waiting for his case, he should have been at the district alternative education program, where such misbehaving students are kept an eye on. I'm not sure why he was not sent there. Well, yes I am.

Trans people will be fine in the classroom, so long as there is adult supervision. Lack of adult supervision seems to be the theme in that particular district.

Yes he actually committed the bathroom rape right before the policy of using whichever bathroom you choose went into effect. Apparently the administrator decided to cover up the rape, because implementing that policy right after such a rape would seem as foolish as . . . well as foolish as it is.

So, in order for that administrator to implement his woke policy without so much of an outrage, another victim was sacrificed to the rapist.

Okay, then as long as we are on the same page on that.

I know many of them. Mother, sister, wife, daughter, countless female colleaguess in teaching, many females in other professions, cousins former girlfiends, former just friends, etc.

Who is that? How do you think I know who is xx and XY on a message board?

I don't, but when some XX people tell me one thing and other XX people tell me another, I have to use my common sense to figure out which is in the majority. Since this is so that gum important to you, are you xx? If not why are you even discussing it?

For a person who claims that gender is a choice, you seem stuck on this chromosome thing. Well, I won't disappoint! I am not only a man by gender, I also am a biological male.

It’s like you completely forgot our whole conversation about how it’s unamerican to punish trans people who need to use the restroom because of heterosexual male sex offenders.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Gosh, cuddlemonkey. I don't want rapists going into school bathrooms or classrooms. How about you?

I think that rapist should have been sent to The Slammer the first time he raped a girl.

Gosh, smartass, how about you try answering the question?

At the minimum, while waiting for his case, he should have been at the district alternative education program, where such misbehaving students are kept an eye on.

I don't think anyone is disputing that something should have been done, given what we all know. I have no idea what went into the district's decision.

I'm not sure why he was not sent there. Well, yes I am.

As sure of it as you are that every government agency is corrupt and out to get one single person.

Trans people will be fine in the classroom, so long as there is adult supervision. Lack of adult supervision seems to be the theme in that particular district.

Yes he actually committed the bathroom rape right before the policy of using whichever bathroom you choose went into effect. Apparently the administrator decided to cover up the rape, because implementing that policy right after such a rape would seem as foolish as . . . well as foolish as it is.

So, in order for that administrator to implement his woke policy without so much of an outrage, another victim was sacrificed to the rapist.

We both believe the rapist should be punished to the fullest extent of the law and don't understand why he was put in a position to commit another horrific act. The difference is that you want to also punish innocent trans kids in the process. That makes zero sense, as has been explained at great length above.

 

[Snarky Sack]

The greatest risk of any XX person being raped comes from an XY person that they know. Why are you not pounding the table for a law that forbids any XX person from ever being alone with any XY person? That would protect a lot more XX people from the possibility of being raped than banning XY transgender people from using "women/girl" restrooms.

Because there are legitimate reasons for biological males to be alone with biological females in many settings. Public bathrooms are not one of them.

I want to point out that here you are agreeing that one's biological-chromosomal sex is a different thing than one's gender. We'll circle back to this farther down.

Yes, I agreed to hold to that convention of language on this board several days ago. Only on this board though. Elsewhere the convention is that gender is determined by sex "assigned" at birth. This from your own link:

I'm not saying that the majority are correct and the folks on this board incorrect. I'm saying the words mean different things to each group, and you might say I'm "bilingual," in that respect.

I like to have intelligent discussions and you are an intelligent person capable of such, so I'll agree to that distinction so we know what each other are talking about.

I'm XY, since you asked.

So are you qualified to talk about the feelings of XX folk?

And here's were we circle back to you previously agreeing that one's biological-chromosomal sex is a different thing than one's gender.

First, I'm not "stuck on this chromosome thing." You're the one that is stuck on this chromosome thing. You want to force people to act the way that you think they should act based on there biological sex. Our biological sex is completely determined by "this chromosome thing," which means you want to force people to act the way you think they should based on their chromosomes.

That is a BS and absurd premise. I never said that I wanted to force anyone to do anything based on their biological sex.

I have said that I want to forbid biological males from encroaching on female areas of privacy and female sports, but not force them to use a male bathroom or play on male teams. They can use the family bathrooms or they can be accommodated by offering private bathrooms.

They can play on male teams, and change in those private bathrooms if they, as women, do not think it safe or comfortable to change in front of men.

But, I would not force them to play on male teams if they don't want to. Which, obviously they do not, if they show up to the female team demanding a slot.

I know this is a BS and absurd question. I ask it only to make a valid point:

• What's your next move, calling for the forcing of people to act the way you think they should based on the chromosomes that determine skin color, eye color or hair color?

You know it is a BS and absurd question, and I agree so I won't dissect it. There is a named fallacy for that, but it escapes me now.

Second, I've never claimed that gender is a choice. I never implied it either, because I know that for almost everyone gender is an innate feeling that we are born with. Recent discoveries in genetics and neuroscience confirm that.

No, the recent discoveries do not "confirm" that. Or if they do, show them to me, and I will dissect those if I can.

I've heard of some studies that "suggest" that there may be some biological causation of being transgender. I've always thought so, and it won't surprise me if that is confirmed. But let's be accurate. At this point, it is not confirmed.

What do you think about the fact that transgender teens forced to use restrooms that conform to their biological sex get sexually assaulted at a higher rate than those who are allowed use restrooms that conform to their gender?

Transgender teens with restricted bathroom access at higher risk of sexual assault

Transgender and gender-nonbinary teens face greater risk of sexual assault in schools that prevent them from using bathrooms or locker rooms consistent with their gender identity, according to a re…

www.hsph.harvard.edu

Terrible. I think we should implement the ideas for making bathrooming a private activity. We seem to agree on that, but you seem to want us to disagree. Is it for the reason I think it is?

What we should not do is endanger even more girls and women by allowing biological males access to their bathrooms with absolutely no standards as to who is actually transgender.

Why on Trump's green earth would you think I, or anyone else, would be disappointed that you are biologically male and feel like a man?

I said that I would NOT disappoint. I meant that I would not disappoint by not telling you my sex and my gender, since you were so interested.

 

[Snarky Sack]

We both believe the rapist should be punished to the fullest extent of the law

Correct.

and don't understand why he was put in a position to commit another horrific act.

I do, and stated the reason above. Admittedly, I cannot prove it, that is not the same as not understanding it.

The difference is that you want to also punish innocent trans kids in the process. That makes zero sense, as has been explained at great length above.

Keeping biological males out of female bathrooms isn't "punishing" anyone. I stay out of female bathrooms all day every day. I don't feel at all punished if I have to walk to the other side of the building when I'm standing right next to the female bathroom.

 

[Snarky Sack]

It’s like you completely forgot our whole conversation about how it’s unamerican to punish trans people who need to use the restroom because of heterosexual male sex offenders.

See post above.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Correct.

It's a Festivus miracle.

I do, and stated the reason above. Admittedly, I cannot prove it, that is not the same as not understanding it.

If you don't have any proof of something, you actually don't know.

Keeping biological males out of female bathrooms isn't "punishing" anyone. I stay out of female bathrooms all day every day. I don't feel at all punished if I have to walk to the other side of the building when I'm standing right next to the female bathroom.

Yes, but if you were standing next to the bathroom that matches your gender that you've always used with no problem and some busybody demanded that you go use a different bathroom because you don't look enough like the gender the bathroom is for, you would be.

 

[Snarky Sack]

It's a Festivus miracle.



If you don't have any proof of something, you actually don't know.



Yes, but if you were standing next to the bathroom that matches your gender that you've always used with no problem and some busybody demanded that you go use a different bathroom because you don't look enough like the gender the bathroom is for, you would be.

I'll disagree with the word "punished."

"Inconvenienced" is a better fit.

I can never seem to get an answer to this:

What is the standard for which biological males can use the women/girls room? Is it really that you just have to indicate that you are a woman by walking into the women's restroom, even if you look like me?

So, if I need to take a crup and just turn right behind a lady teacher as she goes into the women's room, she's a busy body if she says anything?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I'll disagree with the word "punished."

"Inconvenienced" is a better fit.

I can never seem to get an answer to this:

What is the standard for which biological males can use the women/girls room? Is it really that you just have to indicate that you are a woman by walking into the women's restroom, even if you look like me?

So, if I need to take a crup and just turn right behind a lady teacher as she goes into the women's room, she's a busy body if she says anything?

Your inability to have an honest conversation becomes more and more apparent every day. I sincerely hope you grow out of your bubble one day.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I didn't have time for a thorough proofread, so please forgive the typos and incorrect word usage, everyone. Especially any homophone misuses, those trip me up a lot.

Because there are legitimate reasons for biological males to be alone with biological females in many settings. Public bathrooms are not one of them.

That's your opinion. It is not an objective fact. We shouldn't disrespect and discriminate against people just because we refuse to accept them for who they are.

So are you qualified to talk about the feelings of XX folk?

The only thing I've talked about regarding people with XX chromosomes is that you have no experience or authority to tell others what the majority of them think and feel. And I also pointed out that you have dismissed a person here who is actually female when they told you what she and other women think and feel.

That is a BS and absurd premise. I never said that I wanted to force anyone to do anything based on their biological sex.

You keep arguing that transgender XY people should have to use "men/boys" restrooms and not "women/girl restrooms." No matter how you slice, dice and spin it, that is unmistakeably you trying to force people to do what you think is right and you have clearly and unmistakeably based it entirely on your rigid and authoritarian views about biological sex and gender.

I have said that I want to forbid biological males from encroaching on female areas of privacy and female sports,

I've noticed you say the above very clearly and very often.

...but not force them to use a male bathroom or play on male teams. They can use the family bathrooms or they can be accommodated by offering private bathrooms.

This is the first time I've noticed you say the above. What are they to do if no public family restrooms (I've never heard of such a thing) or a solo public bathroom isn't available?

Are you cool with going back to blacks having separate restrooms too? You know that used to be a thing and it was also based on false and ignorant biological beliefs and bigotry.

You know it is a BS and absurd question, and I agree so I won't dissect it.

I told you it wasn't a genuine question, but it does raise a valid and inconvenient point for you.

The question illustrates the valid question of where do you draw the line in telling people what they can and can't do based solely on the genes that determine their physical traits like skin color, hair color, eye color and biological sex.

I also asked you another question that I pointed out was BS, not genuine and was just to make a point. You didn't have anything to say about that one. I asked you the second BS question to point out how much BS it is for you to ask someone else this question:

Gosh, cuddlemonkey. I don't want rapists going into school bathrooms or classrooms. How about you?​

At least I acknowledged ahead of time that my questions were BS and I only used them to illustrate some points. You regularly ask people BS questions like above.

No, the recent discoveries do not "confirm" that.

Yes, recent discoveries in genetics and neurology have in fact confirmed that gender is not tied to the same determining factors of chromosomal/biological sex, regardless of if you accept it or not.

They have unverified theories and suggestions about what factors might determine gender, but they have confirmed that gender is not determined by biological sex.

Or if they do, show them to me, and I will dissect those if I can.

If you have an open mind and really want to learn factual truth, you'd seek the information yourself.

Look at your own phrasing above. You'll "dissect" them "if you can." You're not going to read them, study them or take a look at them, you're going to "dissect" them.

You're phrasing above coupled with the "show me sources - those sources, I don't believe those sources" game you constantly play is why I've reached the conclusion that you're not asking for sources in good faith.

Given that, I'm not going to waste time finding the articles I've read over the past year. My assessment of you might be mistaken, but all I know about you is how you act here and everything about how you act here indicates to me that you are not acting in good faith.

Terrible. I think we should implement the ideas for making bathrooming a private activity.

I think the only acceptable changes to public restroom polices to address a minority of people's concerns about people who are transgender, is to make all toilets in public restrooms completely private and secure, so that it doesn't matter who is in what restroom with whom.

We seem to agree on that, but you seem to want us to disagree. Is it for the reason I think it is?

I don't want to disagree with anyone, so I don't "want us to disagree." Agreeing or disagreeing is determined solely by what I honestly think. It's not something I ever choose to do or try to make happen.

I have no clue what you're thinking or asking when you ask, "Is it for the reason I think it is?" If you give me more clarity on what you think "it" is and what you think "the reason" for whatever "it" is, I might be able to answer your question.

I said that I would NOT disappoint. I meant that I would not disappoint by not telling you my sex and my gender, since you were so interested.

Okay. It wouldn't have disappointed me if you hadn't answered my question, because I don't care what sex or gender you or anyone else is. It's not important to me.

I asked you what chromosomes you have to illustrate the point that it was silly of you to think that you speak for the majority of females if you are male. And that it was silly of you to dismiss and invalidate an actual female here when she told you what she and other females feel and think.

 

[LA - L.A.]

The second victim was raped in a classroom, not a bathroom. Do you support keeping trans people out of classrooms as well?

Trans people will be fine in the classroom, so long as there is adult supervision.

Please clarify what you mean by this statement.

Within the context of your answer and the question that you were answering, it seems like you're saying that there is no danger of a transgender child raping XX children as long as there is an adult around. I really hope that's not what you think about transgender children.

I'm re-posting this exchange, because you didn't respond to it in your previous response. I would like your clarification on this, so I hope you choose not to disappoint again.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

I scanned through this page. I didn't read all of it. But am i to assume that Snarky is making a case that Trans people rape more people because of the bathroom situations than straight guys? Rape is a terrible pandemic in this country. But to suggest that Trans people who use the opposite bathroom have caused an uptick in rape is just laughable to anyone who believes that..

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

Lol:

when you are so Anti "Woke", you have to make stuff up to promote your hate...

 

[Snarky Sack]

I didn't have time for a thorough proofread, so please forgive the typos and incorrect word usage, everyone. Especially any homophone misuses, those trip me up a lot.

That's your opinion. It is not an objective fact. We shouldn't disrespect and discriminate against people just because we refuse to accept them for who they are.

It's a message board where we give our opinions. Giving my opinion that is different from yours =/= disrespecting and discriminating.

The only thing I've talked about regarding people with XX chromosomes is that you have no experience or authority to tell others what the majority of them think and feel. And I also pointed out that you have dismissed a person here who is actually female when they told you what she and other women think and feel.

I asked you which poster that was with XX chromosomes and how you think that I know that. When your stance on issues causes you to avoid answering questions so consistently, it is time to rethink your stance in light of those questions.

If you are not XX, how do you know that XX people are not actually very open-minded and on this board specifically to hear opinions from people different from themselves, such as XY people? Why do you feel that you must protect XX people from ideas that bother you, rather than them?

You keep arguing that transgender XY people should have to use "men/boys" restrooms and not "women/girl restrooms." No matter how you slice, dice and spin it, that is unmistakeably you trying to force people to do what you think is right and you have clearly and unmistakeably based it entirely on your rigid and authoritarian views about biological sex and gender.

I argue that XY people NOT use female bathrooms, female changing rooms and female locker rooms. I never said that they should be required to enter the mens/boys rooms if they are uncomfortable there. Your straw man debates become tiresome. You don't need me for them.

I've noticed you say the above very clearly and very often.


This is the first time I've noticed you say the above. What are they to do if no public family restrooms (I've never heard of such a thing) or a solo public bathroom isn't available?

You've never heard of a public family bathroom? I've mentioned them a time or two, but I don't think that the radical transgender activists will accept that idea.

Are you cool with going back to blacks having separate restrooms too? You know that used to be a thing and it was also based on false and ignorant biological beliefs and bigotry.

No. Understanding that biological females are different from males in ways far different than "blacks" are different from "whites" is not bigotry.

I told you it wasn't a genuine question, but it does raise a valid and inconvenient point for you.

The question illustrates the valid question of where do you draw the line in telling people what they can and can't do based solely on the genes that determine their physical traits like skin color, hair color, eye color and biological sex.

I also asked you another question that I pointed out was BS, not genuine and was just to make a point. You didn't have anything to say about that one. I asked you the second BS question to point out how much BS it is for you to ask someone else this question:

At least I acknowledged ahead of time that my questions were BS and I only used them to illustrate some points. You regularly ask people BS questions like above.

I never try to interject race into a topic having nothing to do with race in order to trip up the person I'm debating. Maybe that has worked for you in the past, but you've got the wrong fella this time. If you knew me in the slightest, you'd know that the race card is a blank for me.

Yes, recent discoveries in genetics and neurology have in fact confirmed that gender is not tied to the same determining factors of chromosomal/biological sex, regardless of if you accept it or not.

They have unverified theories and suggestions about what factors might determine gender, but they have confirmed that gender is not determined by biological sex.

Show me.

If you have an open mind and really want to learn factual truth, you'd seek the information yourself.

In other words, you read a headline that said "scientists say . . ." and now you think I'll take a research assignment from you since you cannot back up your own claim. I'd be surprised if that has ever worked for you.

Look at your own phrasing above. You'll "dissect" them "if you can." You're not going to read them, study them or take a look at them, you're going to "dissect" them.

You're phrasing above coupled with the "show me sources - those sources, I don't believe those sources" game you constantly play is why I've reached the conclusion that you're not asking for sources in good faith.

I have two masters degrees and time in on a PhD. I'm not qualified to conduct professional level research yet, but I am fully qualified to analyze it for validity, reliability and robustness. All of that starts with reading the study, of course.

If your studies have these qualities and say what you say that they say, I will accept them.

Why would I otherwise.

Given that, I'm not going to waste time finding the articles I've read over the past year. My assessment of you might be mistaken, but all I know about you is how you act here and everything about how you act here indicates to me that you are not acting in good faith.

You're calling me a liar? Why debate a liar, then?

I think the only acceptable changes to public restroom polices to address a minority of people's concerns about people who are transgender, is to make all toilets in public restrooms completely private and secure, so that it doesn't matter who is in what restroom with whom.

I have said that also. I've also said that I do not believe that the radical transactivists (many of whom have XY chromosomes so I suppose you might allow me to talk about them?) will accept that. Their goal is not safety, but for all of us to be required to affirm that they are "real women."

I don't want to disagree with anyone, so I don't "want us to disagree." Agreeing or disagreeing is determined solely by what I honestly think. It's not something I ever choose to do or try to make happen.

I have no clue what you're thinking or asking when you ask, "Is it for the reason I think it is?" If you give me more clarity on what you think "it" is and what you think "the reason" for whatever "it" is, I might be able to answer your question.

It seems that for you and for several posters on here, you use very hostile tones even when you agree with me about something.

I have to think that it is due to peer pressure from others on the board.

Okay. It wouldn't have disappointed me if you hadn't answered my question, because I don't care what sex or gender you or anyone else is. It's not important to me.

Then why did you make such a point of asking me about it?

I asked you what chromosomes you have to illustrate the point that it was silly of you to think that you speak for the majority of females if you are male. And that it was silly of you to dismiss and invalidate an actual female here when she told you what she and other females feel and think.

"Disagreeing" does not equal "dismiss and invalidate." Did this "actual female" feel dismissed and invalidated? Again, I have no idea which poster you are talking about.

I'm re-posting this exchange, because you didn't respond to it in your previous response. I would like your clarification on this, so I hope you choose not to disappoint again.

You, of all posters on this board, should not be implying that another poster is wrong for not answering a question.

I did not respond to this:

Please clarify what you mean by this statement.

Within the context of your answer and the question that you were answering, it seems like you're saying that there is no danger of a transgender child raping XX children as long as there is an adult around. I really hope that's not what you think about transgender children.

Because I told another poster that I would no longer respond when he put words in my mouth that had no resemblance to anything that I actually said. That poster used to do it in nearly every exchange, but it wouldn't be fair if I did not also apply that to posters who only sometimes do it.

The answer to all such questions is "I'm saying what I did say."