A week of LGBTQ acceptance education in a middle school. Really?

[Cowboysrock55]

Real dangers are things that can be demonstrated with facts.

I think there have been multiple examples in this thread of real life men dressing up as women and going in the bathroom. One of which the article specifically titled as a transgender and called out the laws allowing it. So it's not totally imagined. It just depends to what degree you are talking about. And maybe these things have always been going on with or without laws protecting or allowing it.

 

[Cotton]

Real dangers are things that can be demonstrated with facts. Vague feelings of discomfort aren't dangers. Dallas and Austin let trans people into their restrooms and these attacks you are so afraid of just aren't happening. If these cities were full of deviants sneaking into bathrooms I'd agree it was a problem and something would probably need to be done. So far this debate reminds me of people in Africa and Indonesia still being afraid of people practicing witchcraft and putting curses on them. Excuse me for not being in tune with your imagination, but I need hard facts before I believe we need government intervention.

Some dangers are inherent.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Some dangers are inherent.

Not if what you're assuming will happen doesn't or won't happen. When they passed the concealed carry law here in Texas a bunch of liberal alarmists claimed it would be a return to the old west, gunfights in the streets, mass slaughter. Didn't happen. The Gun Toting Scary Southerner was just a bogey man that a bunch of silly people were scared of. The Cross Dressing Rapist is another imaginary bogey man.

At least LT's stance that he feels it's an invasion of his privacy makes sense (until you realize that restrooms have stalls).

 

[townsend]

I think there have been multiple examples in this thread of real life men dressing up as women and going in the bathroom. One of which the article specifically titled as a transgender and called out the laws allowing it. So it's not totally imagined. It just depends to what degree you are talking about. And maybe these things have always been going on with or without laws protecting or allowing it.

I think it's still a large leap to presume that sexual predators are more likely to commit sex crimes if they can cross dress to get into a women's restroom. The guys who got caught doing those things (once again approximately 3, in the course of 5 years or so) would have certainly decided to act out their perversions in one way or another.

Keep in mind 82% of rapists are friends, family, and acquaintances, so children are literally safer in strange restrooms than they are at family reunions. That's why this seems like such a bizarre disconnect. There are tons of ways to mitigate child endangerment, and almost none of them have been actively taken out. You could definitely put a much larger dent into child sexual abuse by banning homeschooling. But that might actually inconvenience the people railing against trans people, so that's a non starter.

 

[Jiggyfly]

I think there have been multiple examples in this thread of real life men dressing up as women and going in the bathroom. One of which the article specifically titled as a transgender and called out the laws allowing it. So it's not totally imagined. It just depends to what degree you are talking about. And maybe these things have always been going on with or without laws protecting or allowing it.

And there have been multiple of examples of metropolitan areas having these laws on the books with zero issues.

The statistics are heavily against these restrictive laws.

 

[skidadl]

I think there have been multiple examples in this thread of real life men dressing up as women and going in the bathroom. One of which the article specifically titled as a transgender and called out the laws allowing it. So it's not totally imagined. It just depends to what degree you are talking about. And maybe these things have always been going on with or without laws protecting or allowing it.

That may be true but I'm taking all necessary risks of the table when it comes to this topic.

To me it doesn't pass the sniff test. Why do we need to wait for data before we use common sense.

 

[skidadl]

I think it's still a large leap to presume that sexual predators are more likely to commit sex crimes if they can cross dress to get into a women's restroom. The guys who got caught doing those things (once again approximately 3, in the course of 5 years or so) would have certainly decided to act out their perversions in one way or another.

Keep in mind 82% of rapists are friends, family, and acquaintances, so children are literally safer in strange restrooms than they are at family reunions. That's why this seems like such a bizarre disconnect. There are tons of ways to mitigate child endangerment, and almost none of them have been actively taken out. You could definitely put a much larger dent into child sexual abuse by banning homeschooling. But that might actually inconvenience the people railing against trans people, so that's a non starter.

I make it a policy to not make it easier. All of this trying to quality it is useless and absurd.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

And there have been multiple of examples of metropolitan areas having these laws on the books with zero issues.

They didn't really say their were zero issues, they just kind of pulled the plausible deniability card. The well "not that I'm aware of" bullshit. FYI, it's what lawyers tell people to say to make sure that they don't get themselves in trouble with an answer.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

Keep in mind 82% of rapists are friends, family, and acquaintances, so children are literally safer in strange restrooms than they are at family reunions.

You always jump to rape. But there is a whole spectrum of sexual crimes that don't get included in rape statistics what so ever. We aren't talking simply about rape.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

“Cannot Recall A Single Incident”
“Have Not Heard Of Such Incidents”
“Not Aware” atters:
“HR has not received complaints of that nature, nor are they in Police statistics.”


Towns has been right this entire time.

Comments?

Don't you love that none of these statements actually says that crimes have or haven't happened as a result of the laws? It's basically the equivalent of playing dumb.

 

[Jiggyfly]

They didn't really say their were zero issues, they just kind of pulled the plausible deniability card. The well "not that I'm aware of" bullshit. FYI, it's what lawyers tell people to say to make sure that they don't get themselves in trouble with an answer.

Well it's a lot closer to zero than being something that needs a law to overturn existing laws.

And since when is being not aware bullshit, either you now something or not, it's a hell of a lot better than claiming something is going on when you actually have no clue.

 

[Jiggyfly]

Don't you love that none of these statements actually says that crimes have or haven't happened as a result of the laws? It's basically the equivalent of playing dumb.

They are going off there best knowledge without saying nothing at all is happening.

Why would police departments be playing dumb?

Are you trying to claim this is being unreported or something more nefarious is going on?

This is Texas not some liberal bastion?

You are really muddying the waters by pulling things out of context and then assigning them some diabolical meanings.

That's very lawyerly of you, well played.

 

[townsend]

I make it a policy to not make it easier. All of this trying to quality it is useless and absurd.

So would you be in favor of making homeschooling illegal?

 

[townsend]

You always jump to rape. But there is a whole spectrum of sexual crimes that don't get included in rape statistics what so ever. We aren't talking simply about rape.

I recognize your move towards complication, and admit that there probably is more that what statistics bear out, but I'd still say that the devastating prevalence of acquaintances as sexual predators as compared to strangers still favors my statement of bathroom safety, compared to safety at family reunions and so on.

Also I'm really sticking to this homeschooling thing. If the premise is, "save the children, at all costs" then ban homeschooling. You'd put a instant wrinkle into every cult, and child trafficker's ability to exploit children. So I want to know where you stand on this?

 

[skidadl]

So would you be in favor of making homeschooling illegal?

 

[Cotton]

Okay, I'm calling it, this thread has officially jumped the shark.

 

[townsend]

Fair question. This would mitigate risk of child endangerment, in a real way. Emoticons aren't a substitution for a thoughtful answer. If it was an inconvenience to evangelical christians, would you still be as committed to saving the children?

 

[townsend]

By the way, I can provide actual accounts of abused homeschool kids who were sexually assaulted, a lot more than 3 in 5 years. Fuck. I think the Duggars alone would account for more than that.

 

[skidadl]

It's just not worth it. You obviously are more commited to beating the same illogical drum longer than I'm willing to participate. I just don't have the time or energy when it spins out into nonsense. I could give a passionate response that lead to what?

I'll let someone else fight this fight and be happy to swim by and give my occasional jab when convenient.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

Also I'm really sticking to this homeschooling thing. If the premise is, "save the children, at all costs" then ban homeschooling. You'd put a instant wrinkle into every cult, and child trafficker's ability to exploit children. So I want to know where you stand on this?

Not sure what it has with transgenders but I'm not the one who said save children at all costs. I believe their is a cost to freedom that myself and many others wouldn't be willing to give up simply to save one more child for example. However people haven't been free to use the whatever bathroom they want for many centuries so I don't think that's a big freedom to sacrifice. However if you told me that we should create a law that only allows one person in a bathroom at a time because it would reduce the number of sexual offenses taking place in a restroom I would say the cost to our freedom would be too great to justify it.

As far as homeschooling is concerned I have never thought about it. I'd never homeschool my child but I think other people should have their right to do that if they believe it's what is best for their child. Again, I support freedom generally speaking. It's why if you're going to argue that a transgender can go in any bathroom they want I call bullshit, but if you want to advocate that a business is free to make all their bathrooms gender neutral I'm all for it. Same reason I'm against smoking bans. That should be a decision left up to a business.