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

L.T. Fan said:
I don't hear anyone in these discussions saying they want to eradicate these people. All I hear is don't mix the public toilets. All the other issues you are raising about bigotry and such is just so much prejudicial flak.
Click to expand...

The largest issue with sharing public toilets is the fear that MtF trans types would somehow act deviantly while in the women's restroom, this is why I've been using the scouts example. Because it's based on the fear of them as secret rapists. Which is an intensely bigoted suggestion. Just as it was when any other group of people were assumed to be rapists by bigots, when asking for equality (hint: people did that with black people.)
 
townsend said:
The largest issue with sharing public toilets is the fear that MtF trans types would somehow act deviantly while in the women's restroom, this is why I've been using the scouts example. Because it's based on the fear of them as secret rapists. Which is an intensely bigoted suggestion. Just as it was when any other group of people were assumed to be rapists by bigots, when asking for equality (hint: people did that with black people.)
Click to expand...

Did you just completely ignore all of the articles that have been posted about perverts and assholes posing as trans to get into bathrooms they shouldn't be in?
 
Cowboysrock55 said:
It isn't about acceptance or equality as you suggest at all. It's about special rules for special people. Equality means everyone is treated the same which is not at all what is being asked for. What trans people are really asking is that they be allowed to be treated differently then everyone else. Which is what always bothers me.
Click to expand...

Acceptance in this case means society has to alter itself,which is what it usually means. You can't say you're accepting of handicapped people, and not have a wheelchair ramp. You can't say your accepting of blacks, and have a blacks only restroom.
 
Iamtdg said:
Did you just completely ignore all of the articles that have been posted about perverts and assholes posing as trans to get into bathrooms they shouldn't be in?
Click to expand...

Yes he did. He is on some kind of crusade about these individuals being mistreated when in fact most of us are probably ambivalent about them other than mixed gender restrooms. He thinks this is an insufferable act of discrimination when in actuality it's a modesty issue on the one hand and a potential danger on the other. There are some things where common sense should rule and not an idealistic non factor cause.
 
Iamtdg said:
Did you just completely ignore all of the articles that have been posted about perverts and assholes posing as trans to get into bathrooms they shouldn't be in?
Click to expand...

There have been like 3 so far. They got caught being perverted, because it's a crime. Just because a pervert thinks they're using a loophole to get away with something (that they didn't) doesn't mean the lack of "loophole" would have prevented them from doing something perverted, these 3 guys were not model citizens that would have lived out their lives without committing a sex crime, and laws that affect trans people, means your punishing a non involved group of people, for perverts doing perverted stuff they probably would have done anyway.

Once again, this is like assuming outlawing guns would stop people from using guns in crimes, as if they are only willing to rob a bank if they can obtain guns legally.
 
townsend said:
Acceptance in this case means society has to alter itself,which is what it usually means. You can't say you're accepting of handicapped people, and not have a wheelchair ramp. You can't say your accepting of blacks, and have a blacks only restroom.
Click to expand...

None of your examples fit this situation. Why do you bother to insert them into the issue?
 
Iamtdg said:
Did you just completely ignore all of the articles that have been posted about perverts and assholes posing as trans to get into bathrooms they shouldn't be in?
Click to expand...

Of course he did. Why wouldn't he? If he acknowledged them, and actually paid attention to what people were saying in this thread, he'd see that we are saying WE ARE WORRIED ABOUT PERVERTS USING THIS AS A LOOPHOLE TO FURTHER THEIR DEVIANT BEHAVIOR, AND NOBODY HAS BEEN ARGUING AGAINST ACTUAL TRANNYS. But you know... Grrrr. Bigots. Grrrr.
 
townsend said:
There have been like 3 so far. They got caught being perverted, because it's a crime. Just because a pervert thinks they're using a loophole to get away with something (that they didn't) doesn't mean the lack of "loophole" would have prevented them from doing something perverted, these 3 guys were not model citizens that would have lived out their lives without committing a sex crime, and laws that affect trans people, means your punishing a non involved group of people, for perverts doing perverted stuff they probably would have done anyway.

Once again, this is like assuming outlawing guns would stop people from using guns in crimes, as if they are only willing to rob a bank if they can obtain guns legally.
Click to expand...

3 that have been posted. But, you know, even if there have only been 3 in the history of man, that's 3 times my daughter could have been in harm's way. That's easily enough ammo for me to stand my ground against this stupidity.
 
NoDak said:
Of course he did. Why wouldn't he? If he acknowledged them, and actually paid attention to what people were saying in this thread, he'd see that we are saying WE ARE WORRIED ABOUT PERVERTS USING THIS AS A LOOPHOLE TO FURTHER THEIR DEVIANT BEHAVIOR, AND NOBODY HAS BEEN ARGUING AGAINST ACTUAL TRANNYS. But you know... Grrrr. Bigots. Grrrr.
Click to expand...
See my statement above. TLDR :sex criminals will break laws, so more laws will not stop sex criminals, therefore law like that only serve to punish law abiding citizens.
http://www.dallascowboyscentral.com...-school-Really&p=269250&viewfull=1#post269250
 
Iamtdg said:
3 that have been posted. But, you know, even if there have only been 3 in the history of man, that's 3 times my daughter could have been in harm's way. That's easily enough ammo for me to stand my ground against this stupidity.
Click to expand...

You have to know how irrational that sounds. How many public restrooms are there in the US. 6 million or so? I can't find a good number except there are about 9 million urinals apparently, so let's oversimlify and say there's maybe 3 million female restrooms, assuming the average matching male restroom has 3 urinals.

Hell let's just say 2 million female restrooms to be conservative.

So in two million restrooms a pervert showed up in one three times. In the last 5 years or so, a pervert in drag showed up once. So the odds of a particular person, encountering a pervert trying to use the trans loophole. So that's 3/(365*5+1 (day for leap year) times 2,000,000). The odds are so slim my calculator didn't have enough room for all the zeroes, we're about like a 1 in 300,000,000 chance)

Keep in mind, letting your daughter, ride in a vehicle puts her at somewhere between 1 in 4000 and one in 8000 of dying in a traffic fatality.
 
townsend said:
You have to know how irrational that sounds. How many public restrooms are there in the US. 6 million or so? I can't find a good number except there are about 9 million urinals apparently, so let's oversimlify and say there's maybe 3 million female restrooms, assuming the average matching male restroom has 3 urinals.

Hell let's just say 2 million female restrooms to be conservative.

So in two million restrooms a pervert showed up in one three times. In the last 5 years or so, a pervert in drag showed up once. So the odds of a particular person, encountering a pervert trying to use the trans loophole. So that's 3/(365*5+1 (day for leap year) times 2,000,000). The odds are so slim my calculator didn't have enough room for all the zeroes, we're about like a 1 in 300,000,000 chance)

Keep in mind, letting your daughter, ride in a vehicle puts her at somewhere between 1 in 4000 and one in 8000 of dying in a traffic fatality.
Click to expand...

All I read was, "I don't have kids, so I have no idea the position you are coming from".
 
townsend said:
There have been like 3 so far. They got caught being perverted, because it's a crime. Just because a pervert thinks they're using a loophole to get away with something (that they didn't) doesn't mean the lack of "loophole" would have prevented them from doing something perverted, these 3 guys were not model citizens that would have lived out their lives without committing a sex crime, and laws that affect trans people, means your punishing a non involved group of people, for perverts doing perverted stuff they probably would have done anyway.

Once again, this is like assuming outlawing guns would stop people from using guns in crimes, as if they are only willing to rob a bank if they can obtain guns legally.
Click to expand...

BOOM.

It's amazing how that same logic has been twisted around here.
 
townsend said:
Yep you're right, we stopped segregating bathrooms because it didn't matter.
Click to expand...

Jiggyfly said:
BOOM.

It's amazing how that same logic has been twisted around here.
Click to expand...

These two comparisons are both stupid. But, keep on reaching for an argument. It just keeps making you both look more and more stupid.
 
townsend said:
You can't say your accepting of blacks, and have a blacks only restroom.
Click to expand...

But you can accept blacks and not let the males use the female bathrooms and vice versa. Seperate but equal isn't equal. But we aren't talking about that. We are talking about transgender people obeying rules that everyone else has to.

Your handicap example again doesn't apply because without accessability a handicap person can't use the restroom at all. No one is stopping a transgender person from usong the restrooms in the same manner as everyone else.

Again, they want to be treated special compared to everyone else. That's where I draw the line.
 
townsend said:
Once again, this is like assuming outlawing guns would stop people from using guns in crimes, as if they are only willing to rob a bank if they can obtain guns legally.
Click to expand...

Or outlawing drunk driving to try and stop people from getting killed in drunk driving accidents. Oh wait... sucks when the comparison applies to basically all laws.
 
Cowboysrock55 said:
Or outlawing drunk driving to try and stop people from getting killed in drunk driving accidents. Oh wait... sucks when the comparison applies to basically all laws.
Click to expand...

It seems a, hopeless effort to have to explain that all the flak issues he is throwing out on this topic is simply irrelevant to the issue at hand. None of the examples being utilized has the potential harm element to them. But he will continue to do so because if he hasn't made that determination by now he isn't going to either because of refusal to comprehend or just to keep the fire burning. Either way the irrelevant examples will continue so brace yourself for more.
 
Cowboysrock55 said:
Or outlawing drunk driving to try and stop people from getting killed in drunk driving accidents. Oh wait... sucks when the comparison applies to basically all laws.
Click to expand...

So you think Trans people going into their restroom of choice is dangerous, that they're actively endangering the lives of the other people in the restroom? Will they kill someone with their restroom use? Who's stretching their analogies now?

Gun ownership is harmless, going to the bathroom is harmless. The commonality here is paranoid people who think that laws that targets harmless people, will prevent the harmful people from committing crimes. Driving drunk is a harmful act, is this not very obvious?
 
townsend said:
So you think Trans people going into their restroom of choice is dangerous, that they're actively endangering the lives of the other people in the restroom? Will they kill someone with their restroom use? Who's stretching their analogies now?

Gun ownership is harmless, going to the bathroom is harmless. The commonality here is paranoid people who think that laws that targets harmless people, will prevent the harmful people from committing crimes. Driving drunk is a harmful act, is this not very obvious?
Click to expand...

You are apparently presenting all this under the guise of human rights. Yet you do not respect the rights of those who are not enamored with this idea for various reasons. Would you simply dismiss the fact that the plurality has rights also? Or do they not matter to you?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom