Fifty year old trans swimmer sparks outrage

[Invisibleflash]

Something is wrong here. Some 50 year old man pretending to be a woman is allowed to shower with little and teen girls?

Unbelievable

Transgender swimmer, 50, sparks outrage in Canada after competing against teens, sharing locker room

Transgender swimmer, 50, sparks outrage in Canada after competing against teens, sharing locker room

Parents whose children competed at a swim meet in Canada this month have spoken out after a 50-year-old transgender athlete competed against teens, shared a changing room with them.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Donald H]

Looking at children naked is normal for you?
Youre a faggot. A super creepy faggot. And i hope you dont live close to any schools.

Hang on there Harley, I'm not a catholick priest!

 

[TNHarley]

Hang on there Harley, I'm not a catholick priest!

Must have missed your calling.

 

[ding]

Can we begin by declaring that viewing physical differences is not dirty?

Except when it is. So how will you be able to tell the difference?

 

[sparky]

10 yrs ago this would be some sort of spam.....~S~

 

[drudge X]

Leftists haven't stopped declaring war against women. That's a sure bet.

 

[braalian]

Why would you let a 50 year old of any gender swim with children and use their locker room?

 

[Donald H]

Except when it is. So how will you be able to tell the difference?

I think the difference comes naturally to most atheists. First, naked bodies aren't dirty to us. I wouldn't even call a catholic priest dirty. He's evil and perverter if he's one of the child molesters

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I think the difference comes naturally to most atheists. First, naked bodies aren't dirty to us. I wouldn't even call a catholic priest dirty. He's evil and perverter if he's one of the child molesters

If you had a young daughter, would you be OK with me, a sixty-one-year-old man, being in a locker room with her watching her dress, undress, and shower?

 

[Donald H]

If you had a young daughter, would you be OK with me, a sixty-one-year-old man, being in a locker room with her watching her dress, undress, and shower?

Your sexual perversion has nothing to do with me Bob.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

If you had a young daughter, would you be OK with me, a sixty-one-year-old man, being in a locker room with her watching her dress, undress, and shower?

Your sexual perversion has nothing to do with me Bob.

Whatever perversions I may or may not have, are irrelevant to the question.

Would you be OK with an old man being in the same locker room with a young daughter of your, watching her dress, undress, and shower?

 

[ding]

I think the difference comes naturally to most atheists. First, naked bodies aren't dirty to us. I wouldn't even call a catholic priest dirty. He's evil and perverter if he's one of the child molesters

To you... there's nothing really wrong with anything. No right. No wrong. Just satisfaction of material needs and animal impulses.

 

[Donald H]

To you... there's nothing really wrong with anything. No right. No wrong.

You may not be recognizing that which I think is wrong? Some of our values will be the same but some might be opposites.

Just satisfaction of material needs

Can you elaborate on your perception?

and animal impulses.

We all have animal impulses my friend.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

An atheist doesn't need to avert his eyes to avoid looking at children.

We consider it to be quite normal. That which isn't normal is thinking religious, imagined bugaboos when seeing a child.

You can and should be arrested for this perversion. You've outed yourself without anyone having to use the "word"

 

[Mac-7]

You may not be recognizing that which I think is wrong? Some of our values will be the same but some might be opposites.

Can you elaborate on your perception?

We all have animal impulses my friend.

Mutant lib men should keep their animal impulses out of female dressing rooms

 

[ding]

You may not be recognizing that which I think is wrong? Some of our values will be the same but some might be opposites.

From the atheist's vantage point, right and wrong are human constructs and can be anything the majority of humans want them to be. So your feigned attempt at claiming absolute right and wrong is just that. You have no moral high ground because you have no morals only preferences; satisfaction of material needs, avoiding pain and getting as much pleasure as you can.

 

[ding]

Can you elaborate on your perception?

It's not my perception. I didn't come up with the idea. It's been around for quite some time. Would you like for me to provide you the citations?

I'm not sure there is more to elaborate on than I have already shared. Atheists see no higher order or purpose of man than his satisfaction of material needs and animal impulses. Which makes sense because to atheists, humans are nothing more than matter. There is no higher purpose. And if there is no higher purpose than all there is is the satisfaction of material needs and animal impulses.

 

[ding]

We all have animal impulses my friend.

Yes, that is true. But it is a question of balance. There was a time when there was an overbalance towards the spiritual and a hatred towards the material (i.e. Gnostic Christianity). Today there is a trend towards the love of the material and a hatred of the spiritual.

I much prefer embracing both aspects of existence; the material and the spiritual. With neither the material nor the spiritual dominating the other but coexisting peacefully in one being... me.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I think the difference comes naturally to most atheists. First, naked bodies aren't dirty to us. I wouldn't even call a catholic priest dirty. He's evil and perverter if he's one of the child molesters

To you... there's nothing really wrong with anything. No right. No wrong. Just satisfaction of material needs and animal impulses.

It's what happens when you deny God. In denying God, a Godless fool such as Donald H denies the very foundation of any consistent body of morals and ethics. “Right” and “wrong” end up being defined by whatever is most expedient to the desires of the one making the judgement.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I'm not sure there is more to elaborate on than I have already shared. Atheists see no higher order or purpose of man than his satisfaction of material needs and animal impulses.

Which is how a Godless creep like Donald H forms a system of ethics which holds that it is entirely moral and acceptable for an old man to be leering at young girls in a locker room, while they are undressed.

It's pretty clear what inclinations Donald H holds, that would motivate him to try to justify that. I don't suppose he would consider nor care how the young girls would feel about that creepy old man leering at them in that situation.