Finally someone said it:Why should Group demand minority status based on what they do in the bedroom

[defcon4]

Don't spin it with assumptions because you get assumption in reply: If they are in the ladies' room "legally" they can expose themselves, why else would they want to go to the ladies' room?

No spin...reality

Show how women expose themselves to each other in ladies rooms

I assume they go in there to perform a biologically necessary function. Perverts go for peeping and for exposing themselves. That raises the question, why do you want to go into the ladies room?

Dear defcon It's got to be symbolic of public establishment of social recognition and equality. Because if it was only a matter of equal access, then this issue would already be settled with neutral gender, unisex or single stalled facilities.

There is a psychological need to establish one's identity as socially recognized in order to "counteract" for the historical rejection and refusal to recognize LGBT.

So of course it's more a psychological reason to push this.

The liberals use the state to establish beliefs collectively
as the conservatives go through the church to unite
and establish agreement.

Part of the process.

Most doctors' offices, stores and workplaces already have single room all gender bathrooms but perverts want to go into specifically designated female restrooms to shake their genitals "legally" in front of women and young girls when specifically designated restrooms for people with male appendage are available. Like malls, airports..

Dear defcon: to be fair, the same way I called out rdean for generalizing that "ALL Republicans are haters who want gays dead," it is only fair to ask you to be more clear and distinguish between people abusing the law for criminally/sick intent, and those who intend for the law to defend against bullying, harassment, exclusion and discrimination against people of LGBT orientation and belief. Rejecting both of these, as if they all have equally negative intent, just creates the opposite rejection and loses the point.

If you come across as generalizing, that all people pushing this policy support the abuses,
that's making the same overly broad condemnation that rdean makes for political bias.
It detracts from the argument that is valid.

I am trying to help frigidweirdo and others make a CLEAR distinction
between the criminal abuses vs. the intent against discrimination.

If we don't make this distinction how can we correct the problems with these policies?

Emily, those who are pushing for males using women's restrooms have ulterior motives, otherwise they would not fight tooth and nail for it and spinning the issue around that we want to get busy with their sexual behavior and fantasies. I fight as they do since they ask for it with their allegations that I am interested in their despicable sex lives. I am not about to bite the pillow to appease them. I know you are a nice person stating logical, decent and true to reason argument, however they look upon it as you are weak mistaking your decency in persuasion as such. I am here to complement your kindness to counter their street thug modus operandi.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Dear Pumpkin Row
No, we are not treated equally
Examples
A. people with govt jobs and offices have unequal benefits paid for by taxpayers
that the average person doesn't have
B. people with legal connections have protections of the law and leverage to do
what they want because they can sue if they don't get their way; vs the average
person who doesn't have that leverage, access to legal resources and protection

Anyone can pursue a career in those fields and receive the same benefits. I really don't think government jobs need the extra benefits, though.

I think what you mean is the govt cannot impose the debt to correct
on people without due process. We'd either have to prove which
people owe what to whom OR promote VOLUNTARY corrections
which is what I recommend.

There is nothing wrong with rewarding taxpayers for investing donations
or business loans/capital into microlending, job training, education, or
community development that helps uplift people out of poverty.

This can be done VOLUNTARILY and does not need to be
legislated or required through govt (except if someone is duly
CONVICTED of wrongdoing, such as trafficking drugs or humans
under RICO and can be required to forfeit property and money
to the victims or community affected by their organized crime)

I agree with this.

 

[rightwinger]

How about an example of this "advantage " .

Affirmative action in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Affirmative action helped all American families

Why it even helped young ladies like punkin

Not providing any evidence that disprove any of my claims.

As expected of a lefty.

Affirmative Action leveled the playing field after centuries of discrimination against women, blacks and other minorities

You could not just waive a pen and erase past sins

Dear rightwinger: Some AA was struck down as unconstitutional.
Although the intent was to do as you say, some of it went too far, or approached it in a flawed way.
And caused the opposite or equal problem it was trying to counteract.
People aren't perfect and neither are our laws.

I agree that the intent was in the right place, and many cases of
AA did accomplish the intended goal. I know some good people who
created niches for minorities they couldn't have accessed without AA,
who credit this, and use it to pay forward and try to lift up those in unequal situations.
So yes, there are many success stories owed to AA, and who don't perpetuate
the victim cycle but seek to break it by pushing forward.

It does work in some cases. But that doesn't mean the real cases of
reverse discrimination haven't happened, aren't real, and aren't a real problem. They are, too.
Both things have gone on, so we have to take the good with the bad,
and not deny either one, but acknowledge both. To be fair.

Direct quotas were struck down

But affirmative action opened up opportunities for women, blacks, minorities and the handicapped that were unimaginable a generation ago
Now we don't think twice about seeing a black or woman soldier, executive, astronaut or even president

 

[emilynghiem]

No spin...reality

Show how women expose themselves to each other in ladies rooms

I assume they go in there to perform a biologically necessary function. Perverts go for peeping and for exposing themselves. That raises the question, why do you want to go into the ladies room?

Dear defcon It's got to be symbolic of public establishment of social recognition and equality. Because if it was only a matter of equal access, then this issue would already be settled with neutral gender, unisex or single stalled facilities.

There is a psychological need to establish one's identity as socially recognized in order to "counteract" for the historical rejection and refusal to recognize LGBT.

So of course it's more a psychological reason to push this.

The liberals use the state to establish beliefs collectively
as the conservatives go through the church to unite
and establish agreement.

Part of the process.

Most doctors' offices, stores and workplaces already have single room all gender bathrooms but perverts want to go into specifically designated female restrooms to shake their genitals "legally" in front of women and young girls when specifically designated restrooms for people with male appendage are available. Like malls, airports..

Dear defcon: to be fair, the same way I called out rdean for generalizing that "ALL Republicans are haters who want gays dead," it is only fair to ask you to be more clear and distinguish between people abusing the law for criminally/sick intent, and those who intend for the law to defend against bullying, harassment, exclusion and discrimination against people of LGBT orientation and belief. Rejecting both of these, as if they all have equally negative intent, just creates the opposite rejection and loses the point.

If you come across as generalizing, that all people pushing this policy support the abuses,
that's making the same overly broad condemnation that rdean makes for political bias.
It detracts from the argument that is valid.

I am trying to help frigidweirdo and others make a CLEAR distinction
between the criminal abuses vs. the intent against discrimination.

If we don't make this distinction how can we correct the problems with these policies?

Emily, those who are pushing for males using women's restrooms have ulterior motives, otherwise they would not fight tooth and nail for it and spinning the issue around that we want to get busy with their sexual behavior and fantasies. I fight as they do since they ask for it with their allegations that I am interested in their despicable sex lives. I am not about to bite the pillow to appease them. I know you are a nice person stating logical, decent and true to reason argument, however they look upon it as you are weak mistaking your decency in persuasion as such. I am here to complement your kindness to counter their street thug modus operandi.

Again defcon some do some don't.
Some have agenda issues but not for perverse reasons.

Some TRULY believe they are preventing people from
getting bullied and harassed to the point of chronic depression and suicide. They REALLY believe they are helping people who
can't help how they feel and are left totally helpless, dejected and victimized for conditions they never asked to be born into on
whatever level you or I think is causing the adverse situation.

If we are going to reach people, especially if we are TRYING
to explain DANGERS that others aren't taking seriously,
if we expect them to hear our points that are DIFFERENT
than what they think we mean (where they ALSO ASSUME
it's only for AGENDA reasons we make these arguments
that aren't real threats otherwise)

Then we can discredit or diminish their REAL intent and reasons
either, assuming those are just for agenda or ulterior motives.
Otherwise both sides get nowhere distrusting each other
as only pushing for agenda and not having any substance.

Yes behind the agenda there are real issues.

How can we get to those from here.
Yes we have our biases. How can we deal with
that at the same time we hear each other's points underneath?

 

[emilynghiem]

So, you want to go to women's restrooms, huh?

So, you spend your time fixating on how people have sex?

I am not the one who wants to satisfy his perversion in women's restrooms exposing himself to young girls, am I? When I am opposing your desire to go to women's restrooms and you call it my fixation of how other people having sex, then yes. It is perversion to get sexual satisfaction in exposing oneself to underage girls.

Yep! that's obsession, all right!

Sure it is. I want to protect my family's young female members from sexual predators, do you have any problem with that? It is a yes or no question.

Then don't leave them exposed to sexual predators. I am a father who raised girls. When they were little i didn't ever let them go to the women's restroom unattended, if I didn't have someone to take them in, I would take them to the men's room.
When they got older, I waited immediately outside.

Why you think that a sign on the restroom keeps sexual predators out baffles me- I never relied upon signs.

Meanwhile- why are you fixated on how people have sex?

Because Syriusly
the issue of people's sexual orientation and gender
was THROWN into public policy and arena by pushing through govt.

That's like asking why are Atheists fixated on God and Christianity?

If prayers and Bibles, creation and whatever "faith based concepts principles and policies" weren't pushed through public schools and institutions, these would not be publicly challenged in response! By people saying no, govt should not be used to establish those things
as public policy for EVERYONE, much less PENALIZE people
who disagree and don't believe in being forced to comply
"because it includes and protects beliefs of other people."

 

[emilynghiem]

Affirmative action in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Affirmative action helped all American families

Why it even helped young ladies like punkin

Not providing any evidence that disprove any of my claims.

As expected of a lefty.

Affirmative Action leveled the playing field after centuries of discrimination against women, blacks and other minorities

You could not just waive a pen and erase past sins

Dear rightwinger: Some AA was struck down as unconstitutional.
Although the intent was to do as you say, some of it went too far, or approached it in a flawed way.
And caused the opposite or equal problem it was trying to counteract.
People aren't perfect and neither are our laws.

I agree that the intent was in the right place, and many cases of
AA did accomplish the intended goal. I know some good people who
created niches for minorities they couldn't have accessed without AA,
who credit this, and use it to pay forward and try to lift up those in unequal situations.
So yes, there are many success stories owed to AA, and who don't perpetuate
the victim cycle but seek to break it by pushing forward.

It does work in some cases. But that doesn't mean the real cases of
reverse discrimination haven't happened, aren't real, and aren't a real problem. They are, too.
Both things have gone on, so we have to take the good with the bad,
and not deny either one, but acknowledge both. To be fair.

Direct quotas were struck down

But affirmative action opened up opportunities for women, blacks, minorities and the handicapped that were unimaginable a generation ago
Now we don't think twice about seeing a black or woman soldier, executive, astronaut or even president

Hey rightwinger not to get too far off what you are saying,
as I posted before there are right intentions and right results that
came from AA.

But even slave labor has economic benefits that help society.
Many people credit the slave labor in the South for why the Industrial Revolution and economic investment in development allowed America to grow so strong in many areas to achieve greatness that has paid forward to help more than it has hurt.

Even today, slave labor allows us to access cell phone and other digital technology that has democratized communication and our political process for great benefits to societal development.

But that doesn't mean it justifies the inhumane unsafe conditions of people who suffer ill consequences for the benefits to society that exceed the injustice of those on the flip side.

It isn't "either or" using one to justify the other, or to denounce the other.

Both are happening, why can't we acknowledge this.
There are both benefits that are greater than the setbacks and minusses,
and this doesn't justify those ill consequences or void that reality.

 

[emilynghiem]

Minority status shouldn't exist, regardless.

Yeah ! Stupid handicapped parking spots!!!

Dear Timmy
Disabled accommodations require medical documentation.

How are we going to document people's internal beliefs
what their orientation or identity is?

Even when "conscientious objectors" ask for exceptions for
military service, this requires a rigorous legal process to prove
they aren't just trying to do so for other reasons but their
beliefs in nonviolence are consistent and valid.

Because orientation/identity is FAITH BASED
it is hard to compare with MEDICALLY PROVABLE
disability conditions.

We can prove people had a physical sex change
and pass as the other gender. So that is why
people are arguing that either use birth certificate
or medically confirmed status for LEGAL standards
that are ENFORCEABLE and not based on faith or feelings.
which govt cannot regulate, much less penalize people for
not believing in when this isn't proven SCIENTIFICALLY
as race and physical disability can be documented.

NOTE: That's why I recommend treating orientation/identity
as equally protected BELIEFS so these don't require proof.
And thus the beliefs either for or against would be treated
equally under law, as people's personal BELIEFS that govt
cannot endorse or regulate, force anyone to change, deny or discriminate against
or penalize anyone for having or not having, etc.

 

[Timmy]

Jeebuz christ , what kind of bathrooms are y'all hanging out in!?

 

[defcon4]

Again defcon some do some don't.
Some have agenda issues but not for perverse reasons.

It doesn't matter my dear. If their agenda helps perverts then they are enablers endangering my family. The bottom line is they want to destroy the fabric of society.

 

[rightwinger]

Jeebuz christ , what kind of bathrooms are y'all hanging out in!?

Bathrooms where everyone runs around shaking their junk

 

[rightwinger]

So, you spend your time fixating on how people have sex?

I am not the one who wants to satisfy his perversion in women's restrooms exposing himself to young girls, am I? When I am opposing your desire to go to women's restrooms and you call it my fixation of how other people having sex, then yes. It is perversion to get sexual satisfaction in exposing oneself to underage girls.

Yep! that's obsession, all right!

Sure it is. I want to protect my family's young female members from sexual predators, do you have any problem with that? It is a yes or no question.

Then don't leave them exposed to sexual predators. I am a father who raised girls. When they were little i didn't ever let them go to the women's restroom unattended, if I didn't have someone to take them in, I would take them to the men's room.
When they got older, I waited immediately outside.

Why you think that a sign on the restroom keeps sexual predators out baffles me- I never relied upon signs.

Meanwhile- why are you fixated on how people have sex?

Because Syriusly
the issue of people's sexual orientation and gender
was THROWN into public policy and arena by pushing through govt.

That's like asking why are Atheists fixated on God and Christianity?

If prayers and Bibles, creation and whatever "faith based concepts principles and policies" weren't pushed through public schools and institutions, these would not be publicly challenged in response! By people saying no, govt should not be used to establish those things
as public policy for EVERYONE, much less PENALIZE people
who disagree and don't believe in being forced to comply
"because it includes and protects beliefs of other people."

Gay rights moved to the forefront because their rights were being denied. They grew tired of just "going along" because people hated them

 

[emilynghiem]

Jeebuz christ , what kind of bathrooms are y'all hanging out in!?

Hi Timmy such unintended incidents even happened in a Target

NJ Police Release Images Of Man Suspected Of Taking Pics Of Women In Target Dressing Room

I disagree with defcon that people want this to go on.

What people intend is to establish respect for LGBT people
instead of discrimination and less than equal inclusion.

But still, refusing to address abuses as if these are not valid
issues or dangers, and threats to people's security is
UNFAIR IRRESPONSIBLE and UNETHICAL.

If the point is to ensure LGBT people feel SAFE
then why isn't the feeling of safety respected
and protected equally for others?

That's why this policy goes too far and doesn't
take responsibility for the consequences it opens the door for.

And if nobody addresses this seriously,
then it gives the wrong impression that LGBT lobbyists
and advocates "don't care about the safety/feelings of and affect on others"

So it appears onesided and discriminatory against others

 

[Timmy]

Jeebuz christ , what kind of bathrooms are y'all hanging out in!?

Bathrooms where everyone runs around shaking their junk

Sounds like a real party ! I'm guessing people in bathrooms where everyone is shaking their junk wouldn't be offended if both men and women walk in.

 

[Timmy]

Jeebuz christ , what kind of bathrooms are y'all hanging out in!?

Hi Timmy such unintended incidents even happened in a Target

NJ Police Release Images Of Man Suspected Of Taking Pics Of Women In Target Dressing Room

I disagree with defcon that people want this to go on.

What people intend is to establish respect for LGBT people
instead of discrimination and less than equal inclusion.

But still, refusing to address abuses as if these are not valid
issues or dangers, and threats to people's security is
UNFAIR IRRESPONSIBLE and UNETHICAL.

If the point is to ensure LGBT people feel SAFE
then why isn't the feeling of safety respected
and protected equally for others?

That's why this policy goes too far and doesn't
take responsibility for the consequences it opens the door for.

And if nobody addresses this seriously,
then it gives the wrong impression that LGBT lobbyists
and advocates "don't care about the safety/feelings of and affect on others"

So it appears onesided and discriminatory against others

Taking pix in dressing rooms is still illegal wh or without these transgender laws .

 

[emilynghiem]

Again defcon some do some don't.
Some have agenda issues but not for perverse reasons.

It doesn't matter my dear. If their agenda helps perverts then they are enablers endangering my family. The bottom line is they want to destroy the fabric of society.

Here defcon you clearly make the same level
of overly broad generalization that rdean made
assessing "all Republicans" as haters wanting gays dead.

Nobody WANTS to destroy society, they just want freedom
and may be going about it the wrong way. they don't think
they are destroying they think they are growing and liberating
people from conditions they don't agree with. This is not
intended as negative when they think they are helping!!!

 

[emilynghiem]

Jeebuz christ , what kind of bathrooms are y'all hanging out in!?

Hi Timmy such unintended incidents even happened in a Target

NJ Police Release Images Of Man Suspected Of Taking Pics Of Women In Target Dressing Room

I disagree with defcon that people want this to go on.

What people intend is to establish respect for LGBT people
instead of discrimination and less than equal inclusion.

But still, refusing to address abuses as if these are not valid
issues or dangers, and threats to people's security is
UNFAIR IRRESPONSIBLE and UNETHICAL.

If the point is to ensure LGBT people feel SAFE
then why isn't the feeling of safety respected
and protected equally for others?

That's why this policy goes too far and doesn't
take responsibility for the consequences it opens the door for.

And if nobody addresses this seriously,
then it gives the wrong impression that LGBT lobbyists
and advocates "don't care about the safety/feelings of and affect on others"

So it appears onesided and discriminatory against others

Taking pix in dressing rooms is still illegal wh or without these transgender laws .

But it opens the door and makes it easier to abuse and harder to enforce
when society loosens the rules and makes it "subjective to beliefs."

 

[Seawytch]

Why do Conservatives always have their minds in the gutter? Why is it all you can think of is sex?

More importantly- why do you feel compelled to discriminate against people because of the gender they are attracted to?

So, you want to go to women's restrooms, huh?

So, you spend your time fixating on how people have sex?

I am not the one who wants to satisfy his perversion in women's restrooms exposing himself to young girls, am I? When I am opposing your desire to go to women's restrooms and you call it my fixation of how other people having sex, then yes. It is perversion to get sexual satisfaction in exposing oneself to underage girls.

Yep! that's obsession, all right!

Sure it is. I want to protect my family's young female members from sexual predators, do you have any problem with that? It is a yes or no question.

Anti trans laws don't "protect your family's young female members from sexual predators".

 

[Seawytch]

Jeebuz christ , what kind of bathrooms are y'all hanging out in!?

Bathrooms where everyone runs around shaking their junk

What goes on in ya'lls restrooms? I've been peeing in public women's restrooms since I was out of diapers and have NEVER seen another persons "junk" in all that time.

 

[defcon4]

So, you want to go to women's restrooms, huh?

So, you spend your time fixating on how people have sex?

I am not the one who wants to satisfy his perversion in women's restrooms exposing himself to young girls, am I? When I am opposing your desire to go to women's restrooms and you call it my fixation of how other people having sex, then yes. It is perversion to get sexual satisfaction in exposing oneself to underage girls.

Yep! that's obsession, all right!

Sure it is. I want to protect my family's young female members from sexual predators, do you have any problem with that? It is a yes or no question.

Anti trans laws don't "protect your family's young female members from sexual predators".

The system worked for centuries, all of a sudden perverts gained special attention because their votes are crucial for the left. Letting adult pervert males into women's restrooms is not anti trans law, it is promoting perversion.

 

[Norman]

While a lot of the reaction to LGBT politics from the religious right goes "too far" with unnecessary rejection and judgment against people personally, I think this man's statement sticks to the core issue of "NOT protecting someone based on their sexual behavior."

The arguments defending LGBT, and Transgender in particular, aren't focused on behavior but spiritually how people believe and identify as individuals, which is the equivalent of their own expression of faith and beliefs.

But for those who see this externally as an issue of "outward appearance
and behavior," I think this guy hits the target right on, and with as diplomatic
and clear explanation as possible, given the highly contentious subject matter.

I think he does very well with such a difficult issue to address and explain:


World Congress of Families in Kenya: Africans 'Should Be Horrified' at LGBT Actions in USA -- 'It's Insane'

"We’re not saying that these people have to be persecuted," said Feder, an author and former Boston Herald columnist. "We’re not saying that you can’t have compassion for them -- of course, you can. But you can’t let this be the role model. And you can’t allow Christians and other religious people to be persecuted because they refuse to go along with this agenda.”

“You know, other people have demanded minority status based on their religion, based on their race," said Feder, a graduate of Boston University Law School.

"This is the first group that demands minority status based on what they do in their bedrooms. And that’s what makes it so dangerous."

"And if you look at the United States, I mean if Africans look seriously at the United States, they should be horrified by what’s going on," he said.
Turning to the transgender issue, Feder said, “We now have the latest created gender, transgender. Men who feel they’re actually women, women who feel they’re actually men. The latest front in the culture war is bathrooms, transgender bathrooms."

"The idea is, if you’re a man who feels you’re actually a woman, you should be able to use a woman’s bathroom, changing room, showers," said Feder. "This is absolutely insane."

"What about the privacy, the modesty of women and girls?" he said. "But in our legal system that’s irrelevant because the rights of so-called transgenders are far more important.”

Unfortunately, to the current regressive liberals it really matter what goes on in the bedroom... and they want to control that too. To them, "Yes means no".