Zone1 Focusing the LGBTQ debate

[alang1216]

Do you really want private businesses to dictate men being able to inhabit locker rooms with girls?

Seriously?

Absolutely. If the girls object they can go elsewhere. It is called the free market.

 

[forkup]

Nazi's are trying to take over the country. I refuse to serve their brownshirts at my restaurant.

So, in this view, discrimination is warranted as long as the person you are discriminating against is also morally questionable. Which works as long as you can actually rationally defend the other sides evilness.

I think discrimination, for or against other people, for any reason one my dream up, is a basic human right

Being an asshole is indeed a human right. That doesn't make it morally right.

one we really can live without.

I think you had a typo here. I think you mean can't live without. If so, can you elaborate?

t's also worth noting that modern civil rights doesn't ban all discrimination.

Sure, invariably because those classes are more prone to being discriminated against. Do you disagree with that concept?

 

[dblack]

So, in this view, discrimination is warranted as long as the person you are discriminating against is also morally questionable. Which works as long as you can actually rationally defend the other sides evilness.

No, you've missed my point. I'm saying government shouldn't be involved in decided whether discrimination is warranted.

Being an asshole is indeed a human right. That doesn't make it morally right.

Agreed.

I think you had a typo here. I think you mean can't live without. If so, can you elaborate?

I did, thanks. Choosing whom to associate with, and whom to avoid, is a fundamentally personal judgment. No one should have to justify their decisions to the state.

Sure, invariably because those classes are more prone to being discriminated against. Do you disagree with that concept?

Yes. It undermines equal rights.

 

[forkup]

I'm saying government shouldn't be involved in decided whether discrimination is warranted.

Disagree. I think discrimination is never really warranted. At best it makes 2 parties who are wrong in my opinion. And the government has a role to play when that discrimination causes a marginalized group to have less rights than the general population. You mentioned the civil rights movement which is a great example. A powerful group was discriminating against a weaker group in order to deny them rights they themselves enjoyed and the government stepped in to redress the balance.

Choosing whom to associate with, and whom to avoid, is a fundamentally personal judgment. No one should have to justify their decisions to the state.

I can agree here, at least in most cases. Unless they infringe on the basic rights of what you called protected classes.

Yes. It undermines equal rights.

Disagree. Someone who is being discriminated against by definition has certain rights taken away. And therefor protecting those rights ensures equal rights.

 

[forkup]

No, you've missed my point. I'm saying government shouldn't be involved in decided whether discrimination is warranted.

Agreed.

I did, thanks. Choosing whom to associate with, and whom to avoid, is a fundamentally personal judgment. No one should have to justify their decisions to the state.

Yes. It undermines equal rights.

By the way, and as an aside. Thank you for this style of conversing. Direct, and without rhetorical tricks.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Dude, every time you have tried to accuse me of dishonesty, hypocrisy or deflections almost every single time, over several posts, in the course of a couple of years, you have failed. Most of the time while being caught doing the exact thing you try to accuse me off. I count at least 2 posts today, I gave in answer to a question you posed me, which I answered that you simply didn't engage with. One of which you accused me off not answering at all. while I showed you I did. Another one you simply gaslighted me.

I do not deflect, refuse to answer or try any of the dozens of tricks one uses when being intellectually dishonest. At least not on purpose. It simply isn't my style since I consider it the debate form of cheating.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much!

When I ask to tell me who's at the biggest risk for rape. A trans woman in a male prison or a biological woman being raped by a trans woman? "Everybody gets raped in a male prison", is a deflection of the point made, not an answer.

No, because I admitted that a woman in prison has less chance of being raped by a biological male "transwoman," than a male in prison has of being raped by a male. Wasn't that your point?

You don't like the fact that this applies whether the male is trans or "cis." But it is a fact.

Prison rape happens, and we should be doing more to prevent it. Putting a biological man in prison with women prisoners means less rape only in Bizarro World. Nitpicking about who gets "raped more" doesn't move us any closer to the rape-free prison goal.

Unless that is not your goal?

I find this conversation hilarious, frustrating, and a pretty harsh reminder why I quit this board for months. It simply isn't fun when you try to play chess and you play someone who uses stockfish to move, or poker in our cases, when you know the other side deals from the bottom all the time.

This happens every time. You start losing an argument, not because you are dumb, but because you challenged posters to a debate on a topic that you only see one side of. Next time, try to put yourself in the place of a person who does not buy the latest politically correct dogma, and think how they might respond to your challenge.

That won't make you win, in most cases (like this one) but at least you'll be more prepared for the loss.

So it is OK for trans people to use a girl's locker room if they are NOT female-attracted?

A "transboy," meaning a biological girl, be "they" female attracted or not, has a right to use the female locker rooms. Being female is the requirement, not who you are attracted to or what you "identify" as.

Hey I get it, I just don't think the Federal government needs to make the decision for every gym or school district. Do we need a new Federal Department of Gyms and Locker Rooms? Elon would love that.

I'm fine with that. So long as privately owned establishments can designate and enforce male-only spaces and female-only spaces with no fear of lawsuits or adverse action by government, I don't think government should ban them from allowing boys in the girls restrooms and locker rooms.

Perhaps they should be required to post a sign that says
WOMEN
or anyone else, really . . .

Then the free market would determine whether they are in a location in which they can stay in business with that policy.

I'll ask you a question that young forkup answered, much to my pleasant surprise: In your set of ethics, how trans does a transperson have to be to use the locker rooms and bathrooms of the opposite sex?

 

[forkup]

Of course, there are no bigger demanders of conformity than those who claim to support “trans rights.” Those who support diversity equity and inclusion have never wanted diversity of opinion.

You

Then you are imagining yourself reading my mind instead of my words.

You

Were you left speechless by my comments and unable to respond to them?

Also you

I thought this was a thread with you intended to have honest debate?

Again... you

This happens every time.

What happens every time? Me finally responding to all the bullshit and condescension you spit out in order to provoke a response, and you can accuse me of being emotional instead of rational. Because from where I'm sitting that is what you consider "winning" your ability to derail the premise by making me respond to you. Not the strength of your argument but the ability to piss of people. In any case. Feel free to respond. I won't indulge you anymore. I've done something I truly didn't want to do. Namely follow you down the rabbit hole. So, take that as a win if you so choose. I take it as proof of your lack of intellectual honesty.

 

[dblack]

You mentioned the civil rights movement which is a great example. A powerful group was discriminating against a weaker group in order to deny them rights they themselves enjoyed and the government stepped in to redress the balance.

Initially, the civil rights movement focused on equal treatment by government - which is fundamental to free society. It was a just and necessary correction. But it morphed into a movement demanding equal treatment by society. And that's a different goal entirely. It actually inverts the goal of equal rights, requiring government to treat people unequally to counter society's biases.

Disagree. Someone who is being discriminated against by definition has certain rights taken away. And therefor protecting those rights ensures equal rights.

What rights are violated when someone won't hire you? Or serve you dinner? Or bake you a cake?

 

[Seymour Flops]

You

Waving the white flag

You

Waving the white flag

Also you

waving the white flag.

Again... you

waving the white flag.

What happens every time? Me finally responding to all the bullshit and condescension you spit out in order to provoke a response, and you can accuse me of being emotional instead of rational. Because from where I'm sitting that is what you consider "winning" your ability to derail the premise by making me respond to you. Not the strength of your argument but the ability to piss of people. In any case. Feel free to respond. I won't indulge you anymore. I've done something I truly didn't want to do. Namely follow you down the rabbit hole. So, take that as a win if you so choose. I take it as proof of your lack of intellectual honesty.

You just waved the white flag four times.

Of course I take that as a win.

I would have preferred an honest debate. I guess I should learn, when a leftie claims to want an honest debate, but insults those he would debate with in the OP, there will be no honest debate.

Not your fault, I should have known.

 

[toobfreak]

Someone with Swyer syndrome has the XY chromosome including a working uterus. So you think men can be pregnant?

Swyer syndrome is an extremely rare genetic disorder causing physical malformities. Not germane to the LGBTQ discussion.

There are also people who have xyy chromosomes. How do we call those?

Genetic disorders causing physical anomalies are myriad which occur naturally in nature but play no role in gender dysphoria which is a purely psychological condition where the people otherwise have perfectly normal male or female bodies. So, as the OP, you are quickly skidding into a crash of proving any point here.

If biologically it's hard determine male from female. Letting a person define it for themselves seems as good a way as any and way better than letting a government do so.

When is it ever hard to determine male from female? Maybe in some rare, genetic malformity affecting perhaps 0.001% of the population, whereas LGBTQ gender dysphoria affects about 1% of the population, or about 1000X as often. I know of no cases where any transman or transwoman or other LGBTQ type was found to be medically impossible to identify through chromosomal or other analysis, so again, a strike and a miss.

As to just letting a person make up for themselves and decide their gender, then have the government enforce it under threat of punishment, seems a bit INSANE, especially CHILDREN. So if a child can just decide at age 10 that "he is a she" so much that both schools and hospitals help them carry out their fantasies, then be prepared for about 100 other things I and others can just "decide" for ourselves and expect to be taken just as seriously.

Defining yourself is not a mental illness.

Really. I'm Jesus Christ. I'm the Son of God. No wait, I'm really the reincarnation of Ghengis Khan. Now take me seriously and tell me I'm not mental ill. No wait--- I think I'll call the Social Security agency and have them change all of my ID to Jesus. Let's have a country where thousands of people are running around demanding to be called Mahatma Gandi and Queen Elizabeth! Wheee!

Yes, sorry, but defining yourself as something you are not nor can offer any objective external proof of to support IS the DEFINITION of mental illness. Hey, I'm an alien! I just flew in on my UFO! Take me to your leader, Honey.

The problem seems to be that you don't agree with their definition.

No, the problem is that their claims do not comport with all available objective evidence from their time of birth. Definitions have no meaning, no value, if they can just be /made up/ with no basis in FACT.

This is fine, if you are able to clearly deliniate male from female. Otherwise you are just using an arbitrary standard that fits your viewpoint that you then use to infringe on the rights of others.

The arbitrary standard here is to just "define" yourself in stark contrast to all medical evidence, and no one has any "right" to just make up who they are. Just because some few men are born with somewhat effeminate predisposition or some few girls develop a somewhat masculine predisposition in personality, preferences or appearance does not make them the other sex, nor does it just give them the right to arbitrarily choose. I was born a guy, I had no say in the matter, and whether I like it or not, there is no changing it no matter whether I wear a wig, lipstick, a dress, or have my body superficially altered.

 

[HeyNorm]

Absolutely. If the girls object they can go elsewhere. It is called the free market.

How freaking warped are you.

Just so YOU can wear panties?

 

[fncceo]

I had a guy tell me about the time he hustled what he thought was a woman at a sports bar. They went to her place after drinking and dancing. He got a big surprise when she/he took off the panties.

I have never gone to bed with a transexual!

There was that time I woke up with one.

What happens in Thailand, stays in Thailand.

 

[fncceo]

Really? Someone with Swyer syndrome has the XY chromosome including a working uterus.

In fact, if you look up the pathology of Swyer's, (46,XY gonadal dysgenesis) you will see that someone with the condition will have external female sexual characteristic but NON-FUNCTIONAL ovaries and only become pregnant by artificial means such as IVF.

I never thought I'd say this to anyone but, you need to watch more "House",

 

[alang1216]

A "transboy," meaning a biological girl, be "they" female attracted or not, has a right to use the female locker rooms. Being female is the requirement, not who you are attracted to or what you "identify" as.

How exactly would this work? Will we have gov't issued IDs with our allowed gender? Who will enforce this?

I'm fine with that. So long as privately owned establishments can designate and enforce male-only spaces and female-only spaces with no fear of lawsuits or adverse action by government, I don't think government should ban them from allowing boys in the girls restrooms and locker rooms.

Perhaps they should be required to post a sign that says
WOMEN
or anyone else, really . . .

Then the free market would determine whether they are in a location in which they can stay in business with that policy.

I don't believe trans people are protected by any Federal laws so the question is moot.

I'll ask you a question that young forkup answered, much to my pleasant surprise: In your set of ethics, how trans does a transperson have to be to use the locker rooms and bathrooms of the opposite sex?

No idea, I think it is a case of "I'll know it when I see it".

 

[alang1216]

How freaking warped are you.

Just so YOU can wear panties?

Not all of us want the government to control every aspect of our lives. It is called freedom, if you want it for yourself, you have to grant it to others.

 

[hadit]

Sure.

I’ll start by repeating the analogy that when your only tool is a hammer everything looks like a nail. A physician or a surgeon’s only tools are chemicals and blades. So, when there is a complaint, be it physical or mental, medication and surgery are the go to.

I believe that for the overwhelming majority of people with a complaint of gender dysphoria or simply feeling like the opposite sex, counseling would be far better than surgery or medication or combination of both.

Rather than telling people, especially children, that the solution to your feeling like the opposite sex is a chemical and surgical intervention to make you more resemble that sex, we should be giving them long-term, psychological counseling.

The best counseling for such people is to start with the premise that there is no one way to be a girl or a boy. By Definition people with gender dysphoria do not accept their bodies. It is far healthier to help them to learn to accept their bodies than to attempt to artificially change their bodies.

It was not very long ago that the height of treating mental illness was to shove a metal rod into the patient's brain and hope they didn't die on the spot. We look back at that and shutter with revulsion. It is my firm belief that within a hundred years or so, medical professionals will look back at our practice of sterilizing children while removing healthy body parts and reducing the functionality of other parts and shutter in revulsion.

 

[TNHarley]

Not true. I don't think anyone would have to explain to a child why someone dressed as a woman was in the ladies room or someone dressed as a man was in the men's room.

If there is an issue with a locker room let the gym or school decide how to handle it. The Federal gov't doesn't need to get involved. And people on the right don't understand how the Federal gov't got so big?

Im not arguing anything about the federal government. I am talking about bigots like you who think they deserve special rights.
And you are a statist dude. Dont give me shit about "not wanting the fed gov involved"

 

[Seymour Flops]

How exactly would this work? Will we have gov't issued IDs with our allowed gender? Who will enforce this?

Same way it was enforced for decades before the left came up with this asinine “use the bathroom of the gender you feel” idea.

I don't believe trans people are protected by any Federal laws so the question is moot.

Of course the “right” of men to use girls bathrooms is not in any federal law. Voting for such a law would be political suicide and all but a very few districts.

Instead, we have had local school boards, allowing it, or allowing it, and presidential executive orders, allowing it.

No idea, I think it is a case of "I'll know it when I see it".

Interesting. That was exactly how gendered bathrooms were enforced way back when. So I’m surprised that question was such a brain teaser for you.

That’s a better answer than one young forkup gave. She said all you have to do is feel transgendered so it doesn’t matter what you look like.

 

[alang1216]

Im not arguing anything about the federal government. I am talking about bigots like you who think they deserve special rights.

As opposed to bigots like you who want to deprive them of their rights to 'protect' others.

And you are a statist dude. Dont give me shit about "not wanting the fed gov involved"

Apparently you are a statist yourself.

 

[alang1216]

Same way it was enforced for decades before the left came up with this asinine “use the bathroom of the gender you feel” idea.

It was never 'enforced' because it was never an issue until the right made it one.

Of course the “right” of men to use girls bathrooms is not in any federal law. Voting for such a law would be political suicide and all but a very few districts.

Instead, we have had local school boards, allowing it, or allowing it, and presidential executive orders, allowing it.

The only EO I found on the subject was Trump's banning it. Did I miss one allowing it or did you just make it up?

Interesting. That was exactly how gendered bathrooms were enforced way back when. So I’m surprised that question was such a brain teaser for you.

That’s a better answer than one young forkup gave. She said all you have to do is feel transgendered so it doesn’t matter what you look like.

Hey, I'm not the one making it an issue, it is Trump and the Right. If it wasn't broke why did Trump have to fix it?