Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,231 Year: 5,488/9,624 Month: 513/323 Week: 10/143 Day: 10/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   This Bathroom Law Confusion
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 122 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(2)
Message 11 of 166 (782871)
04-29-2016 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Faith
04-29-2016 3:47 PM


Faith writes:
quote:
I certainly understand people not wanting all this gender confusion being imposed on us
So much wrong in a single sentence.
There is no confusion. Trans men are men and thus use the men's room. Trans women are women and thus use the women's room. Why do you feign confusion?
Nothing is being imposed and certainly not upon you. On the contrary, these laws are impositions upon trans people. They are forcing trans people to use the wrong bathroom. They force trans men to use the women's bathroom.
This person is now forced to use the women's bathroom:
This 14-year-old is now forced to use the men's bathroom:
quote:
I keep thinking I'm missing something.
What's to miss? It's nothing but bigotry. Those who hate trans people make these laws. Having lost their fights over keeping gay people as second-class citizens (not that that fight is over), they have set their sights on trans people thinking they can use that as a wedge to maintain their hold on power.
You will note, for example, that the NC bill that enshrined bigotry against trans people into the law was done so that they could also pass laws that prevented localities from setting a higher minimum wage, stripped workers of the right to sue when they are discriminated against (and that is for all categories such as race, sex, and religion): "[No] person may bring any civil action based upon the public policy expressed herein."
If you are fired because of your religion, for example, you can still sue...in the federal courts which is more difficult. For example, federal suits must be filed within 180 days. The previous law in NC gave you three years.
It also prevents any municipality from passing laws that protect citizens on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
The bigots in the legislature knew exactly what they were doing: They could screw over the populace using trans people as a cover.
quote:
Also, if people have already been using the sex-designated room of their preference without problems why do we need a law at all?
Precisely. What was the purpose of this law?
Because they could. Because they couldn't just accept that people who aren't like them are just as worthy of humanity and dignity as they are. They had to flex their muscles to show that they were still in control.
And in the process, they could screw over everybody else.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 04-29-2016 3:47 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-29-2016 11:51 PM Rrhain has not replied
 Message 137 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-07-2016 2:46 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 122 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(3)
Message 34 of 166 (782917)
04-30-2016 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Faith
04-30-2016 2:45 AM


Faith writes:
quote:
why do you need a law to give them permission to use the restroom of their choice?
Because all it takes is for some busybody to cause trouble and suddenly you're being arrested. This is already happening to cis women who have butch haircuts and don't wear traditionally feminine clothing.
If we don't explicitly protect trans people, they will be subject to discrimination. It would be lovely if we could all just behave like adults and not harass our fellows, but the simple reality is that there will always be people who want to make life difficult for those they don't like.
No, laws won't stop all the problems. We have laws preventing discrimination on the basis of things like race, gender, and religion, and yet those who aren't white, those who aren't male, and those who aren't Christian still get discriminated against. The laws simply allow there to be redress for when it happens (and yes, that means white, male Christians can be discriminated against and also have a means of redress when it happens.)
quote:
The transgender question Moose raised does seem to be the only real gray area and in that case what interests me is the fact that they remain heterosexual but because of looking like the biologically opposite sex they would now be using the restroom of the sex to whom they are attracted.
What on earth does this have to do with anything? Gay people are in the bathroom of the people to whom they are attracted to all the time. Are you implying there's a problem with that? Gay people shouldn't be allowed to use the bathroom?
The question Moose raises is trivially answered: You use the bathroom that is appropriate. One of the things about being trans is that you are putting in the effort to be the sex you identifying with. Thus, despite the fact that you may have not had any surgery, you are doing all the other things that signify your gender (because sex is not gender) and thus, you use the bathroom that corresponds with your gender identity.
This has nothing to do with sexual attraction and that you would bring it up shows that you are still equating being trans and being gay and are still stuck in the idea that the reason trans people want to go into the bathroom is to engage in sexual activity with unwilling participants. Note, this doesn't mean you're expecting them to go in there and violently rape someone, but you're still thinking they're doing it for some sort of thrill.
And that's bigotry.
quote:
I don't think it's bigotry that promotes the laws against the LGBT law, I think it's confusion and not understanding the actual situation.
You have that exactly backwards. It is precisely because of bigotry and it is being couched as some sort of confusion when there isn't any. It's the same argument that was used to deny gay people the right to get married: "What will we tell the children! It's so confusing! If two women get married, who's the man?"
You simply tell them that two people loved each other very much and decided to spend their lives together and got married. There's no confusion. You've seen men and women get married all the time. What on earth would be confusing about men and men getting married? And there is no man in a marriage of two women. You can see there aren't any, so why would you think there had to be one?
There is no confusion. There is simply hatred and bigotry. Trans people have already been using the correct bathroom for their gender ever since there were trans people. The only thing these laws do is criminalize that and force them into the wrong bathroom where they will be subject to the very harassment and violence the people who enact these laws are claiming to be trying to stop.
It's all a lie. It is simply them being upset that they lost over the fight for marriage equality and so now they are doing what they can to hold onto their power. They know that the more they try to demonize gay people, the less attractive their political positions are and the more likely they are to be voted out of office. Thus, they have found a new target to focus on by using people's hatred and bigotry for trans people.
quote:
The law attempting to oppose the LGBT laws shows a complete lack of understanding the actual situation.
Exactly. But they went through with it anyway. It was not because they were confused.
Again, did you not see what also came along for the ride in HB2? It slashes the minimum wage to $7.50, the state's minimum, and prevents any locality from raising it. It cuts out all access to the state's courts for those seeking redress for discrimination. North Carolina no longer has any protections for anybody for discrimination...you have to go through federal courts. And since federal discrimination laws are more stringent (they have to do with multi-state violations, for example and have only 180 days to file), people are now at the mercy of those in power.
They didn't do this not understanding what it was they were doing. They knew that by making the focus of this bill the evil, drooling trans people who are trying to make laws that allow pedophiles have access to your daughters (notice how they never mention that your sons would then be at risk), they could get the law through.
quote:
I do think there may be a more rational objection among conservatives, though, that I need to find out about, and even if it's more rational it may still not address the actual situation well enough.
There is nothing rational about this.
It is already illegal to go into the bathroom to harass or assault someone. After all, we didn't think that only men would harass a woman in the bathroom, did we? That somehow the bathroom is neutral territory for women who are having an argument and such that they would stop all hostilities toward each other while in there? Of course not. So a law that stops trans people from peeing in peace isn't actually solving the problem. Men are already not allowed in the women's bathroom, this law doesn't change that (trans women are women), and it is still illegal to harass or assault someone in the bathroom regardless of gender.
And since trans people were already using the correct bathroom, why would securing their right to pee in peace cause any harm or even risk of harm? Surely we aren't saying that the only reason people weren't going into the bathroom to harass and/or assault people was because it was legal to kick trans people out, are we?
quote:
Again, though, I don't see any need to HAVE a law permitting someone who LOOKS male to use the men's restroom, same for the one who looks female to use the women's room, and it's THAT law that is freaking out the right. Why not just leave well enough alone? Use the restroom where you'd fit in best.
Again: Because all it takes is some busybody to ruin your life. Do you recall the recent story of the man who was kicked off a Southwest Airlines flight? All he did was speak to his uncle on the telephone.
In Arabic.
A woman heard him speaking Arabic, immediately thought "TERRORIST!" and had the staff kick him off the plane...and they then called the FBI and he was interrogated.
That's what trans people are faced with every day. Every time they go out, they have to check themselves: Am I presenting correctly? Is there something out of place? Is today going to be the day that someone decides that I don't meet their standards and decides to call the cops, claiming that I'm somehow doing something wrong?
Do you still not understand why we need laws to protect trans people from this sort of thing?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Faith, posted 04-30-2016 2:45 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-30-2016 6:35 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 122 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(3)
Message 35 of 166 (782918)
04-30-2016 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Tanypteryx
04-30-2016 12:24 PM


Tanypteryx writes:
quote:
I do not know about any pro-LGBT Laws, other than the Supreme Court ruling about gay marriage.
I'm presuming you mean at the federal level because plenty of states have enacted laws that protect on the basis of sexual orientation.
But if you are focusing on the feds, let's not forget the repeal of Don't Ask/Don't Tell and how gays are now allowed to serve in the military. The EEOC includes sexual orientation and gender identity, though both are recent. And interestingly, the ruling for gender identity came before the ruling for sexual orientation (2012 compared to 2015). The Civil Service Reform Act does not specifically mention gender identity or sexual orientation, but it does include the phrase, "conduct which does not adversely affect the performance of the applicant or employee," which is currently being interpreted to include gender identity and sexual orientation.
The problem with the latter, however, is that we often see that unless the law explicitly states it, it will not be covered. We see this with anti-bullying codes in schools. Many schools discuss student harassment of each other and explicitly call out certain targets such as race, sex, religion, etc. But since sexual orientation isn't listed, bully against those who are gay tends to be tolerated. Without a policy expressly forbidding it, it must be OK. By explicitly pointing out that sexual orientation is included, those in charge of enforcing the policy feel empowered to act when it happens.
This is part of the problem of those claiming, "Why do we need a law"? Because without a law, people feel it's OK to discriminate. Anything that isn't expressly illegal is legal. By leaving it vague, you open the door to discrimination. Making it illegal won't stop it from happening, but it does give a means to redress it.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-30-2016 12:24 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-30-2016 7:03 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 122 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 37 of 166 (782920)
04-30-2016 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Faith
04-30-2016 6:21 PM


Re: public awareness project
Faith writes:
quote:
I'm thinking of a nice gentle campaign WHEN THE LAWS THAT SCARE PEOPLE ARE PROPOSED
There is no way to do this. Any proposal that seeks to stop bigots from discriminating against those they hate will always be met with hostility and claims that the world is going to hell.
I've been trying very hard not to make this argument, but I've reached my breaking point: Doesn't your god tell you to be open and welcoming and to love your neighbor as yourself? Shouldn't you be the least "scared" over learning that there are more people suffering that you didn't realize were there? Shouldn't you be the most giving upon realizing that someone else is being downtrodden? Shouldn't you be the epitome of love and acceptance rather than the one claiming to be "confused" and trying to justify the horrendous reactions we have seen?
If your own message of love and acceptance that you claim to have is unable to do the job, what hope is there for trans people to do it? And on top of that, why is it their job to coddle other people's feelings? You specifically mentioned "out for blood" as if refusing to be treated like scum is some outrageously unreasonable demand.
You are making the Bully's Retort, Faith: "But I always took the other kids' lunch money! You're bullying me by making me stop!"
quote:
When I first heard about the proposed law in Texas to make restrooms a matter of personal choice I was also freaked out: What destructive dangerous thing is the Left trying to do to us now?
And that is precisely why there is no way to do what you are demanding: You want to be given a cookie for being a decent human being. You want to be praised for how loving and accepting you are when you should have been that way all along. You think that by being "gentle" about pointing out how you are wrong on this matter, you will get people to simply say, "Oh! I get it!" rather than digging in and thinking, "What destructive, dangerous thing is the Left trying to do to us now?"
You are the precise reason it cannot happen, Faith.
This is the exact same lesson the bigots needed to learn with regard to race...and sex...and religion (you didn't think the Catholics and the Jews were welcome here in the US, did you?)...and more recently sexual orientation. How many times do we have to teach the same lesson before it sinks in? Especially since it hasn't sunk in for any of the others? We still have problems with those who aren't white, those who aren't male, those who aren't Protestant (and even then, the right kind of Protestant), those who aren't straight. Did you really think it was going to be any easier trying to get people to accept those who aren't cis?
People don't take kindly to the notion that they are wrong. There is no "gentle" way to do that.
And to demand that trans people have to suffer simply because cis people are getting their feelings hurt is the "destructive, dangerous thing."
Nothing is being dumped on you.
You are simply being asked to stop making other people's lives a living hell.
How could that possibly be a burden to you? Isn't that what you're supposed to be doing in the first place? Isn't that the type of person your god is telling you to be at all times?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Faith, posted 04-30-2016 6:21 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Faith, posted 04-30-2016 6:52 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 122 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 48 of 166 (782935)
04-30-2016 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Minnemooseus
04-30-2016 6:35 PM


Re: The Bruce Jenner of 10 years ago
Minnemooseus responds to me:
quote:
So, which bathroom should be used by the Bruce Jenner of 10 years ago?
The one he used.
What makes you think you have a say in it? Surely you aren't implying that trans people don't understand their own lives and are confused about how they are presenting, what society expects of people, and how to navigate in that world, are you? That you get to tell them who they are?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-30-2016 6:35 PM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-30-2016 11:40 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 122 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(3)
Message 50 of 166 (782937)
04-30-2016 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Faith
04-30-2016 6:52 PM


Re: public awareness project
Faith responds to me:
quote:
I'm not trying to get Brownie points here
Yes, you are. You are trying to claim some sort of moral high ground while still allowing you to retain some ability to shriek, "EWWW!" at someone without getting any flak for it.
quote:
I'm trying to come up with a reasonable solution to a tricky problem.
What is "tricky" about this? Why on earth is it a problem? Are you seriously claiming you are incapable of leaving other people alone?
quote:
You refuse to consider the rights of the majority or of society at large, like all on the Left merely accusing them all of hateful attitudes, and I'm objecting to that.
The Bully's Retort: But I always took the other kids' lunch money! You're bullying me by making me stop!
What is this "right" you are claiming? That's right: The ability to make other people's lives a living hell simply because you don't like them.
You never had that right, Faith. You were tolerated for it before, but no more. It was never acceptable. It was always immoral. And that trans people are finally refusing to put up with it does not mean they are imposing anything on you. A bully does not have the right to take things from other people. Stopping the bully is not an imposition upon the bully. They had no right to do what they were doing in the first place.
I want you to be specific, Faith: What in your life changes because trans people can no longer be arrested for using the correct bathroom?
What specific right have you lost?
quote:
Christian love does not require me to force something on society that is experienced as odious by a majority.
Actually, it does. Christian love requires you to suffer the hatred of others for doing the right thing.
You're making the argument that what is popular is what is ethical and right and loving. Surely you know better than that, Faith.
quote:
What about love for THOSE people? They don't count to you.
They most certainly count. But you're trying to argue that bigots get to define what bigotry is and to stop bigotry is bigoted against the bigots because they no longer get to freely make the lives of other people horrendous.
We have laws for a reason, do we not? Should we allow me to murder you because of my need to kill? Or does your life and your right not to be killed trump my "right" to kill you?
Once again, Faith, I want you to be very specific and clear. If you respond to this post at all, I simply want an answer to this one question:
What specific right have you lost?
quote:
If they have an unreasonable idea about the situation you have to change it but your angry attitude isn't the way to go about that.
On the contrary. My "angry attitude" is the only way things will change. We've seen this every single time. If you could be persuaded by someone softly talking to you for fifteen minutes, then that wasn't your philosophy of life to begin with. The only way rights are won is by fighting for them and forcibly taking them from those who refuse to recognize them.
The only "gentle" thing about this is just exactly how much fight you are going to put up. We literally fought a war to secure the right of black people to be considered merely PEOPLE. And we still haven't managed to come to terms with that. There are still people who don't think that's a good thing.
quote:
What about a concern for a stable cohesive society too?
That is precisely why we are fighting: For a stable society. What you are failing to see, Faith, is that you are the cause of the instability. You are the one who is insisting that some people in the world aren't really people, do not deserve the same respect and dignity as you demand for yourself.
We're back to my question, Faith:
What specific right have you lost because trans people get to pee in peace?
quote:
I don't think this situation threatens
Then why are you trying to find some sort of justification to allow you to make another person's life a living hell?
What specific right have you lost because trans people get to pee in peace?
If it isn't at threat, shouldn't you be fighting *for* their rights?
quote:
that but it's felt that way by a lot of people and it should be addressed in a sympathetic way.
We should be sympathetic to murderers? There is a right to kill people and we should think about them before we tell them to stop?
Exactly how do you "sympathetically" tell someone to take their boot off your neck, Faith?
What specific right have you lost because trans people get to pee in peace?
quote:
It also isn't loving to treat people's sins as normal
So why are you so upset at being treated the way you are treating others? Have you not considered the possibility that you are the one sinning? Are you completely incapable of understanding that those who oppose you are just as sincere?
So you are willing to treat those who oppose you as evil incarnate and you have the unmitigated gall to get upset when someone pushes back and decides that you aren't the loving person you claim to be and treats you accordingly?
So what right have you lost, Faith? I really want to know.
You need to drop your strident self-righteousness and get real, Faith. You don't love your neighbor. You hate him. And you think you have the right to destroy them.
If that's wrong, if that is truly a misstatement of your intentions, then spit it out:
What right have you lost, Faith?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Faith, posted 04-30-2016 6:52 PM Faith has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 122 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(4)
Message 51 of 166 (782938)
04-30-2016 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Faith
04-30-2016 8:59 PM


Re: Reality of Politicians
Faith writes:
quote:
all they hear is the rhetoric and namecalling from the Left
If you don't like being identified as a bigot, then stop acting like one.
It really is that simple, Faith.
quote:
instead of a rational explanation of how it's not the big problem they fear it is.
Two problems with that:
1) They have heard it. Trans people have been asking to be treated as human beings for decades. It hasn't worked. What makes you think the next round of, "Please, Sir, could you take your boot off my neck?" is going to work.
2) They literally avoided the explanation. In the various states that have enacted these laws that criminalize going to the bathroom, the lawmakers have purposefully cut off public debate so that they wouldn't have to hear from trans people about how these laws would affect their lives.
So what is your suggestion, Faith? Playing nice didn't work. Trying to talk didn't work. Just keep being literally murdered until people come around and realize that you shouldn't be?
Here's another question I want you answer:
How many people have to die?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Faith, posted 04-30-2016 8:59 PM Faith has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 122 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 53 of 166 (782940)
05-01-2016 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Minnemooseus
04-30-2016 11:40 PM


Re: The Bruce Jenner of 10 years ago
Minnemooseus responds to me:
quote:
I take from this that you think Bruce Jenner's gender identity was "male" 10 years ago (I presume he was using the male bathroom).
No, you can take from it what I said directly after it:
It wasn't for me to say. Jenner was the one best capable of understanding which bathroom to use and thus the one that was used was the correct one.
I will not be the one to second guess Jenner's choice.
quote:
My understanding is that his personal gender identity was already female back then, and thus by your reasoning, should have been using the female bathroom.
Go back, read my post, and try again.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-30-2016 11:40 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 122 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 65 of 166 (782988)
05-02-2016 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Faith
05-02-2016 4:11 AM


I'm waiting, Faith
What right have you lost by trans people being allowed to pee in peace?
And once you answer that, go the next step:
What right have you lost by trans people being protected by anti-discrimination laws?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Faith, posted 05-02-2016 4:11 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Faith, posted 05-02-2016 8:58 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 122 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 110 of 166 (783160)
05-03-2016 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Faith
05-02-2016 8:58 AM


Re: Waiting?
Faith responds to me:
quote:
I haven't said anything about losing any rights.
Did you or did you not write the following in Message 39:
You refuse to consider the rights of the majority or of society at large, like all on the Left merely accusing them all of hateful attitudes, and I'm objecting to that.
What right are you talking about here, Faith? What is lost by writing into the law that trans people are allowed to use the bathroom in peace?
Did you or did you not write the following in Message 36
When I first heard about the proposed law in Texas to make restrooms a matter of personal choice I was also freaked out: What destructive dangerous thing is the Left trying to do to us now?
[emphasis in the original]
Exactly why would you possibly think that something destructive or dangerous was going to happen unless you were certain that your rights were about to be violated?
So if you’re going to disingenuously insist that you didn’t mean rights here, I’ll rephrase:
What were you afraid of losing by writing into the law that trans people are allowed to use the bathroom in peace?
quote:
If you've read my posts you should see that I don't object to making accommodations to transgender people
But I have read your posts and that statement isn’t exactly true, now is it? Did you or did you not write the following:
Message 5
I certainly understand people not wanting all this gender confusion being imposed on us, and I don't think that's bigotry
What confusion is going on if you don’t have any problems with trans people peeing in peace?
Message 27
As for fears that are likely not reasonable, what's the point of accusing people of bigotry when they just need to be better informed about the actual situation? There are a lot of people who have no experience of these things AT ALL, you can't suddenly impose a completely unfamiliar situation on them, change their familiar experiences into something that sounds strange and dangerous, and demand that they conform to your understanding, especially in this militant strident accusatory tone that is in itself threatening.
Thus it’s the trans people’s fault for not coddling the bigots, right? They brought it on themselves, right?
Message 28
I'd really like to see more understanding of the perspective of ordinary people who are freaked out by militant campaigns to change their familiar experiences.
Trans people aren’t ordinary? And once again, it’s apparently the fault of trans people that cis people are making things difficult. If only they could have been nicer and not used the law to enforce their right to pee in peace.
And lest there be any confusion about what you mean, from the same message:
I think the general peace of society would be better served by backing off this one.
How can you claim you don’t have a problem trans people peeing in peace if you want to make it impossible for them to do so by insisting they back off?
Same message:
But people who have no experience of these things do experience it as having something strange and dangerous imposed on them out of the blue.
So trans people should just put up with being discriminated against until the majority of people don’t feel like discriminating against them anymore at which time they won’t be discriminated against? They shouldn’t dare make a fuss or point out the problems or demand the law treat them well?
Message 39
I'm trying to come up with a reasonable solution to a tricky problem.
What tricky problem? If you truly don’t think there’s anything to worry about, how is it tricky? Let the trans people pee in peace. They were already doing so. Anti-discrimination laws merely ensure that the busybody who can’t handle the idea of another woman being in the women’s bathroom can’t make their lives a living hell.
Which they never had the right to do in the first place.
So in what possible way can this be considered tricky? It’s the same question: What right has been lost by writing into the law that trans people are allowed to use the bathroom in peace?
We can read your words, Faith. We are not stupid. We can see you trying desperately to present yourself as somehow without animosity while desperately trying to cling to the idea that it’s OK for to behave badly and it’s all the other side’s fault for stirring up trouble.
quote:
I really have no idea why you've been in such a snit.
Because you’re trying to justify the unjustifiable. You’re trying to say that it’s the fault of people demanding equality that there’s a problem rather than the people seeking to oppress others.
You want to let the bigot save face. That merely guarantees the lesson is not learned.
quote:
(I did stop reading through all your posts because of that)
Then what have you learned by that? When you refuse to pay attention, do you gain any insight?
quote:
But I'm also responding to those who do feel there is a problem.
Why do we care about them? If you agree that no rights have been lost by letting trans people pee in peace, why do we have to coddle those who insist they have lost something?
Why do they get to save face?
quote:
I think it's mostly not recognizing the actuality that's involved, but it's such a strongly held position I also wonder if I'm missing something. I may very well be.
It’s called bigotry, Faith.
You’re trying to absolve them of their bigotry:
Message 5
I certainly understand people not wanting all this gender confusion being imposed on us, and I don't think that's bigotry
Message 19
I don't think it's bigotry that promotes the laws against the LGBT
Message 27
As for fears that are likely not reasonable, what's the point of accusing people of bigotry when they just need to be better informed about the actual situation?
Message 28
I don't think it's about hate and bigotry, I think it's about feeling forced to accept something totally strange that seems threatening.
...
When all we hear is that there is a law proposed that wants to change who can use what restroom, and have no understanding of what that would entail in reality, and nobody is bothering to try to explain it, just getting all accusatory about bigotry and hate and discrimination, you ought to recognize that a lot of people are likely to freak out and for good reason.
...
Well, mount a campaign to clarify all this and stop calling people who don't understand such things bigots and haters.
Again, Faith, we can see your words. We are not stupid. We know exactly what you’re doing. You’re trying to allow yourself to engage in despicable behavior and pass it off as rational.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Faith, posted 05-02-2016 8:58 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Faith, posted 05-03-2016 10:33 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 122 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 111 of 166 (783161)
05-03-2016 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Faith
05-02-2016 9:05 AM


Re: No more M/F bathrooms
Faith writes:
quote:
I think mixing the sexes in bathrooms is barbaric. Families don't allow that. Sisters together, brothers together but not the two sexes together.
And exactly how does that work with only one bathroom? My sister and I shared a bathroom.
It's called a "door." When it was shut, it meant someone was in there and you didn't go in.
And the powder room downstairs was shared by everybody in the house. Same rule: If the door was shut, you didn't go in.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Faith, posted 05-02-2016 9:05 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Faith, posted 05-03-2016 10:39 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 122 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 114 of 166 (783164)
05-03-2016 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Faith
05-02-2016 11:03 AM


Re: No more M/F bathrooms
Faith writes:
quote:
Are there urinals in this co-ed bathroom?
OSHA Regulations
1915.88(d)(1)(ii)(B)
The employer does not have to provide separate toilet facilities for each sex when they will not be occupied by more than one employee at a time, can be locked from the inside, and contain at least one toilet.
1915.88(d)(2)
Minimum number of toilets.
Number of employees of each sex Minimum number of toilets per sex
1 to 15 1
16 to 35 2
36 to 55 3
56 to 80 4
81 to 110 5
111 to 150 6
Over 150 1 additional toilet for each additional 40 employees.
Note to Table F-2 of 1915.88: When toilets will only be used by men, urinals may be provided instead of toilets, except that the number of toilets in such cases shall not be reduced to less than two-thirds of the minimum specified.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Faith, posted 05-02-2016 11:03 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Faith, posted 05-03-2016 10:43 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 122 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 117 of 166 (783167)
05-03-2016 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Faith
05-03-2016 10:33 PM


Re: Waiting?
Faith responds to me:
quote:
I cannot read such a long post, sorry.
Then what makes you think you are in any position to respond to it?
Besides, Faith, it's mostly your words. You can't read your own words?
quote:
It doesn't seem to occur to you that someone can see both sides of an issue.
And that's what you get for not reading the post you're responding to. Go back and read it this time and see if you still agree with your assertion.
You're trying to let the bigot save face, Faith. Why?
quote:
I also mentioned my FIRST take on the law in Texas, and immediately followed it with my corrected viewpoint, which you seem to have ignored.
Faith, you know I have no qualms in quoting back your entire posting history. Do you really want me to to do so again? All so that you can say it was too long and you didn't read it?
You continued to say that it wasn't bigotry, that it was just a misunderstanding. That isn't true.
You're trying to let the bigot save face. Why?
quote:
OK, I guess for those on the right who are upset about it that would be a right to feel safe in a public restroom.
You don't have that right.
You're making the Bully's Retort, Faith: But I always took the other kids' lunch money! You're bullying me by making me stop!
Bigots don't have the right to make other people's lives miserable just so that they can feel good. No matter how often we let them get away with it in the past, they never had the right to do it.
Indeed, the bully no longer gets to bully people. And that's something to be concerned about? That is a "side" that you can "see"? It is "rational" to consider the psychic harm done to a bully who is no longer allowed to bully?
quote:
That's what they feel they would lose.
You can't lose what you never had. Do you honestly believe you have the right to tell someone else they can't use the bathroom because you're afraid of them?
Instead, if you are uncomfortable sharing the bathroom with someone else, you are free to wait until they are done using it.
quote:
Would it be possible to stop badgering me about this?
No. So long as you continue to try to let the bigot save face, you will be called on it.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Faith, posted 05-03-2016 10:33 PM Faith has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 122 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 118 of 166 (783169)
05-03-2016 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Faith
05-03-2016 10:39 PM


Re: No more M/F bathrooms
Faith responds to me:
quote:
What is this ridiculous thing you're all doing with confusing the point about unisex bathrooms?
You mean you can't remember your own words?
Message 68
I think mixing the sexes in bathrooms is barbaric. Families don't allow that. Sisters together, brothers together but not the two sexes together.
Exactly how is pointing out that my sister and I shared a bathroom "confusing the point"? You're the one who brought up families. You're the one who brought up that sisters and brothers should have separate bathrooms.
Are you saying that you're the one who confused them? Then why are you upset at people calling you out on your confusion?
Do you honestly not remember that we can see your past posts, Faith?
quote:
If a woman can't wash at the sink bare from the waist up that is one of the things that shows the privacy problem as I said.
If a person is concerned about privacy in a place where they are in direct view of other people, then the onus is on them to not display anything they don't want others to see.
quote:
But again, there is no NEED for unisex bathrooms, and it's all pure political correctness with no practical use except to pretend to an equality between the sexes that doesn't exist. We're different.
And you wonder why I say that your protestations that you don't have any problems with trans people being allowed to pee in peace don't ring true.
quote:
Again, you all emphasize how there IS privacy, on stalls etc., which proves my point that privacy matters.
Exactly how is there privacy if you can be seen? You seem to want to be able to display your body to a selected subset of the public but insist that you have privacy.
You don't get to have it both ways. If you are concerned that you will be seen, then it is your burden to do what it takes to not be seen.
For all your ranting and raving about political correctness, you are the most PC of all, Faith. Your have your position not because you actually understand it but merely so that you can maintain the political cachet you think it brings you. Witness your continued ranting and raving about "the Left."

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Faith, posted 05-03-2016 10:39 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Faith, posted 05-03-2016 11:14 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 122 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 119 of 166 (783170)
05-03-2016 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Faith
05-03-2016 10:43 PM


Re: No more M/F bathrooms
Faith responds to me:
quote:
Please continue to read the posts related to that topic.
Did you read to the end of mine? You've already admitted that you don't.
Might you thus consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, you missed something and thus aren't in a position to make a rational contribution to the discussion due to your willful ignorance of what was said?
Pay attention to what was said. According to OSHA, when can urinals be used?
Might you understand why they would make that regulation?
Note that if you are segregating the bathrooms based upon sex, you still need to provide enough toilets to accommodate the people you have. You can't say that you have 20 people and thus can get away with a single toilet for the women and a single toilet for the men if the breakdown is 19 women and 1 man.
So if the designation of sex segregation were to be lifted and a multi-toilet facility were allowed for both sexes, do you think urinals would be OK? Or might there be a dearth of toilets available to the number of women due to the replacement of toilets with urinals?
Remember, there's only so much space for the bathroom.
This is what you get for not reading what you're replying to.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Faith, posted 05-03-2016 10:43 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024