Tennessee sees new step in wave of anti-Trans bills

[Kooky]

The concept of "gender" - as we understand it today - is very new - started with John Money back in the 1950/60s.

Not really relevant to what we have been discussing - since we have been talking about public restrooms in the U.S. and how they have been segregated by biological sex.

If you want to desegregate all public restrooms on the basis of biology in the U.S. - that's another discussion.

When they teach opinions as if they were facts and claim that anyone is wrong for disagreeing with those opinions.

No - because it is all sensory data - just use your eyes and ears.

Besides - unless you are claiming that the majority of "trans folks" are "master criminals" that have spent the money and given the time to hormone therapy and surgeries to do their best to appear as the opposite sex - do you really need to see any data?

I mean - by the definition you supplied - a person doesn't need to make any changes at all and can still claim to be transgender so....

Not at all relevant - because I was talking about compelling speech.

You have every right to tell your co-worker not to call you names - other than your given one - but you can't force him to say something he is not comfortable saying.

Kinda like that whole not being able to make people say the Pledge of Allegiance or prayers.

For example - since I believe that I am a literal son of God - Prince of the Universe - I could ask people to refer to me as "my Lord" - but I have no right to force anyone to.

You are comparing me to racists - implying that I hate transgender people - without evidence.

Racists tend to not want people to be treated equally - while my entire argument is based on the idea of treating people equally.

And - sooner or later - we will be locking people up for expressing their views. It's inevitable.

It is the entire reason we are talking about this.

The teaching of opinion as if it were fact. The indoctrinating of children. The attempts to change the law and policies to conform to a system of belief.

Not in the way that you are probably thinking - but it definitely helps me sleep at night.

Correct - because as soon as women began entering the work force and public sphere - public restrooms have been segregated by our biology.

Since there is no such thing as "magic" - biology remains the best metric for mitigating risk.

Yeah - you did.

Yes - die with the lie - we will make a politician out of you yet.

Yes - nice use of the scapegoat - you never have to have your worldview challenged ever again.

Correct - it has nothing to do with transgenderism - but it does have everything to do with policies that would allow a boy to be alone with a girl in the restroom.

Let's say we were talking about something else - like a kid in public school using a baseball bat he obtained during P.E. to hit another kid.

I would advocate that P.E. teachers better monitor their students and lock down the baseball bats - maybe only having one out at a time - to mitigate the risk of such an incident happening again.

That is not a claim that every kid who likes baseball is going to hit their peers with baseball bats.

It's just not a reason to cancel P.E. Not a reason to stop playing baseball. Not a reason to swap out all baseball bats for foam mallets or anything.

It seems that you - on the other hand - would advocate that we make baseball bats even more accessible to students - because we have some avid baseball fans in our classrooms who would really prefer to hold onto their bats throughout the day.

Sure - that doesn't make them crazies who are willing to hit people - but does it mitigate risks?

Is it a proper policy considering what happened previously?

They were pushing for this policy change at the time of the incident.

Why else would they cover-up an alleged rape and allow the accused rapist to quietly transfer?

Shouldn't feminists be foaming at the mouths over this? Where are the #MeToo people?

Or - since the accused was not acting "typical" in terms of their gender - they just brush it under the rug - like it never happened?

Like BLM and black-on-black violence?

Well - what is a "transgender woman"?

Since there is no consistent or verifiable metric - you mean to say - "So again....[a man] goes into a woman's bathroom, goes into the stall, closes the door, does her business, flushes, leaves the stall, washes her hands, and leaves.."

If you allow one man to go in - you need to allow them all.

For that matter - what is a "woman" - if any man can claim to be one?

And doesn't this claim undercut your own argument?

If this is all that transgender - and essentially all people - do in a public restroom - then why would any transgender person be opposed to using the restroom that corresponds to their biology?

I mean - all they do is go into a stall, close the door, do their business, flush, leave the stall, wash their hands and leave - so why can't they do that in the other restroom?

Is it because that's not the only thing that happens in restrooms? There is more to it than that?

A man could use the policy to corner women when they are most vulnerable in a space that is not monitored.

Because that is what you are advocating.

Yes - push on through - you're doing great.

Why are you acting as if child abuse only happens at a school or camp that is affiliated with Christianity?

Any time and place that children can be left alone with adults is a scenario that can lead to abuse.

This is why - at public schools - there are faculty restrooms - because they don't want any adults being left alone with any of the children.

This is another reason why they monitor the halls - to make sure that girls and boys aren't being left alone and unmonitored.

Another reason why they don't let boys into the girl's restroom - because it is the only place that cannot be monitored.

We need to mitigate risk - but life must go on.

You mean sex - right?

You're on the home stretch. Just a little more.

Correct - because the segregation of restrooms in the U.S. has always been based on biology - not gender.

It is the only consistent and verifiable metric - and there is no such thing as magic.

There is no such thing as magic.

You cannot monitor restrooms - therefore - you mitigate risk by limiting access.

Girls have the right not to be raped in the restroom.

Women have the right not to feel uneasy or anxious when a man enters the restroom with them.

Since you have no consistent, verifiable or useful metric to determine who is or is not "transgender" - you can't make laws and policies based on it.

And your Psych 101 class pays off - and you stuck with the lie all throughout.

How do you feel? You feeling dirty? Like a politician?

Dying with the lie will do that to you.

Do you believe this man should be forced to use women's restrooms?

Do you think the government should force this woman to use men's restrooms?

 

[Jose Fly]

I said that I opposed the "transgender ideology" - which mainly refers to demands that society conform to transgender identity and nonsense

Let's be clear here....do you believe transgenderism is a real, valid thing? When a person says they feel like and/or identify as a gender that doesn't correspond to their biological sex, do you think their feelings are real and valid?

You see - I personally believe that I am a literal son of God - a Prince of the Universe - an heir to all Creation - that is how I identify.

Can I now make demands from society that correspond to that identity? Or would that be absurd?

You don't have to "make demands" because by law, your identity as a Christian already provides you with all sorts of special protections and privileges.

And what exactly is "my way"? That all men be treated equally? That all women be treated equally?

Explain what you believe "my way" is please.

If you had your way, all transgenders would have to use the bathrooms of their sex, which in many cases puts them at serious risk of violent attack. Violence against trans folks has been increasing in the US lately, and your "way" would only make that worse.

a definition of "indoctrination" is "the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically."

So - if anyone were to teach my children to accept a belief without question or reason - I would consider that indoctrination.

What "set of beliefs" are you thinking of?

No

That's what I thought. Funny how often those shouting the most about "science" have no education, training, or experience in it.

How did that make you feel? Good?

Didn't bother me at all.

What more would you have me do?

Ideally, nothing.

"What "treatment" are they getting from me? Me sharing my opinion that they should use the restroom that corresponds to their biology?

Well, is an atheist who believes (and expresses that belief) that no child should ever be allowed in a Christian setting, both out of concerns of abuse and indoctrination, "treating" Christians in any certain way? Practically, probably not. I agree that the same applies to you.

you are also advocating that I be quiet - not share my views - and that I passively accept any and all changes they want to make in society.

Nope, never said that at all.

You want "trans folks" to be given "special treatment". You want us to be unequal.

I want them to be able to use the bathroom of their gender. If that's "special treatment", then what do we call all the privileges and protections you enjoy by identifying as a "Christian"? Are you willing to give those up, lest you be guilty of getting "special treatment"?

It is very very new stuff.

No it's not. Transgenderism has been around throughout human history. What's new (in western society) is mostly them being allowed to live openly and freely. That's created quite a backlash, mostly from evangelical Christians.

Yes - you did.

In Post #288 - while mocking you I asked - "So - when do you want to sign my petition to take all children away from their parents - since most abuse to children happens from their parents - and we both care so much about children - don't we?"

You replied in Post #289 - "As soon as you start one."

You said this after you claimed that taking children away from their parents made more sense than me wanting only boys to use the boy's restroom and vice versa .

So - yeah - you did claim that you would sign a petition to have children taken away from their parents.

Not a "freedom-loving" attitude.

Oh FFS....you took "As soon as you start one" as literal? Geez dude.....

 

[Jose Fly]

The concept of "gender" - as we understand it today - is very new - started with John Money back in the 1950/60s

The concept....as we understand it today.....is new? Well duh! If it was "as we understood it long ago" I guess it wouldn't be new, eh? LOL...

No - because it is all sensory data - just use your eyes and ears.

So your statement that most transgenders are easily spotted was nothing more than an empty assertion.

Not at all relevant - because I was talking about compelling speech.

You have every right to tell your co-worker not to call you names - other than your given one - but you can't force him to say something he is not comfortable saying.

Are you serious? At work, employers can force employees to say all sorts of things they may not like or agree with. I have to do it all the time.

You are comparing me to racists - implying that I hate transgender people - without evidence.

No, you missed the point. I'm saying that you holding anti-trans views is by itself not illegal or anything like that. You're free to believe whatever you like.

Since there is no such thing as "magic" - biology remains the best metric for mitigating risk.

Again, the mere act of transgender people using the bathrooms of their gender, by itself, poses zero risk to anyone.

Let's say we were talking about something else - like a kid in public school using a baseball bat he obtained during P.E. to hit another kid.

I would advocate that P.E. teachers better monitor their students and lock down the baseball bats - maybe only having one out at a time - to mitigate the risk of such an incident happening again.

That is not a claim that every kid who likes baseball is going to hit their peers with baseball bats.

It's just not a reason to cancel P.E. Not a reason to stop playing baseball. Not a reason to swap out all baseball bats for foam mallets or anything.

It seems that you - on the other hand - would advocate that we make baseball bats even more accessible to students - because we have some avid baseball fans in our classrooms who would really prefer to hold onto their bats throughout the day.

This is weird. You would have schools "lock down bats" out of fear that students will hit each other with them?

Again I have to wonder....if you're so hyper focused and concerned about protecting kids from abuse, then why aren't you seeking to keep kids out of Christian settings? Thousands upon thousands of kids have been abused in those settings, yet you seem to have absolutely no concern about that. But bats in schools need to be locked up? Weird.

Why else would they cover-up an alleged rape and allow the accused rapist to quietly transfer?

So you're completely speculating.

Well - what is a "transgender woman"?

Since there is no consistent or verifiable metric

Again, what are the consistent, verifiable metrics for "Christian"?

- you mean to say - "So again....[a man] goes into a woman's bathroom, goes into the stall, closes the door, does her business, flushes, leaves the stall, washes her hands, and leaves.."

And what's the problem with that?

If you allow one man to go in - you need to allow them all.

Is that something you think men want to do? I thought you've been arguing that men would be uncomfortable being in the same bathroom as a woman?

And doesn't this claim undercut your own argument?

If this is all that transgender - and essentially all people - do in a public restroom - then why would any transgender person be opposed to using the restroom that corresponds to their biology?

Because by forcing someone who looks very much like a woman to use the men's restroom, or who looks very much like a man to use the women's restroom, they are directly at risk from being attacked. That's what the data shows.

Why are you acting as if child abuse only happens at a school or camp that is affiliated with Christianity?

Any time and place that children can be left alone with adults is a scenario that can lead to abuse.

Yet we don't ban kids being left alone with adults, do we? Funny how "we just have to ban this altogether" only comes up with trans people.

Is it because that's not the only thing that happens in restrooms? There is more to it than that?

A man could use the policy to corner women when they are most vulnerable in a space that is not monitored.

I saved this for last because I want to use it to sum up. There are two main responses to this....

First, as you noted, other countries have had trans-friendly bathroom policies for a while now; locales in the US have as well. So, do you have any data showing attacks in bathrooms increased after those policies were implemented? After all, if the risk is as great as you make it seem, surely the effect would be noticeable. So let's see your data.

Second, as I explained before, the mere act of trans people using the bathroom of their gender...by itself....poses no increased risk to anyone. In fact, it actually decreases the risk of trans people being attacked. The risk that you insist we all focus on isn't from transgender people, it's from cis-gendered people.

So putting those together (and assuming you don't have data showing a link between trans-friendly bathroom policies and increases in violent attacks in bathrooms) gives us a picture of what's going on. We have two risks....the first is the risk of cis-gendered people exploiting the policies to lurk and attack, and the second is the risk of trans people being attacked because they don't "look like" they're in the right bathroom (and from just plain anti-LGBTQ hate).

Unless you have some data I haven't seen, the first risk is merely conceptual, whereas the second is a documented reality.

Transgender and gender-nonbinary teens face greater risk of sexual assault in schools that prevent them from using bathrooms or locker rooms consistent with their gender identity, according to a recent study.

Researchers looked at data from a survey of nearly 3,700 U.S. teens aged 13-17. The study found that 36% of transgender or gender-nonbinary students with restricted bathroom or locker room access reported being sexually assaulted in the last 12 months, according to a May 6, 2019 CNN article. Of all students surveyed, 1 out of every 4, or 25.9%, reported being a victim of sexual assault in the past year.​

Thus, trans-friendly policies actually reduce the risk of bathroom attacks, whereas not having them increases such risk. Yet you want the opposite and are citing concerns over abuse in bathrooms as your primary justification? IMO, this is yet another indication that this isn't really about "protecting people in bathrooms" for you. Otherwise, why are you not at all concerned about protecting trans people from attacks?

There's a really bad conclusion one could reach here, but I'd first like to give you the opportunity to dissuade me from it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You may need to edit this "edit" - because I never "admitted" that "predators in bathrooms" wasn't a concern.

Why are you always trying to put me in a box?

You began this discussion by inferring that I was a bigot. That the only reason I could take issue with men using the women's restroom was because I hate transgender people.

Then you tried to make it seem that my only motivation was to protect children - (which you claimed was just a feint from my true motivation - hatred of transgender people - all the while taking wide swings at Christianity for some reason) - when I never said that was my only motivation.

Then you moved on to the "predators in bathrooms" motivation when I talked about the potential abuse of these bathroom policies - which has happened and will continue to happen - I never claimed was my only motivation either.

Remember when you blamed the girl for her own rape?

And now when I finally mentioned the simple biological fact that men are not women and women are not men - so they should only use the restrooms that correspond to their biology - you claim that I "admitted" that "predators in bathrooms" is no longer a concern?

Maybe - just maybe - I want to protect children and I want to reject policies that can be abused by "predators in bathrooms" and I point to facts and biology to support my case that men are not women and women are not men - so they should only use the restrooms that correspond to their biology and that I don't hate transgender people.

You may feel the need to label and limit me - because once we dive into the issues your arguments fall apart - but you can't.

Ooh. Did you take the Psych 101 class too?

No - I don't advocate that because it would be stupid - as well as violate the First Amendment.

Your argument that, "Abuse happens at Christian settings - so we should not allow children to go to Christian churches, schools and camps" - is dumb.

That would be like me arguing that since abuse happens at public schools - we should ban all children from public schools.

No - instead - everyone needs to do better to protect children while also allowing them to live their lives as freely as possible.

Public school needs to monitor the halls better and not allow any girl to be alone with any boy on school grounds.

Since restrooms cannot be monitored - they should try to stop any boy from entering the girl's restroom or girl from entering the boy's restroom - to avoid the potential of a girl and boy being alone and unmonitored on school grounds.

I said in Post #282, "I never once claimed that transgender people were criminals.

I was talking about that policies that were made about public restrooms - in order to appease the transgender community - has caused situations where the safety and privacy of our children is at risk.

That boy should not have been allowed in the girl's restroom in the first place. He is a predator."

To which you responded in Post #285, "If you're talking about the incident in Loudoun County, are you aware that the victim had previously met the boy in the girls' bathroom and had agreed to meet him there again when the attack occurred? Are you also aware that the school's transgender bathroom policy hadn't even gone into effect yet?"

What does the victim agreeing to meet with this predator in the girl's bathroom - not once but twice - have anything to do with the school's responsibility to make sure that boys should not be entering the girl's restroom and that a boy and girl should not be left alone and unmonitored on school grounds?

It should not have happened.

And any policy that would allow any boy to enter the girl's restroom or any girl to enter the boy's restroom is ripe for abuse by predators - like this boy in Loudon County.

Stone Bridge High School failed to protect that girl - then they quietly transferred that boy - so he could commit another sexual assault - and then the county School Board lied about it all.

And the reason that the Loudon County School Board quietly transferred this boy - so he could commit more crimes - and why they lied about there being no reports of sexual assault at their schools was because they wanted to continue to push for these restroom policies that cause "situations where the safety and privacy of our children is at risk" because they want to "appease the transgender community" - as I said.

This case has everything to do with transgender restroom policies.

And when faced with all this you say, "Didn't you know that that girl agreed to meet that boy in the girl's restroom?"

As if that somehow matters?

Yes - it is inappropriate and illegal.

A man entering a women's restroom could be charged with all sorts of crimes like trespass, disorderly conduct, breaking and entering - and depending on what he does in the restroom - indecent exposure and peeping.

If a cisgender heterosexual male - who presents as such - can be charged with any of these crimes for entering a women's restroom - then the same should be applied to a man in a dress.

Ok then - I'll see you in the women's restroom. Nothing wrong with that - right?

No - the underlying assumption is that a boy entering a girl's restroom is "inappropriate and illegal" - not transgender people.

I will point out again - I never claimed that people cannot be transgender - or that transgender students shouldn't be in the classrooms, halls, cafeteria, etc.

It only comes down to restrooms - and locker rooms - where children's "biology" may be exposed - that I and the law take issue.

If it is "inappropriate and illegal" for a cisgender boy to enter the girl's restroom - then it should be just as "inappropriate and illegal" for a transgender student - who is a biological boy - to enter as well.

There are many rules at a public school to protect children - because the school is responsible for them.

So - even if the parents of a child allows them to go on certain websites at home - the school may not allow that same child to view those sites at school.

If you don't like the internet analogy - then think of traffic rules and laws - they ain't there because we are worried about the safe drivers - but the crazies.

I'm not saying that transgender people are crazy - but that there are crazy people out there that would abuse the transgender restroom policy - to prey upon people while they are alone and vulnerable.

What if we implemented a new traffic law that said, "Everyone needs to stop at red lights - unless you believe the Earth is flat - then you can ignore them and drive on through."

No problems there right?

So - even though a transgender student believes they should be allowed to use the restroom of their choosing - we can't allow it - because it can - and has - led to abuse.

Technically - the master criminal analogy was just about those post-op transgender people who have done everything to appear as the opposite sex.

A guy putting on a wig ain't no "master criminal" - you know what I'm saying?

It's not very difficult to see what's going on there.

Ok - roads exists whether or not there are crosswalks -right?

You don't technically need a crosswalk to cross one - do you?

We make crosswalks to mitigate the risk of crossing the street - because cars are huge bullets that can kill people.

We care about people's safety so much - that we can charge them with jaywalking and fine them if they don't use the crosswalk.

Does this mean that everyone who crosses the street without using the crosswalk is a crazy and unreasonable person?

No - but there some crazy and unreasonable people out there who can - believe it or not - not cross the street well.

I had a friend who was hit by a car back in middle school. He wasn't using a crosswalk. He survived - but he had to go to the hospital for a while.

It's funny - but I was once driving by that same middle school years later - and one kid out of a group of students walking on the sidewalk suddenly shot out - as if he was about to run across the street - but then he shot back into the group.

I braked - because I thought the kid was jumping out into the road - and after he didn't I pulled over and parked - got out of my car - and yelled at them. I told them how dumb and dangerous that was. It could cause an accident.

I digress - but let it be known that there are crazy and unreasonable people out there and we use things like crosswalks to help keep them in check - so we can all use the roads safely.

This is all reasonable. A method of mitigating risk. Controlling a portion of the chaos.

So - just like with the crosswalks - all bathrooms can technically be used by everyone.

I mean - they all got toilets - right? And we are all - evacuating - the same mess - right?

However - we separate the restrooms on the grounds of biology to mitigate the risk associated with being in such a vulnerable position.

People can literally be caught all alone with their pants down.

And up until recently - since we cared about everyone's privacy and safety - we could charge those who entered into the opposing sex's restroom with various crimes depending on the circumstance.

Because we want people to only use the restroom that corresponds to their biology - in order to help mitigate any risks and keep people safe - just like how we want people to use crosswalks - to help mitigate any risks and keep people safe.

Not allowing boys into the girl's restroom is equivalent to making sure kids only cross the street using the crosswalk.

I understand that there will always be some kids out there who don't want to use the crosswalk - but as long as they are the school's responsibility - those orange-vested ladies should make sure they use them.

I understand that there will always be some kids out there who don't want to use the restroom that corresponds to their biology - but as long as they are the school's responsibility - those hall-monitors should make sure they use them.

There is no hate here. Just a desire to keep everyone safe.

Do you understand where I am coming from?

I'm just wondering where you live where you say it's illegal for someone to enter a bathroom that doesn't match their "biology?"
As a woman, I've used the men's room a bunch of times in my life, when the ladies' room has been full or had a line up. I wasn't aware that I should have been arrested for that, according to you.
Also, I'm wondering where this leaves people that have children that are a different gender from themselves that need to use a rest room. Are they supposed to send their 4 year old into the bathroom completely alone? I mean, I've gone into the men's room with my 5 year old nephew countless times (I've also had to bring him into the women's room with me many times). According to you, I should have been arrested?

Also, I'm wondering how you plan/hope to enforce such a policy. Should we have bathroom monitors at the door checking peoples genitals to make sure they correspond to the appropriate bathroom?

Also, as a girl/woman, never in my entire life have I even thought about, let alone been frightened about a man dressing up like a woman to come into the bathroom to hurt me. Never.

This whole thing is ridiculously silly to me. There are far more important things to worry about, imo.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have an actual degree in it and was recognized in the state of Indiana as a behavioral health professional.

Where?

They disagree with you and think you're making a mountain out of nothing.

The military tends to be concerned with if you can do the job or not. If you are, yes. If someone wants to serve the country and is mentally sound and physically able to that tends to be what matters.
And, many countries allow women in the military. They do just fine, even on the front lines.

My great aunt flew supply planes during WWII.
I don't think this poster has thought his positions through very thoroughly.

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm just wondering where you live where you say it's illegal for someone to enter a bathroom that doesn't match their "biology?"
As a woman, I've used the men's room a bunch of times in my life, when the ladies' room has been full or had a line up. I wasn't aware that I should have been arrested for that, according to you.

I've done the same thing (in reverse). I've even had a woman walk in and see me emerging from a stall. I just smiled and said "The men's room was full...I couldn't wait" and that was it.

Guess I should've been arrested on the spot!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't think this poster has thought his positions through very thoroughly.

The position seems not well thought out nor well informed.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Biology "dictates" nothing, it observes and draws conclusions from these observations.

Exactly - our study of living organisms - biology - has concluded with authority (dictated) that there are only two biological sexes.

There are some species of animal and flowers that are hermaphroditic - meaning that they can express both sexes simultaneously or sequentially during their lifetimes - depending on circumstance.

Yet even these species are either male or female or a combination of the two sexes - no third sex.

However - most animals - including all mammals (human beings) are gonochoric - meaning that individuals are either male or female - no in between - no extra sexes.

This is what the observation of living organisms has concluded.

Biology dictates that there are only the two biological sexes and that no mammals (or birds) can change their biological sex.

For example, some animals exhibit secondary sexual characteristics from both sexes:


11 Animals That Can Change Their Sex
Gynandromorphism - Wikipedia

This is similar to intersex individuals - a rare condition where a person has both male and female sexual organs or characteristics - which is a genetic abnormality.

These people - or animals - having characteristics of both the sexes does not make them a brand new third sex - because they have characteristics from only the two sexes.

Even though they may have this condition - more scrutiny and testing will prove that the individual is either a male or a female.

An intersex person can only produce one of the two gametes needed for reproduction - they are not hermaphrodites.

They are not a third biological sex. They are either a male or a female with a genetic condition.

The idea that there are only two strictly distinguishable sexes is not the result of observation, but religious dictate.

I never once said anything about "strictly distinguishable" - you added that to alter my claim.

All I have claimed is that, "Biology dictates that there are only the two biological sexes and that no mammals (or birds) can change their biological sex."

The fact that some individuals may be born with a genetic condition does not change that.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I've done the same thing (in reverse). I've even had a woman walk in and see me emerging from a stall. I just smiled and said "The men's room was full...I couldn't wait" and that was it.

Guess I should've been arrested on the spot!

Right? I mean kids gotta go too! I could never figure out if I should take him in the women's room with me or I should go into the men's room with him. The funny thing is nobody else seems to care one bit.

I actually walked in when a guy was in the middle of peeing in the urinal and was totally embarrassed (I didn't see anything!). But the guy couldn't have cared less and I really, really, really had to pee, so in the stall I went.

We should both be rotting in prison somewhere, I guess.

 

[SkepticThinker]

All I have claimed is that, "Biology dictates that there are only the two biological sexes and that no mammals (or birds) can change their biological sex."

The fact that some individuals may be born with a genetic condition does not change that.

It definitely makes it inaccurate. So yeah, it does "change that."
Cardinals can be both male and female at the same time. Figure that one out!

So I'm wondering why point you are trying to make with this? I mean, why should we care? How is it relevant to the discussion?
Humans are complex creatures and sex and gender are also complex and not just black and white as you seem to think they are.

 

[Jose Fly]

Right? I mean kids gotta go too! I could never figure out if I should take him in the women's room with me or I should go into the men's room with him. The funny thing is nobody else seems to care one bit.

I actually walked in when a guy was in the middle of peeing in the urinal and was totally embarrassed (I didn't see anything!). But the guy couldn't have cared less and I really, really, really had to pee, so in the stall I went.

We should both be rotting in prison somewhere, I guess.

Yup, having raised two daughters, the number of times one of us has been in the "wrong" bathroom is too high to count. Guess we're serial trespassers!

 

[Kooky]

This is what the observation of living organisms has concluded.
[snip]

And therefore, we must force women with XY chromosomes to use men's restrooms, and vice versa?

Is that your argument? Many mammals are sexualy dimorphic, and therefore, we must suppress all expression of gender that strays from the dominant mainstream way of life, and harass and discriminate against women and men who have the "incorrect" set of chromosomes?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yup, having raised two daughters, the number of times one of us has been in the "wrong" bathroom is too high to count. Guess we're serial trespassers!

Shoot, all of my friends should be in prison too. Yikes! Guess we'll have to let some murderers free so there will be enough space for all of us.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Do you believe this man should be forced to use women's restrooms?

Do you think the government should force this woman to use men's restrooms?

Is that Blair?

I don't know anything about the person in the first photo - but I'm assuming that's a woman who has undergone hormone therapy and surgery?

That would make sense considering your side of this issue.

I do know that Blair is a biological man though - so based on that fact - I believe my initial assumption about the woman in the first photo is accurate.

The segregation of public restrooms in the United States has been determined by biology since the 1800s.

Biology is a consistent, verifiable and useful metric - unlike social constructs or how someone self-identifies.

If you want to change that rule - that public restroom use should be determined by biology - we can have that discussion - but that would have nothing to do with transgender individuals.

Until we change that rule - we cannot make any laws or policies based on completely subjective concepts and self perceptions not based in biology.

It would also be discriminatory of you to argue that only some men should be allowed to use the women's restroom while others should not - and vice versa.

So - in my opinion - you should be arguing for the desegregation of public restrooms based on biology - rather than preferential treatment for transgender individuals.

That would be a more consistent argument.

But - until such a change is made - we should continue to segregate public restrooms based on biology.

And yes - I understand that there will always be those "master criminals" and "masters of disguise" who will "fly under the radar" - but that doesn't mean we should throw away the law.

If using the restroom of the opposing sex is that important to them - they better do everything in their power to appear as the opposite sex - in order to fool everyone.

I don't think they should - but I cannot stop them - and their ability to fool others shouldn't affect the law.

Because public restroom use is - and I believe should be - segregated based on biology - not social constructs or how someone self-identifies.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

And therefore, we must force women with XY chromosomes to use men's restrooms, and vice versa?

You kind of answered your own question,

"And therefore, we must force women with XY chromosomes to use men's restrooms, and vice versa?"

However - since those who push the transgender ideology are attempting to destroy what a "woman" is - maybe it doesn't.

A woman is an adult female human being.

I know that there are certain genetic conditions that can give women a Y chromosome - such as Swyer syndrome and CAIS - but they are still women.

Is that your argument? Many mammals are sexualy dimorphic, and therefore, we must suppress all expression of gender that strays from the dominant mainstream way of life, and harass and discriminate against women and men who have the "incorrect" set of chromosomes?

What?

You can take the train off of a male peacock and put it on a female - but that wouldn't suddenly make the female peacock male.

There is not discrimination in claiming that all biological men should use the men's restroom and all biological women should use the women's restroom.

It is treating everyone the same based on the consistent and verifiable metrics of biology.

All people can express themselves in any way they want - but they need to accept facts.

Men are not women and women are not men. One cannot become the other. Biology exists.

And currently - biology is what determines which restroom people can use - not how they decide to express themselves.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Biology is a consistent

rather than preferential treatment for transgender individuals.

master criminals" and "masters of disguise" who will "fly under the radar"

All the above is rather quite silly. Absurdly preposterous. Master criminals cross dressing to use the restroom of the opposite sex? Preferential treatment of trans people? Nature being consistent with its biological creations?

their ability to fool others shouldn't affect the law

That's an interesting one. I can be presenting as male and people will still see me as female. I dress in women's clothes and present as female is anyone really being fooled if I already get the occasional "young lady" when I have to present as what's on my driver's license?

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Here's a video I came across today because I went to a right-wing Christian news outlet where there was an article from a dad who is extremely upset that it was shown to his kid's 8th grade class.

I watched it all the way through, and I see absolutely nothing inappropriate in it. The speaker just talks about what it's like to be trans, names some common misconceptions, describes some of the social issues trans folks have to deal with, and makes a plea for basic civility. And that makes me think that that's exactly what bothered the dad so much......he's afraid. He's afraid that his kid will be persuaded by the video to basically not be a bigot.

No wonder that dad was so upset - this video was garbage - I'd be upset too.

 

[Kooky]

You kind of answered your own question,

"And therefore, we must force women with XY chromosomes to use men's restrooms, and vice versa?"

However - since those who push the transgender ideology are attempting to destroy what a "woman" is - maybe it doesn't.

A woman is an adult female human being.

I know that there are certain genetic conditions that can give women a Y chromosome - such as Swyer syndrome and CAIS - but they are still women.

What?

You can take the train off of a male peacock and put it on a female - but that wouldn't suddenly make the female peacock male.

Would you recongize this woman as female, yes or no?

There is not discrimination in claiming that all biological men should use the men's restroom and all biological women should use the women's restroom.

It is treating everyone the same based on the consistent and verifiable metrics of biology.

All people can express themselves in any way they want - but they need to accept facts.

Men are not women and women are not men. One cannot become the other. Biology exists.


And currently - biology is what determines which restroom people can use - not how they decide to express themselves.

Should this person be forced to use the men's restroom?

 

[metis]

However - since those who push the transgender ideology are attempting to destroy what a "woman" is - maybe it doesn't.

A woman is an adult female human being.

So, whom is going to check their "equipment", FP?

Plus, you just can't seemingly get it into your head that the "equipment" is only part of the story that determines sexuality.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Is that Blair?

I don't know anything about the person in the first photo - but I'm assuming that's a woman who has undergone hormone therapy and surgery?

That would make sense considering your side of this issue.

I do know that Blair is a biological man though - so based on that fact - I believe my initial assumption about the woman in the first photo is accurate.

The segregation of public restrooms in the United States has been determined by biology since the 1800s.

Biology is a consistent, verifiable and useful metric - unlike social constructs or how someone self-identifies.

If you want to change that rule - that public restroom use should be determined by biology - we can have that discussion - but that would have nothing to do with transgender individuals.

Until we change that rule - we cannot make any laws or policies based on completely subjective concepts and self perceptions not based in biology.

It would also be discriminatory of you to argue that only some men should be allowed to use the women's restroom while others should not - and vice versa.

So - in my opinion - you should be arguing for the desegregation of public restrooms based on biology - rather than preferential treatment for transgender individuals.

That would be a more consistent argument.

But - until such a change is made - we should continue to segregate public restrooms based on biology.

And yes - I understand that there will always be those "master criminals" and "masters of disguise" who will "fly under the radar" - but that doesn't mean we should throw away the law.

If using the restroom of the opposing sex is that important to them - they better do everything in their power to appear as the opposite sex - in order to fool everyone.

I don't think they should - but I cannot stop them - and their ability to fool others shouldn't affect the law.

Because public restroom use is - and I believe should be - segregated based on biology - not social constructs or how someone self-identifies.

You didn't actually answer the question.

You didn't answer my question either ... How do you intend on enforcing this "biological sex in the corresponding biological bathroom" thing? Have guards at the door checking the genitals of everyone coming in? What are people who have young children supposed to do?

I bet you haven't even realized yet that transgendered people have been sharing washrooms with us for a very long time without you even noticing.