Tennessee sees new step in wave of anti-Trans bills

[Fallen Prophet]

What risk?

Allowing boys and girls to be alone with each other without being monitored leads to risk.

It is the responsibility of public schools to mitigate the risks to our children while they are attending school.

Because puritans are about the only ones who see those as good.

Do you have any evidence that supports this claim - because I don't see that being true.

Except that's not true. Neuter, asexual and hermaphrodite are just a few.

None of these things are biological sexes - just attitudes and personalities.

Except hermaphrodite - there are no mammal hermaphrodites.

There are only two biological sexes. There are only two genders.

Dragging children into it to hide behind them is disgusting.

First - I didn't drag anyone anywhere - children are the most vulnerable - therefore - there need to be more safeguards surrounding them - not less.

And second - what is this "it" you are referring to? What are you claiming that I am dragging children into?

A discussion about public restroom use? Who can use which?

This topic affects children just as much as it affects adults - so I don't understand what you are arguing here.

Transgender ideology?

Yes - it is like a religion. Activists are trying to convert people to their way of thinking - without evidence.

Oh well. Society has a lot of had rules, and indeed many have had to change despite pleas and appeals to social order and the way things are.

Correct - but biology is not a societal construct - it does not and will not change.

Now - if you want to argue that we should just no longer have public restrooms segregated by biology - that would make more sense and be more consistent.

However - I don't think you'd want that because then you wouldn't be able to push the transgender ideology - that men are women and vice versa.

If we changed our policy to allow all men and women to use whatever restroom they wanted - not just transgendered persons - then there goes the limelight - the "struggle".

I don't think people that push this narrative want equality - they want to make a point - and try to convince the world that biology no longer exists.

It's how you disagree, and refusing to accept science on the subject is more than mere disagreement.

What is wrong with the way that I am disagreeing?

Also - I have yet to see any "science" that claims that men can become women and vice versa or that there are more than two sexes or genders - just opinion.

Any "scientist" who claims that a man can become a woman is no longer a scientist - but an activist.

And just to be clear - don't be like Fauci and talk about "the science" is if it were some kind of infallible God that everyone needs to agree with or they are ignorant and bigoted.

There are many fields of study - most especially this one - where not all the "experts" agree - and they are all doing their observations and research - looking to see what the evidence supports - that is the process called "science".

Since science is a process of things still being determined - no one needs to "accept" everything.

Fortunately - biology has all the clear-cut evidence to prove that there are only the two biological sexes - while the process for proving your claims is completely ambiguous and lacking in actual evidence.

You are the one who has not utilized a scientific position.

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

Refusal to accept them and the science behind it.

What does "accept them" mean?

And - oh no! - "the science!" - "Anyone who disagrees with "the science!" needs to repent!"

I have never known a trans person to use this "transgenderism."

Interesting - so why do you keep peddling it?

It's not even scientific or medical.

This is funny coming from the person who claimed that neuter, asexual and hermaphrodite were biological sexes.

That's so funny.

Public restrooms are new and often times not segregated.

But as you said ealier, "Society has a lot of had rules, and indeed many have had to change despite pleas and appeals to social order and the way things are."

Public restroom use in the United States became segregated by biology when women began entering the workforce back in the 1800's.

Society changed - so the people had to adapt.

And biology is the only consistent, verifiable and useful metric for determining which restroom a person can use.

Or you could mind your own business. You aren't entitled to the knowledge or to force people to talk about something that has no real bearing or risk in your life. And if someone chooses not to disclose it at all to you oh well, you aren't entitled to know.

Yeah - you completely misunderstood what I said. Took it way out of context.

In Post # 295 @Jose Fly claimed that I did not agree with the idea that transgender people could "talk openly about being trans".

I don't know where he got this idea from - but he said it.

This led me to respond in Post #304 with the portion you quoted out of context,

"I believe that all transgender people should talk openly about being trans."

I never claimed that I was entitled to anything or that anyone should be forced to say or disclose something that don't wish to.

All I said was that I believed that - contrary to what @Jose Fly said - transgender people were free to talk openly about being transgender.

I was clearing up a misconception he had about me. I was not making demands for anything.

This was a very weird thing you just said. Truly ignorant of the discussion I was having.

Maybe you should just stick to our own discussion and stop embarrassing yourself by commenting on conversations you aren't really paying attention to?

By living in accordance to wants.

What does this mean?

That is simply unacceptable.

What isn't?

Amd you don't really show concern.

I don't? How so?

Racists rarely admit they are.

What a truly evil thing to say. It eliminates any chance of a person not being racist. Everyone is racist by default.

Either they are openly racist or they are closet racist - but they are racist.

This is what you believe?

It really isn't.

Then why haven't you been able to prove it?

And yet science is fueling a technological revolution.

As well as political narratives and social ideologies. Once science became a political tool - it died.

And many societies have thrived and flourished without science.

Not really.

We're doing just fine moving away from god as well.

I believe that most of the conflicts we are having in our society is due to the lack of God.

That's not true either.
Sex-Change Chicken: Gertie the Hen Becomes Bertie the Cockerel
7 gender-bending animals in the animal kingdom

Wow - you and the two people that liked your post must not have read what was in these links.

None of these things were examples of there being more than the two biological sexes or that any mammal or bird can change their biological sex.

For example - in regards to the article about Gertie - the chicken started to appear and act more like a rooster due to a medical condition - and the article concludes by saying,

"The hen does not completely change into a rooster, however. This transition is limited to making the bird phenotypically male, meaning that although the hen will develop physical characteristics that will make her look male, she will remain genetically female. So while the hen will no longer lay eggs, she won't be fathering any offspring, either."

So - no - this chicken did not "change [its] biological sex" - which makes the title of the article and what was said in the report published by the University of Florida's Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences - misleading and outright false.

No "sex-change" or "sex reversal" occurred.

This is the equivalent of claiming that a woman becoming more masculine means she has changed her biological sex. It doesn't.

Gertie is now a hen who looks and acts like a rooster - but she will no longer lay eggs or be able to father any chicks (because her biological sex was never changed) - so the only thing she is good for now is the oven.

Let's move on to the other link -

Marsh harrier - males tend to have grey down - yet some males have adopted a brown "female-like down" - yet they retain their male-like eyes and small build.

So - in your opinion - a person getting their hair dyed means they have changed their biological sex?

Colobus monkey - young male olive and red colobus monkeys develop anal swelling - to resemble a female colobus monkey in heat - to avoid getting kicked out of their pod.

I think this one is funny because the article says, "Though this doesn’t confuse other males within their own and related species" - meaning that these monkeys weren't very convincing as females.

So - in your opinion - a man who very unconvincingly dresses up to appear like a woman has instantly changed their biological sex?

Spotted hyena - the female hyena has a very long clitoris. I don't know why the article first claims that the females have a penis and then instantly recant by revealing it is a clitoris.

So - in your opinion - a woman who happens to have a large clitoris has somehow changed her biological sex?

Lion - some females grew manes and started exhibiting male-like behavior - they believe it was caused by increased testosterone.

So - in your opinion - a woman who starts to grow facial hair and acts a bit more "masculine" due to having a hormonal imbalance - has somehow changed her biological sex?

Thanks for wasting everybody's time.

 

[Jose Fly]

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

Why? What specifically do you find so objectionable in it?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Correct - but biology is not a societal construct - it does not and will not change.

Ya know, they tried to use biology in arguing the proper place of the negro is servitude.

Allowing boys and girls to be alone with each other without being monitored leads to risk.

It is the responsibility of public schools to mitigate the risks to our children while they are attending school.

What risk? You didn't answer that.

None of these things are biological sexes - just attitudes and personalities.

Except hermaphrodite - there are no mammal hermaphrodites.

There are only two biological sexes. There are only two genders.

Mammals aren't the only ones who reproduce. Sexual reproduction is not the only method of reproduction. That means there must be others than male and female if that's not the only way it's done. In fact, sexual reproduction came after asexual reproduction. Meaning the first ones were sexless.

First - I didn't drag anyone anywhere - children are the most vulnerable - therefore - there need to be more safeguards surrounding them - not less.

And second - what is this "it" you are referring to? What are you claiming that I am dragging children into?

"It" is this argument you dragged children into so you can use them as a shield.
Children care less about this than adults. They can just go on with their day while the adults get obsessed and become toxic towards others.

Yes - it is like a religion. Activists are trying to convert people to their way of thinking - without evidence.

You'be been given evidence and sources throughout this thread.
Amd I've never heard anyone outside of those preaching about boogeymen to go on about transgenderism or some trans ideology.

Fortunately - biology has all the clear-cut evidence to prove that there are only the two biological sexes - while the process for proving your claims is completely ambiguous and lacking in actual evidence.

How many times do you want to be shown wrong?
And it's only your fault if you haven't seen the many links provided to you. You put your own blinders on and won't remove them.
It's well settled and solid that trans people have a brain more like the gender of their identity than their birth sex.
You say biology is clear and cut. Then what happened when someone is born with XY chromosomes but a female body, appearance, and identity? That Y chromosome usually isn't found until she's very late having her first period.

Now - if you want to argue that we should just no longer have public restrooms segregated by biology - that would make more sense and be more consistent.

That makes more sense and is how much of the world does it. But you stated earlier you believe it shouldn't be that way.

However - I don't think you'd want that because then you wouldn't be able to push the transgender ideology - that men are women and vice versa.

I don't think you'd want it because then it becomes very apparent how wrong you are when people use coed restrooms and nothing happens.

I don't think people that push this narrative want equality - they want to make a point - and try to convince the world that biology no longer exists.

I've never met anyone trying to say biology doesn't exist.

Interesting - so why do you keep peddling it?

I peddle nothing. I repeat what science and medicine have found. In the field we call this "evidence based."

This is funny coming from the person who claimed that neuter, asexual and hermaphrodite were biological sexes.

That's so funny.

What's funny is you seem to think sexual reproduction and female/male is it. If a species doesn't sexually reproduce it doesn't have female and male like mammals would have.

"I believe that all transgender people should talk openly about being trans."

I never claimed that I was entitled to anything

You are claiming you are entitled to know if I'm trans or not by your statement we should talk openly about it. A lot of us don't. We'd rather just try and go about living our life than broadcast our business to the world.
You have no privileges or rights to tell us we should openly talk about it.
You can mind your own business.

And biology is the only consistent, verifiable and useful metric for determining which restroom a person can use.

And then you get a woman who is androgynous insensitive and end up needlessly embarrassing someone and with a well-deserved amd earned lawsuit against you on your hands.

What a truly evil thing to say. It eliminates any chance of a person not being racist. Everyone is racist by default.

Except it's true. See a racist doing something racist amd there's a fair chance this person will deny being racist and maybe even point out having a black friend or two.

Then why haven't you been able to prove it?

Why do you ignore what is provided? Just like when the Church was embarrassed over putting Galileo on house arrest, the Church will again be embarrassed for clinging onto dated superstition and be so absurdly ridiculous about it they are again claiming the object of observation (the crystal in Galileo's place) is wrong and messed up for not confirming ancient superstitions.

As well as political narratives and social ideologies. Once science became a political tool - it died.

Of course. You don't like it, so it's political and died.

I believe that most of the conflicts we are having in our society is due to the lack of God.

Except we are having fewer conflicts. Those radical Muslims, however, full of belief and zeal. They're making a lot of problems for the Middle East the way the Vatican, Inquisitors,Conquistadors, and other Euro godly types made things bad for others.
We really seem better off without.

None of these things were examples of there being more than the two biological sexes or that any mammal or bird can change their biological sex.

A hen becoming a rooster isn't an example of that?

 

[Fallen Prophet]

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

Good for you.

Did you get that degree after only the one class?

Where?

The example that has been used in this thread is the Loudon County School Board.

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

So?

The military tends to be concerned with if you can do the job or not.

Is that why they lowered PT standards for women?

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.

So - what you are saying is - women and transgender individuals shouldn't be in the military?

And, many countries allow women in the military.

Wow - these "other places" sound great with their "inclusive" restrooms and physically weaker militaries.

They do just fine, even on the front lines.

What countries are you talking about?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Good for you.

Did you get that degree after only the one class?

The example that has been used in this thread is the Loudon County School Board.

So?

Is that why they lowered PT standards for women?

So - what you are saying is - women and transgender individuals shouldn't be in the military?

Wow - these "other places" sound great with their "inclusive" restrooms and physically weaker militaries.

What countries are you talking about?

As I pointed out earlier, my great aunt flew supply planes during World War Freaking Two. Nobody is lowering any standards for women to serve in the military. The military was not "physically weaker" for it either. In fact, they were stronger because they had more qualified people doing jobs that needed to be done to win the war.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Good for you.

Did you get that degree after only the one class?

The example that has been used in this thread is the Loudon County School Board.

So?

Is that why they lowered PT standards for women?

So - what you are saying is - women and transgender individuals shouldn't be in the military?

Wow - these "other places" sound great with their "inclusive" restrooms and physically weaker militaries.

What countries are you talking about?

Whoa, whoa.

That poster said to you, "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."

And your response to that is (well, the first half since you cut out the second half), "So - what you are saying is - women and transgender individuals shouldn't be in the military?"

Are you saying that woman and transgender individuals are not mentally sound and physically able?
Have I misunderstood?

 

[Fallen Prophet]

You're not making sense. It now seems you're trying to say there really was no point behind saying that even if we could eliminate all risk, you still wouldn't want transgenders to be able to use the bathrooms of their gender.

Since the beginning of this "discussion" - you have been claiming that whenever I bring up another reason for why I believe only men should use men's public restrooms and vice versa - that I have somehow abandoned my earlier reasons.

I recall first bringing this phenomenon of yours up in Post #301 when I said,

"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."

I still maintain that public restrooms in the United States are segregated by biology - that is a standard that I agree with and will defend.

The reason I mentioned the - magical - elimination of all risk was to point to that standard and affirm that all your arguments about risks don't really matter.

You can try to explain away all the barriers we have put in place to help people feel safe, give them privacy and mitigate risk - but that is the one barrier you cannot explain away.

Sigh....try reading the whole thing in context, rather than examining each and every word in isolation.

Are you serious?

You don't believe that the words used to define the term establish the proper context?

I read what you provided - but it is just completely subjective.

"Transgender is an umbrella term for persons whose gender identity, gender expression or behavior does not conform to that typically associated with the sex to which they were assigned at birth."

What "identity", "expression" and "behavior" is typical of a male or of a female?

Keep in mind that the word "typical" means something along the lines of "having the distinctive qualities of a particular type of person or thing".

So - what does it mean?

Females "typically" give birth - that is a "distinctive quality" of being female - but not all biological females want to have children.

Therefore - by the definition you supplied - any biological female who does not want to have children could be considered "transgender"?

I wouldn't think so.

In order for a person to be considered "transgender" they would first need to prove that their "identity", "expression" or "behavior" is not typical - which is completely subjective.

It's not my problem that the definition is ambiguous - but yours - because you believe that we can make laws and policies based on it.

"Preferential treatment"? Huh?

Allowing only certain men to use the women's restroom - because they believe they are women - is preferential treatment.

We do all the time. "Christian" is a protected class in anti-discrimination laws for example.

I believe what you meant to say was "Religion" - right?

And - it makes no sense for you to bring this up. It is not relevant.

I at no time claimed that a person could not use any restroom because they were transgender.

Um.....okay?

For example - I believe that drinking alcohol today is sinful. That's my belief.

Now - let's say that it was revealed to me somehow - either through revelation or some long lost book of scripture or whatever - that God does not consider the drinking of alcohol to be sinful.

I would still decide not to drink alcohol. I don't believe it is something I want in my life. I don't believe it is productive at all.

So - even if you were able to eliminate any and all risk associated with members of the opposite sex using the other restroom - through magic or a chip in everyone's head - I would still oppose it.

I see no benefit to it. All I see is that it is going to make people uncomfortable.

No it's not. No one's privacy is violated under these policies.

Public restrooms are designed to violate privacy.

All those spaces above and below and the gaps in between doors - all designed to prevent people from "setting up camp" in the public restroom.

No one loves using a public restroom - because it is uncomfortable and lacks privacy - and is most likely not very clean.

Now if you add members of the opposite sex into the mix?

 

[Fallen Prophet]

We've already been over that.

I remember you saying something - but it was all Greta Thunberg - 'blah, blah, blah"

Didn't you just claim that all transgender people were "pre-programmed" to "go into a stall, close the door, do their business, flush, leave the stall, wash their hands and leave"?

You just gave me this guarantee out of nowhere - based on nothing.

And if that was all that transgender people were "pre-programed" to do - then why can't they do it in the other restroom?

That makes no sense.

I thought you just said we don't base public policy on "feelings".

I said """feelings" or someone's subjective view of themselves."

I can't base a public policy on my "feeling" or "subjective view of myself" that I am a son of God - and should therefore be treated as such.

Looks like you really meant, "I want policy to be based on my feelings, but not anyone else's".

No - that is what you and transgender activists want.

You don't care about how other people may feel when a member of the opposite sex enters the restroom while they are using it.

You worry more about the subjective and unverifiable claims of less than one percent of the population over century's old laws and biological fact.

Except that no one's privacy is violated by this policy.

Again - everyone's privacy is violated in a public restroom - and that violation is compounded when you add a member of the opposite sex.

Also, transgender people using bathrooms of their gender...by itself....poses no additional risk to anyone. More on that later.

That is true.

If everyone simply used the restroom as intended - there would be no risk of bodily harm - but people may still feel uncomfortable or unsafe with a member of the opposite sex in there with them.

First, there's no "actual metric" for who or who is not "Christian" either, but we still craft public policy around the concept (e.g., anti-discrimination laws). So we can cross that off as a valid objection.

I don't think you know what you are talking about.

Any discrimination lawsuit would need to prove that the person was - I don't know - let's say "fired from his job for being Christian" - the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

You can claim all day long that I don't want transgender people using the opposing restroom because they are transgender - but that doesn't prove it.

I have said from the beginning that only men should use the men's restroom and vice versa - it has nothing to do with someone being transgender or not.

Second, again transgender people using the bathroom of their gender....by itself....poses no risk to anyone.

Is this the part where you tell me that you believe in magic?

You admit this when you focus entirely on non-transgender people exploiting the situation to commit crimes.

No - I have been focusing on "crazies" and "predators" - which can be anyone - transgender or not.

The boy in Loudon County was "gender-fluid" - and he still turned out to be a predator.

So - no - a person being transgender does not mean that they can't also be "crazy" or a "predator".

So the issue here isn't about transgender people doing anything wrong or inappropriate.

Keep that in mind.

I have maintained this position from the beginning.

I have been arguing against bad policy - not transgender people.

You were the one who turned it into a transgender issue - so you keep that in mind.

And anyone can claim to be a "Christian" and since there's no way to prove that they really are, we just have to take their word for it and grant them the special protections that come with it.

Yet - they are the ones who have to prove that they were discriminated against based on their religion.

And you cannot prove that in regards to this issue and transgender people.

And note again that your issue you keep pointing to isn't about transgender people doing anything wrong or inappropriate. Your worry is 100% about cis-genders doing bad things.

Nope - literally anyone can be a crazy predator - but segregating our public restrooms based on biology can help us mitigate the risk - like wearing a seat belt or using a crosswalk.

And don't forget - this isn't only about restrooms - but other facilities or practices that use biology as a factor.

For example - women's prisons, homeless shelters and centers for battered women - the women in these facilities may not want to be around men.

And there was no trans-friendly bathroom policy in place when that happened.

Irrelevant.

So even the status quo doesn't magically eliminate 100% of risk, does it?

Which is why I have always said "mitigate risk".

I only said "eliminate risk" when I claimed that it could be removed by magic.

And magic doesn't exist.

So - in regards to the Loudon Country case - the school should have taken responsibility for allowing a boy and girl to get alone in the restroom.

They bear some responsibility.

Then the School Board should have examined the policy they were pushing and realized that if it were passed - it would open the floodgates for more situations like this.

And then they should have canned the policy.

Instead - however - they lied about the rape and continued to push the bad policy.

Why do you think that is?

Yet we don't eliminate public bathrooms entirely, do we?

Or roads - but we have speed limits, stop lights, crosswalks, shoulders - and various laws that help mitigate the risks.

Just like public restrooms. We segregate them based on biology and enforce laws to mitigate risk.

And do those places experience higher rates of attacks in bathrooms than we do?

I have no idea. I don't even know what places you guys are talking about.

Because there are biological components to gender.

Like what?

Honestly, I have no interest in trying to teach a course in the biology of sex and gender. There's no shortage of reading material on the subject out there if you're truly interested.

I don't think you or that reading material would give me anything I haven't seen before.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

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

Is this person a man or a woman? Male or female?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Did you get that degree after only the one class?

So are you a lummox or troll? Your reasoning doesn't seem to advance beyond that.
As I said, the state of Indiana did recognize me as a mental health professional.

Are you saying that woman and transgender individuals are not mentally sound and physically able?
Have I misunderstood?

Nope. It just seems very poor reading comprehension is involved, such as with this fine example:

So - what you are saying is - women and transgender individuals shouldn't be in the military?

 

[Fallen Prophet]

I decided to address what you saved for last - first.

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.

I don't know if there are any stats - but I did share some examples earlier in this thread - before you joined.

But - considering what happened in Loudon County - it makes me wonder if there are more cases that are just being covered up in order to push the narrative.

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.

It is just as irrelevant now as it was the first time you brought it up.

If Michael Myers, Jason and Freddy Kruger just used the restroom...and did nothing else...they would pose no risk to anyone either.

You are acting as if there is some guarantee that crazy predators won't take advantage of bad policies.

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.

No - anyone can be a crazy predator.

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.

What's going on Mr. Psych 101?

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.

Hmmmm - what to do with this?

I don't want to jump to conclusions - because there may be more to this than what you have shared - but are you freakin serious?

First - this "study" is based on "an anonymous web-based survey" according to the CNN article listed in your link - meaning - there is no way to verify if anything these 3,673 participants claimed were true - or if they were even teens 13-17 in the first place.

It could have been 3,673 submissions made by one old Asian guy for all we know.

Second - nowhere in the link or in that CNN article does it claim that any of these supposed "sexual assaults" even took place at school in these locker rooms or restrooms.

In fact - the NBC article listed in your link quoted the lead study author Gabriel Murchison of the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston - who said, “We can’t tell from this study whether restrictive restroom and locker room policies cause sexual assault. However, at the least, they seem to be a marker for an environment where trans and nonbinary youth are at risk.”

Are you freakin kidding me?

The "study" also said, “Although we cannot determine if the restrictions themselves affected safety, it appears that using a single-person facility (eg, a staff restroom) may not fully address the risks associated with restrictions,"

If the alleged "sexual assaults" had taken place at the school - don't you think they could "determine if the restrictions themselves affected safety"?

All this "study" claims is that 36% of the 3,673 people who claimed to be transgender or gender-nonbinary teens aged 13-17 (which cannot be verified since it was "an anonymous web-based survey") - with restricted bathroom or locker room access - claimed to have been "sexually assaulted" sometime within the last 12 months somewhere.

While only 25.9% of the surveyed teens (supposedly) had reported being "sexually assaulted" within the last 12 months somewhere at sometime.

No where does it claim that any of these "sexual assaults" took place at any school or at any bathroom or locker room.

It does not clarify what it means by "sexual assault" - nor does it claim that any of these "reports" are police reports.

All this "study" is doing is trying to smear any place that still segregates restrooms and locker rooms by biology.

It claims that, "These anonymous people - whoever they are - claimed that more "sexual assault" - which can be anything the individual deems to be such - happens in areas, locales, regions that still segregate restrooms and locker rooms by biology - but not specifically in any particular school or restroom or locker room - and none of those claims can be verified."

My opinion is based only on what you have offered me - and that opinion is that it is pure garbage.

You offered nothing but propaganda to fuel the transgender ideology and a political narrative.

This was absurd. Laughable.

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?

I suppose - based on what I know about you - that I feel much the same way about transgenderism as you do about Christianity.

They have every right to believe what they want. I understand that they believe that their feelings are real and valid.

However - despite their claims that they have evidence that supports their feelings - none of it can be verified.

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.

Oh? Like what?

 

[Fallen Prophet]

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.

Is what you shared above your evidence for this claim?

Or do you have like actual evidence that supports this?

What "set of beliefs" are you thinking of?

That truth is subjective.

That a man can become a woman.

That you have to accept how someone self-identifies.

That you are a bigot for disagreeing.

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

No one needs to be an "expert" or "scientist" to read and understand scientific research.

This idea that someone needs to be an "expert" in order to share their opinion - as well as facts - is absurd.

Because - last time I checked - you weren't an "expert" in any of these fields either.

So - where do we go from here? No more dialogue? No more exchange of ideas?

This mentality is designed to shut down discussion.

To shut up those who fight against "the narrative" being peddled by activists disguised as scientists.

Didn't bother me at all.

Really? Wow.

You must be more used to corrosive condescension than I am.

Ideally, nothing.

The only other thing I would do is not vote for people I know who are pushing this nonsense.

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.

Great.

Nope, never said that at all.

Agree to disagree.

I want them to be able to use the bathroom of their gender.

Yet- you cannot accurately define what a "transgender" person is.

And don't forget - there are infinite genders - yet we only have the two different restrooms.

Why not just argue that we get rid of all segregation in restrooms?

If that's "special treatment", then what do we call all the privileges and protections you enjoy by identifying as a "Christian"?

Well - if you are talking about anti-discrimination stuff again - people of all religions - not just Christianity - can file discrimination lawsuits if they believe they were discriminated against - but they would need to prove that they were discriminated based on their religious beliefs.

And can't transgender people also file a discrimination lawsuit if they were discriminated against for being transgender?

I don't see the "special treatment" you are referring to.

Are you willing to give those up, lest you be guilty of getting "special treatment"?

How about you prove that I have them first before you ask me to give anything up - because I'm starting to think you are confusing "special treatment" for "rights"?

And we all know that once you give up a right - you never get it back.

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.

No - you see - that's garbage.

You are applying present-day definitions and understandings to past periods of time - its called presentism.

Never in the history of the human race have these ideas of "transgenderism" been articulated.

That is just not true.

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

You said it - you can't unsay it. There are no such things as jokes in 2021.

Now you know how all conservatives feel.

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...

Correct - but people erroneously keep claiming that past concepts of gender somehow justify all the changes we have made to it today.

It doesn't.

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

Personal experience - and the internet.

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.

Are you talking about, "Welcome!" or "Have a nice day!" - or something along the lines of - "Merry Christmas!" and "God bless you!"

You can refuse to say certain things.

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.

Yet - you analogized - me with racists.

And what are "anti-trans" views and why do you analogize them to racist views?

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

A bad policy is a bad policy.

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

If there had been a past incident where a student hit another student - for sure.

Someone screwed up somewhere. The coach wasn't paying attention or there were too many bats around for him to cover them all.

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?

A school has the authority to regulate who does and does not get baseball bats at school.

I do not have any authority over how other parents decide to raise their children and what religion they practice.

You see - your approach is over-the-top - it lacks common sense.

This mentality would be like banning all "gender-fluid" students or restrooms from public schools because of what happened in Loudon County.

Or getting rid of roads because someone got hit by a car.

That makes no sense.

Thousands upon thousands of kids have been abused in those settings, yet you seem to have absolutely no concern about that.

We have already talked about things that these setting can do to mitigate risk and I shared what my church does.

But bats in schools need to be locked up? Weird.

It's one way to mitigate risk while still allowing children to play baseball.

Not all of us are so eager to burn everything down.

So you're completely speculating.

It's an informed observation.

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

So - you admit - that being a "transgender woman" is no different than being a "Christian".

It is only a belief and it should not determine public policy.

And what's the problem with that?

A man who is a crazy predator will abuse the policy to prey on vulnerable women.

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?

I believe that there are certainly men out there who want to - yes - there have already been cases of this happening.

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.

What data? Hopefully not that thing you shared above?

And fortunately - no one is forcing anyone to use any public restroom.

I avoided using them most of my life.

Yet we don't ban kids being left alone with adults, do we?

We cannot stop parents from parenting the way they want to parent - but every institution should make efforts to mitigate risk to children.

Funny how "we just have to ban this altogether" only comes up with trans people.

Yeah - my argument have almost nothing to do with transgender people.

You are the one making it a transgender issue - not me.

 

[Lain]

Is this person a man or a woman? Male or female?

Woman. Male. Obvious.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I guess I have to ask again @Fallen Prophet, how are you intending to enforce this "biological" bathroom thing? Should we have guards at the doors checking genitals? And that's better than just letting people pee where they feel comfortable ... how?

 

[Kooky]

Is this person a man or a woman? Male or female?

What do your eyes tell you?

 

[Fallen Prophet]

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?"

In the United States the majority of States have outlawed men from using the women's restroom and vice versa.

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.

It all depends on what was done - who was there when it was done - and if they felt inclined to press charges.

For example - if you had entered the men's public restroom and there was a man in there who did not want you there and asked you to leave - depending on what you do at that moment may lead to you being arrested for various crimes.

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.

Children are not men or women - for a man is a male adult and a woman is a female adult.

Therefore - if a man needs to take either a male or female child to the restroom - he should take them into the men's restroom with him.

Likewise - if a woman needs to take either a male or female child to the restroom - she should take them into the women's restroom with her.

Because - in most States - the adult male (man) is not allowed in the women's restroom and the adult female (woman) is not allowed in the men's restrooms.

Are they supposed to send their 4 year old into the bathroom completely alone?

I would advise against that.

It is generally up to the parent to decide at what age they would allow their child to use a public restroom alone - but I would advise never letting them go alone - because there have been cases of even teenagers being molested or raped in public restrooms.

Parents should think ahead and do whatever they can to keep their children safe.

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).

I would advise against the first and encourage the latter.

As you said - you are woman - which I assume means that you are a female adult - therefore you should not be entering the men's restroom.

According to you, I should have been arrested?

No - not every crime or infraction results in arrest.

Also, I'm wondering how you plan/hope to enforce such a policy.

Typically - those who are in the restroom at the time are those who contact authorities.

Should we have bathroom monitors at the door checking peoples genitals to make sure they correspond to the appropriate bathroom?

No - think of it as littering - the charges can only be brought against you if someone witnesses you doing it and decides to contact authorities.

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 is most likely because such an action - a man dressing up like a woman in order to enter the women's restroom - would result in the severe punishment of that man.

The enforcement of law typically deters men from committing these types of actions.

However - if we remove that barrier designed to help mitigate risk - then that incentivizes men who have a desire to enter women's restrooms to do so.

The policies being discussed about allowing men to use the women's restrooms are ripe for abuse.

And I encourage you - because I care - that if you see a man enter the women's restroom with you - be on your guard.

You never know.

This whole thing is ridiculously silly to me.

Tell that to the men, women and children who have been raped in public restrooms.

There are far more important things to worry about, imo.

I'm sure there are - so what?

If you don't care about this subject - stop discussing it with me.

It's that simple.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

It definitely makes it inaccurate. So yeah, it does "change that."

No - it doesn't.

I had a friend growing up who was born with two thumbs on his right hand - he had one removed as a baby - and he had a scar on his hand ever since.

Does this mean that it is "inaccurate" to claim that human beings have two thumbs?

Exceptions and outliers do not disprove the rule. That would be ridiculous.

Intersex individuals are not both male and female. They are not some third biological sex either.

They are either a male or a female with a genetic condition.

Cardinals can be both male and female at the same time. Figure that one out!

You are referring to gynandromorphism - which is similar to intersex among human beings.

These cardinals are not both male and female - they are either a male displaying female characteristics or a female displaying male characteristics.

There are natural hermaphrodites in nature - but mammals and birds are not among the species that can become such.

So I'm wondering why point you are trying to make with this?

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

I mean, why should we care?

We should always care when truth is being supplanted by falsehood.

How is it relevant to the discussion?

Men and women cannot change their biological sex - therefore - a man cannot claim to be a woman and a woman a man.

If they cannot claim to be a member of the opposite biological sex - they cannot claim any right to use the public restroom of the opposite biological sex.

Humans are complex creatures and sex and gender are also complex and not just black and white as you seem to think they are.

I admit - the concept of gender as is being peddled today is very complex - because most of it is falsehood.

Sex - however - is very simple. Only a very small fraction of human beings have been born intersex or have a condition that requires further scrutiny to determine their biological sex.

Either way - every single human being has always fallen into one of two categories - male and female.

There are only two sexes. There are only two genders.

 

[metis]

The above has to be about the dumbest conversation I've ever run across here at RF, as my repeated question is "Who's going to check out the 'equipment' of whom comes into a bathroom?".

But I guess if it's on Fox it must be so terribly important-- earthshaking I tell ya! So, of all the serious problems going on in today's world, I'm supposed to fret over whom walks into a given bathroom? Spare me.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

All the above is rather quite silly. Absurdly preposterous.

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

Master criminals cross dressing to use the restroom of the opposite sex?

I analogized master criminals and transgender people to argue that there is no reason to throw away the law just because there are those who can circumvent it.

The law should not be changed just because there are some men out there that can change their appearance enough to pass as women at first glance.

Now - if you want to argue that we should do away with the segregation of public restrooms by biology - that's a different discussion all together.

Preferential treatment of trans people?

Yes - allowing only some men - and not all - to use the women's restroom is preferential treatment.

Nature being consistent with its biological creations?

I did not say this. I don't even know what it means.

What I said was, "Biology is a consistent, verifiable and useful metric"

That's an interesting one. I can be presenting as male and people will still see me as female.

I understand - but public restroom use is segregated by biology - not what someone looks like.

Are you a biological male or female? The answer to that question is how to determine which restroom you should use.

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?

If someone of the opposite biological sex is uncomfortable with you being in the restroom with them and you refuse to leave or some other criminal activity ensues - authorities may be contacted - and if they arrive you will be required to present some form of identification to them.

Just like everyone else.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

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

As I have said numerous times - we should not throw our the law just because there are some who are capable of "passing off" as the opposite sex.

Just like how we don't throw away the law just because there are master criminals out there that can commit crime and leave no trace of it behind.

If a biological male enters the women's restroom - it is against the law - and depending on who is present at the time and what occurs there - authorities may be contacted - criminal charges may be pressed - the whole deal.

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

I don't recall ever claiming that the "equipment" was the only factor in determining sex or gender.

Can you quote me making this claim?

And why are you bringing up "sexuality" at all?

We are not talking about sexual attraction, orientation or activity - are we?