metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
No, what does somewhat upset me is that you are so presumptuous so as to put thoughts into my head that simply weren't there. Such arrogance.
Either way, I got far better things to do.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Tennessee sees new step in wave of anti-Trans bills
- Thread starter ADigitalArtist
- Start date
Either way, I got far better things to do.
Fallen Prophet
Well-Known Member
Depending on which State you reside in - it would be illegal for a biological male to use the women's public restroom and vice versa.
That's the law and it should be enforced consistently - how I feel about it doesn't matter.
If we start making exceptions for people based on completely subjective and arbitrary claims of them feeling "atypical" in regard to their gender identity, expression and behavior - then the law is meaningless and unfair.
Also - there have already been cases of deranged people taking advantage of policies like this and I want to prevent more people from doing this.
No - I cannot always tell a difference - and that doesn't really matter.
Just because some people are better at circumventing laws than others doesn't meant that we should abolish laws.
The argument that our laws should not apply to certain people - based on their feelings or beliefs - is ridiculous.
It would make more sense - or at least be more consistent - for you to argue that we should no longer segregate our public restrooms according to biology.
Everyone keeps assuming that I'm stupid or bigoted.
They keep trying to make this into a "transgender issue" - when it is not.
I am fully aware that transgender individuals are already using the restrooms of their choice.
I could care less if someone goes into any restroom and does their business without any incident.
What I care about are those crazies out there who are willing to take advantage of bad policy.
When the governing body becomes lax - people take advantage - take what is happening in California - San Francisco has a lot of human feces and used needles on their streets and there is a lot of looting going on - because they are lax on the homeless and they decriminalized theft under $1,000.
I understand that we want to accommodate people - but there will always be those whose inappropriate behavior is only curtailed by the fact that there are laws in place that will lead to them being punished.
It is impossible - nothing you just said changes someone's biological sex.
You have fallen victim to the transgender activist propaganda that equates their concept of "gender" with biological sex.
They are not the same thing.
None of this is "according to [me]" - biology is what it is, and laws are what they are.
If your friend presents as a male and makes no scene in the men's public restroom - there is no reasonable way to deny her entry and use.
If we change the law to accommodate her - however - then bad people will take advantage.
I don't see this happening - unless the perpetrator has done something inappropriate - which flags their behavior to others in the restroom.
If all anyone does is goes in and uses the restroom - no one is going to contact law enforcement or press charges - because they won't notice.
Fallen Prophet
Well-Known Member
I only responded to what you said - I can't read your mind.
You said it - you can't unsay it.
Fallen Prophet
Well-Known Member
No - you didn't.
You didn't even know that Shadow Wolf and I had been talking about same-sex marriage and pedophilia - not transgenderism.
You said,"it's an entirely different claim that consenting adults should be free to express themselves either sexually or socially as whatever gender they feel works from the claim that adults should be free to engage sexually with children." (Bold and italics added)
You claimed that my comments regarding pedophilia were related to transgenderism - which proves that you did not read that conversation at all.
Shadow Wolf brought up same-sex marriage and pedophilia and we have talked about it.
Not "misread" - you "failed to read".
I never made the claim that the legalization of same-sex marriage will cause the legalization of pedophilia.
I have seen no data that supports such a claim.
Fallen Prophet
Well-Known Member
That is not a "wild assumption".
You claimed that you had long dyed hair - you claimed that those who "present" as the opposite gender have the right to use the public restroom of the opposite biology - and you claimed that you had the right to use the women's public restroom.
These are the claims that you have made - no "wild assumptions" on my part.
Yes - you have been nasty to me.
And all because I thought having a sign in front of a public restroom to warn people that there may be members of the opposite biological sex using the same restroom was a good idea.
From the very start of this discussion, I never expressed disgust or hate, or anything negative about transgender people using the restroom they wanted.
I thought that people being aware that there may be members of the opposite biological sex in the restroom with them was a good idea - because then women could take notice and hopefully be on their guard.
You are using societal and cultural "gender norms and behavior" to ignore evolutionary biology.
There is nothing dumber than saying, "There are no facts outside of math!" in a debate where you have no facts.
Then explain Post #426.
That is an interesting thing to say from a person who claimed that those with gender dysphoria have brains that are more similar to those of the opposite biological sex - therefore making them members of the opposite biological sex.
If biology does not dictate any of our behaviors - then what do these brain scans have to do with anything?
Are you gonna flip? Or are you gonna flop?
Claiming that you are not a man because you are not interested in "guy stuff" is a claim that you are "gender nonconforming".
I understand that people can legally change their sex - but that doesn't make it true - sorry.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
We call that sin. It's because nature is under a curse, so we live in a broken world. We all have desires that don't match what we were born to be. Those are illegitimate desires that we don't have to bow to.
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
Actually, I find a lot of this response encouraging. I disagree about things like being unable to change biological sex and stuff like that, but it sounds like you have more of a live-and-let-live attitude towards this? Like, if transgender folks simply use bathrooms of their choice and don't do anything to hurt folks, you are okay with that?
For the record, I actually would suggest the best bet is to simply make bathrooms genderless. I am all for separate stalls and more privacy anyway.
But in the meantime, I think we should focus on targeting harmful behavior in bathrooms if that is a major issue, rather than excluding folks. Is it a major issue?
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
But, I mean, you did:
You then stated "It's already happening" and posted a bunch of links suggesting pedophilia being legalized.
Fallen Prophet
Well-Known Member
Yet - you said in Post #569,
"There are no biological behaviors that are inherently male or female."
Last I checked - our brains are part of our biology - are they not?
So - do our brains affect our behaviors - whether they are masculine or feminine (not male and female because that makes no sense) - or not?
It looks like you'll use any argument - even if they contradict other arguments you have made - when it suits you.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
My point still stands. I am allowed to use the women's restroom and if you tried to hinder me it would be harassment.
That's not what I claimed.
Gender nonconforming is something entirely different. They're generally the ones going by they/it/zi.
Male and female brains do have some differences. But there is nothing inherently gendered about gendered norms or behaviors. Like there is nothing inherently manly about sports, and indeed many women play sports. But society has deemed things like sports, or hunting, or even more social allowance to belch to be guy things so men tend to normally just gravitate towards guy things. Like women tend to be drawn to things considered feminine like baking or sewing. And, yes, I do agree many things that are gendered shouldn't be (especially basic survival skills), but it's how humans work.
I was saying I'm glad RF does allow some hate speech.
#427 and #428 also help to explain.
I miss the emote thingy we had with the smiley eating its foot.
Except you misquoted me. You got one key word very wrong.
And you've been provided data from gathered from research showing you general trends of the improvements transgender make with transitioning.
Nothing is proven outside of math.
Some people snap back. I am my mother's daughter. What can I say? (My sister is much the same way as well, as is my niece).
Your entire rant has been a negative heap of garbage.
And that doesn't work. It leads to even cis women who aren't "feminine enough" being harassed for using the women's restroom.
You said I used my hair as an excuse to use the women's restroom. Also assuming I did that in Indiana. Like you assumed I was just yelling at Christians. Wild assumptions.
And? So? Those are your beliefs. They have no business dictating public policy, nor should anyone be pressured to conform.
Fallen Prophet
Well-Known Member
Um...thanks?
No matter how hard I try - and I really am trying because I believe you are being sincere - but I can't help but feel that you are being somewhat condescending.
I mean - I have been saying the same things over and over again - and only now does someone feel "encouraged" by what I say?
Anyways - as I said - I believe that you are being sincere - so this is a me problem.
I believe that people can change societal/cultural expectations of their gender - but they cannot change their biological sex.
If someone wants to change their "gender" - societal/cultural expectation - then more power to them.
I just do not believe that anyone should try and replace biology with societal/cultural "gender".
A person that wears a dress is not a necessarily a biological female - because dress wearing is a societal/cultural expectation of "gender" - and has nothing to do with biology.
So - as long as they are not trying to change biology or society to conform to their subjective perspective of themselves - they can live however they want.
Take @Saint Frankenstein for example - who was born a biological female but lives as a man in society.
He knows that he cannot change his biology - he accepts that - and he doesn't call for any changes in biology or advocates that society should conform to his subjective view of himself.
I consider him to be an "honorary man" - and will use masculine pronouns to address him - because he is reasonable.
On a personal level - no - I wouldn't mind so much - although I admit I would be uncomfortable knowing a woman was in the stall next to me while I'm wrecking it.
Nothing I would call the cops about though.
However - on a legal level - I don't think anyone should be using the public restroom of the opposite biological sex if the State that you live in has outlawed it.
I believe that such laws are good because they will help mitigate the risk of crazy people trying to find any reason to find people alone and vulnerable.
Also - on a familial level - I would care about men using a public restroom if my wife was in there - nothing is going to change that for me.
My children will never use a public restroom alone - so I am not so worried about them.
There are always multiple layers to consider with every issue - and the only layers I believe matter in regard to this issue are the legal one and the mitigating risk one.
I would argue that restrooms have nothing to do with "gender" but everything to do with biological sex.
I understand that we would all like more privacy - but stalls in public restrooms are designed the way they are to limit our privacy.
They don't want people "camping out" in the stalls.
Considering that there are public restrooms for both the biological sexes - I don't understand how anyone is "excluded" if we legislate that only biological males should use the men's restroom and vice versa.
I believe that changing the law to allow men to use the women's restroom based on nothing more than their own subjective view of themselves will lead to people taking advantage.
I mean - look at the news today about Scottish law - they are allowing rapists to identify as women - and when they do - they imprison them in all-women prisons.
Locking up a rapist with women is not a good idea.
Transgender prisoner who sexually assaulted inmates jailed for life | Prisons and probation | The Guardian
Scottish Police Log Arrested Male Rapists as Women if They 'Self-Identify' (sputniknews.com)
Fallen Prophet
Well-Known Member
You then stated "It's already happening" and posted a bunch of links suggesting pedophilia being legalized.[/QUOTE]
I already explained all this in Post #557.
The "it" was a reference to the attempts to legalize of pedophilia.
Fallen Prophet
Well-Known Member
I made my initial claims based on the idea that you lived in Indiana.
You are allowed to use the women's restroom in California because it is permissible according to State law - not because you are an actual biological female or woman.
California State law accommodating you - both in legal identification and use of restroom - does not change your biology.
My point still stands - and it always will.
It doesn't have to be this way - you know.
All you have to do is stop spreading misinformation about biology and gender and we wouldn't have much to disagree about.
If you were reasonable - I would consider you an "honorary woman" and use feminine pronouns in reference to you.
In Post #529 I said, "Gender traits and roles are deeply connected to biological sex, and everyone is a varied mix of both."
To which you replied in Post #532 with the question, "Then why do I not gravitate towards guy things?"
Then you claimed that you being more interested in cooking than sports meant that there was no "deep connection" between biological sex and "gender".
The evidence you have provided to somehow prove that you are not a biological male is that you do not like "guy things".
I believe you are referring to "non-binary" individuals.
The term "gender nonconforming" literally means,
"denoting or relating to a person whose behavior or appearance does not conform to prevailing cultural and social expectations about what is appropriate to their gender."
Therefore - since you do not conform to "prevailing cultural and social expectations about what is appropriate to [your] gender" - i.e. "having long-dyed hair", wanting to use the women's restroom (for non-pervy reasons), "not [gravitating] towards guy things" or that you would rather talk cooking than sports (I would too because sports are boring AF) - you are "gender nonconforming".
So - there is "male biology" and "female biology" and many of their behaviors are affected by their biology.
Got it.
This is exactly what I have been saying.
There are biological gender norms and behaviors - which are determined by evolutionary biology.
And there are societal/cultural gender norms and behaviors - which are determined by civilization.
They are not the same thing - and up until now - however - you have been arguing that they are the same thing.
You made the claim that, "There are no biological behaviors that are inherently male or female" but all you have shown as "proof" of this claim are societal/cultural gender norms and behaviors - not biological ones.
What?
This still isn't an explanation of Post #426.
Usually, a person would then share what that "key word" was at this point.
No - I haven't actually.
You shared a 120-page guidebook in your attempt to prove this point - but you failed to point out where in that guidebook your point was supported.
All I saw in that guidebook about suicidality was data that contradicted your own claim.
You do that a lot - make claims and then supply references (which you never read) that contradict your claims.
Only someone with no facts on their side would make this claim at this time.
Yeah - I do.
All I did was claim that a sign on a bathroom wasn't a bad idea - and then you started claiming that I was ignorant and bigoted.
You were nasty and I snapped back.
Well - you could say that you are your mother's son - not daughter - since that is how biology works.
Negative against people or against an ideology I don't agree with?
Be honest.
How?
This doesn't make any sense.
You claimed that those who "present" as the opposite biological sex should be able to use the public restroom of the opposite biological sex.
Our society tend to regard long hair as a feminine quality.
You told me that you were licensed to practice behavioral therapy in Indiana, and you claimed that people in Indiana often called you out on various things - including your long-dyed hair.
You claimed that you would make a scene and sue people if they told you to leave the women's restroom all the while deriding them for the fact that they were Christian.
I don't think any of these are "wild assumptions" - but "reasonable conclusions".
Says the person who is using their personal beliefs about "gender" to try and dictate public policy and pressure others to conform.
Classic you.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
For your information, Frank does not agree with that position. You're advocating he use the women's restroom. But he's rather quite masculine and manly. Could you imagine the scene if a bearded man goes in the women's restroom to use it?
And there is also the fact other countries of the world do have more private stalls and don't segregate restrooms based on sex or gender. They are doing just fine.
I certainly don't agree. I use the men's room, obviously. Lol.
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
To quote:
"People said the same thing about same-sex marriage.
I don't recall there being an expiration date on that prediction.
Give it time - it's progressing at a steady rate - it will happen in our lifetime."
You pretty clearly connected same-sex marriage with legalization of pedophilia.
Fallen Prophet
Well-Known Member
You quoted a few of my responses as if they were one.
I was responding to two things that Shadow Wolf said -
In Post #480 Shadow Wolf said, "There are fundamental reasons why pedophilia won't be legalized."
To which I responded in Post #484 with, "People said the same thing about same-sex marriage."
And that is true - everyone who opposed same-sex marriage said something similar.
Also, in Post #480 Shadow Wolf said, "Gay marriage hasn't, as predicted, led to legalized pedophilia."
To which I responded with two statements in Post #484 with,
"I don't recall there being an expiration date on that prediction.
Give it time - it's progressing at a steady rate - it will happen in our lifetime."
I explained these two statements in post #557 when I said,
"I never claimed that same-sex marriage would lead to pedophilia - only that the predictions made by those who opposed same-sex marriage had no expiration date.
I also expressed the inevitability of pedophilia being legalized - most likely in our lifetime. That is my opinion."
Shadow Wolf tried to claim that since the "slippery slope" argument offered by opponents to same-sex marriage - that it would lead to the legalization of pedophilia - has yet to come true - that the prediction must have been wrong.
Since there is no expiration date on that "slippery slope" - there is no way for Shadow Wolf to make that claim.
I also claimed that the legalization of pedophilia was "progressing at a steady rate" and that it would happen "in our lifetime".
It was Shadow Wolf that paired same-sex marriage and the legalization of pedophilia together - because he was mentioning the "slippery slope" argument given by the opponents to same-sex marriage.
Just because I talked about both of those topics in the same post - because Shadow Wolf mentioned the argument of those who first connected them - that does not mean that I made any claim that one caused the other.
I have seen no data - for or against - that suggests that the legalization of same-sex marriage will lead to the legalization of pedophilia.
I have only maintained that I have seen evidence that the legalization of pedophilia will occur in my lifetime.
I have no way of telling if it has anything to do with the legalization of same-sex marriage.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
It still stands in Indiana. Where I lived, had I been out as female there and you tried to stop me from using the restroom you would be harassing me and preventing me from using the restroom I am legally allowed to use. I also have chronic conditions that would be inflamed by further having to hold it while I deal with dumb crap, so yes, I would likely sue over it.
I know. You could mind your own business and we'd both be better off for it.
I never claimed that. You said gendered behaviors are deeply rooted in biological sex, but that isn't true. There are lots of guys who aren't that into guy things.
I never even offered that as "proof" I'm trans. You're just obsessed with putting words in my mouth and trying to twist what I did say.
No, that's how things work. You'd know this if you weren't scientifically illiterate.
Amd, by the way, facts amd proof are not the same thing.
All true.
Not true. The scene has already been made by someone harassing me.
No, they are my words twisted around so you can attempt to misrepresent them. You've jumped to many conclusions, made connections that aren't there, and didn't even try to save face by acknowledging you misread my posts.
You could try doing this yourself.
That is something I've not claimed.
Gendered behaviors and norms are entirely cultural and often greatly vary depending on culture. It gets so varied that in some cultures men have worn makeup.
They actually do if you take the time to read them.
You've been very rude to me, so why should I?
Except I did.
I've read that entire report. I've also read many other books, studies, and reports on gender dysphoria and transgenders.
You'd see I'm not contradicting myself If you'd stop twisting my words and reading my posts in isolation.
Because it is a bad idea.
I am her daughter though.
But keep digging that hole.
Negative against people who expect me to put myself needlessly into dangerous positions.
Because people like you believe there are "biological gendered norms" end up harassing butch lesbians who go to the women's restroom to use it.
Me, a woman, going to the women's restroom to is what society does. You're asking me to conform to your dumb ideas, twisting my words around, and claiming it's my fault and I started it.
I even came to your defense but you're so obsessed wanting to attack me it went way over your head.
Because it is ignorant and dumb.
Do you think I need the approval and affirmation of a rude arseling on the internet?
But keep it up, now you're making yourself look really dumb with the inconsistencies.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
If I saw you in the men's room I'd probably giggle and think you were just drunk and have to pee or just REALLY have to pee and saw a blue sign and ran for it.