McBell
Admiral Obvious
This to me shows the whole law is for discrimination purposes.
-
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!
Would you sue a transgender person for using the bathroom?
- Thread starter fantome profane
- Start date
I think I have a bit more than a clue about that since I'm a transgender man, smart one.
Aštra’el
Aštara, Blade of Aštoreth
What about "shim"?
How 'bout no.
It isn't, tab a, slot b, or mix. (intersex) Unless you accept those alternative definitions, which I don't accept but I tolerate.
I'm not the type to criticize those who make that lifestyle choice, and I'd die to protect anyone's right to live in any manner that suits them, so long as it hurts no one on the way. I generally find identities irrelevant because in a social context they are wasted air. I identify as a head banging Satanist, do you care? Of course not... I don't care about peoples badges of choice, I care about the substance and value they bring to my life. So for the sake of this topic, I guess the question is do Virginians see sex as the important criteria or they are just anti-transgender? Well, being anti-transgender isn't sensible because it's not really "a thing" and being anti basically means you agree it is there.
If they make the law, they acknowledge that it exists and they sort of help you bring visibility. The irony... If they dislike transgenders and identity politics they'd be more serviced by ignoring you plainly.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
You may not, but the medical and science (both natural and social) fields do.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
It's obviously anti-transgender because there are no "genital checks," if people mind their own business their isn't really a way of knowing for sure or not.So for the sake of this topic, I guess the question is do Virginians see sex as the important criteria or they are just anti-transgender? Well, being anti-transgender isn't sensible because it's not really "a thing" and being anti basically means you agree it is there.
They can accept whatever they want, but it doesn't mean that is true. Scientists are subject to their own confirmation biases, and transgender as a tolerated thing isn't largely accepted. It was introduced into the DSM V as something not malignant, but before that there certainly wasn't a consensus and it was seen as a mental issue. There still isn't really worldwide agreement, but the academics are largely liberal leaning word-benders. They're about as balanced as a broken see-saw. They're also the same people that agree that climate change, and gender studies are things. Basically, they're in their own echo-chamber... It doesn't make it so... The larger problem is psychological studies are always shaped by the observers views, and if someone is bleeding heart liberal they might see it as normal even if it isn't. You have to study the researcher as much as the subject in this case, and that is rarely done.
For me, it just doesn't hurt anything if people are transgender because it largely affects no one else. That doesn't mean that I have to support it, or be against it. I just think it's irrelevant. We used to call transgenders "cross-dressers" and no one gave two damns back then either. I think it's harmless... ultimately...
Genital checks being mentioned are just absurdity, that's never getting done anyway. See, I think these are just feel-good ordinances, that's to say how do you enforce it anyway? I think the trans people would be better off paying no damn mind, especially since a lot of trans folks look so convincing that who'd even know? Even in the cases where that's not necessarily true, who is really going to bother to make a point of it?
buddhist
Well-Known Member
I agree. I am fully against the conservative factions on this point - they have no business regulating what's in or isn't in someone's underwear.
buddhist
Well-Known Member
I agree.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Pay no damn mind? It's telling an entire group they can be sued for using the restroom that they should be using.
Curious George
Veteran Member
No, you would need a legal cause of action. Failure to state and cause of action is grounds for dismissal. It doesn't matter that I think you were wearing leather chaps when you came in the bathroom. But you insist you were wearing a mumu (a dispute of fact). If I don't state a cause of action it is getting dismissed real quick.
Certs? I thought the new law allowed us to peek at anyone's hoo hoo to exercise the law?
We should start making T-shirts that read:
OFFICIAL VIRGINIA HB-1612 INSPECTOR
Please take your clothes off.
Tom
Presumably they have lots of money, and suing could get you some of it.
I heard from a lot of people about poor straight men in the city of Juarez Mexico, that has changed their gender to make lot of money. In their culture, when a doctor delivers a girl. The first thing that the doctor says to the parent," , She is so pretty, that she will make you a lot of money".And so some men in mexico are changing their gender into a woman just to survive. But if they comes over here looking for work, and goes into the little girls room. That they will still have sexual desires for women and that they will take advantage of the situation.
Here's an Idea of what people will do for money. But I couldn't find anything about what is going on in Juarez Mexico, about the straight men changing themselves into woman just to have an income. I guess it is because nobody doesn't know about that, and or trying to make sure that they doesn't mess up anyone means of survival.
.Gay for Pay: Straight Men Having Gay Sex for Money | The Huffington Post
And so they should only make restrooms that only can be occupied by one person at a time.
It doesn't make any sense to have more than one person in a small confined space with others people's flatulence vapors floating in the air spreading all over the place.
I had watched a program of how pedophiles waits outside of fast-food restaurants in their cars , watching for little boys to go into the restroom alone and they will follow behind them and rape the child and runs off. Their a lot of pedophiles that are out in the world.
Here's an Idea of what people will do for money. But I couldn't find anything about what is going on in Juarez Mexico, about the straight men changing themselves into woman just to have an income. I guess it is because nobody doesn't know about that, and or trying to make sure that they doesn't mess up anyone means of survival.
.Gay for Pay: Straight Men Having Gay Sex for Money | The Huffington Post
And so they should only make restrooms that only can be occupied by one person at a time.
It doesn't make any sense to have more than one person in a small confined space with others people's flatulence vapors floating in the air spreading all over the place.
I had watched a program of how pedophiles waits outside of fast-food restaurants in their cars , watching for little boys to go into the restroom alone and they will follow behind them and rape the child and runs off. Their a lot of pedophiles that are out in the world.
If I claimed harm due to your irresponsible &/or legal wearing of leather chaps, I could bring suit.
Some judges (experienced & sane ones) would likely soon dismiss it. But many others (newly
minted &/or unfit) judges would let the case proceed.
I recall from long ago a plaintiff being awarded $100K in damages because her doctor severed
her psychic connection with John Milton. Jury trial it was. Courts are dangerous.