The Federal government threatens to withhold funding to schools that don't let boys poop next to girls. Or, in the modern parlance of our NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/13/us/politics/obama-administration-to-issue-decree-on-transgender-access-to-school-restrooms.html?_r=0
I'm done. Finished. Fuck it. It's apparently not enough for the Feds to steal our tax dollars through express or implied force, squander it on ridiculous pork-barrel projects, and lavish it upon their incestuous fuck-buddy lobbyists and political contributors. Noooo, the Feds also have to precondition the return of said tax dollars upon states and municipalities cowering to their unlawful, wrong-headed, and demagogic political aims; to wit, a baseless and unilateral declaration that boys who think they're girls that day must be allowed to poop in the girls' restroom. Well, did anyone bother to ask the girls whether they're cool with that? Fuck no. Not the point.
The absurdity of the White House's position is only slightly surpassed by its obscenity. And don't fucking dare try to pull this under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I've read it. They, apparently, have not. Gender identity isn't mentioned. You want to include it? Fine. Pass a law. But not this way. This is all separate and apart from the disaster this is wrecking on the poor little confused fuckwits. They want to sip on their bitchy little Nalgenes to avoid ingesting 1 nano-spectro-gram of BPA but are fine dosing kids with 12 giga-watts of hormones and seeing how that plays. They ignore increased suicide rates and other indica of mental instability. Whatever.
I'm telling you: this way leads to revolution. If I had a prepubescent son or daughter, I'd lead the charge myself - today. I don't, and I have some financial wherewithal, and I'm impatient, so I'm just leaving the country. If any state secedes from the union in the interim, though, and pledges not to turn over its citizen's money to the Feds, I'm moving there immediately. It's long overdue. And, yes, that turned out poorly the last time. But we'll just have to take our chances.
*deleting old posts*
*deleting old posts*
*deleting old posts*
I am not going to pretend to understand gender issues, it's a PC minefield. I feel that people should be free to be who and what they are and the attitude surrounding those issues are unnecessary today. I try to accept people for who they are, not what there identity may be.
Like you say, change is happening so fast, it's gonna take a while for the world to catch up, but it'll get there, man.
http://louderwithcrowder.com/not-normal-transgender-man-claims-hes-6-year-old-girl-abandons-family/
When you watch the video pay attention to the part about the subject of the video, the 52 year old man who left his wife and 6 kids to run off and be a six year old girl, and how this might just be indicative of a fairly severe mental disorder and then say that it's just dandy for him to accompany your daughter or granddaughter into the restroom so they can fix their respective make-up and take a zesty dump.
You know, as members and clergy of the Church of the Latter Day Dude, I don't recall any part of the sign-up process wherein it was stated that we either had to abandon our individual opinions (and the ability to express them) at the door or willingly accept the idea of our fellow clergy going all Walter on us for having an opinion that differs. I mean the whole idea of an enlightened group like this is being able to have a conversation without resorting to calling each other names that accomplish nothing more than the end of a sensitive conversation.
For example, I happen to believe that this whole trans-toilet thing is yet another of the orchestrated efforts of people in power to divide the proletariat into smaller and smaller groups based upon nothing more than differences of opinion. I actually see my theory at work right here in this thread. I also happen to believe that everybody has the right to privacy and the right to feel safe especially when they are inside the restroom and even more especially when they are children. And remember that I haven't mentioned anybody raping anybody or looking to make someone a victim. I'm just saying that this is some borderline psycho bullshit. If you have a penis you go to the boys' toilet, if you have a vagina you go to the girls' toilet. If you can't make the distinction you maybe go to see a psychiatrist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHt7EBCgJnI
*deleting old posts*
Having unisex/ gender neutral bathrooms is one thing, (the context of the original post), but the content of clip 1, is another.
Identifying as a 6 year old girl is IMO indicative of delusion in this case, I would not let my children play with them, let alone act on impulse. It is paedophillia dressed up (literally) as a trans issue.
There are fetishes involving reverting to child-like behaviour for often sexual benefit. (Adult babies for example).
Clip 2, is not a fair test as it would have to be conducted from the other point of view, (trans using a male bathroom), which would have different results I suspect.
It is a controversial topic fer sure.
If this was just a case of a school or other public (taxpayer supported) edifice being required to build "gender neutral" bathrooms I don't see where it would be a big problem. I mean, tax money gets spent on worse things. But I'm not sure that's the case. Of course, it could be slanted and biased reporting that's causing the fear and loathing over this issue. But I'm thinking that what is being discussed here is the idea that the bathrooms that already exist are going to be labelled as "gender neutral". So do I care if someone who identifies themselves in a certain way elects to sit down in the stall next to mine and drop a deuce? Not really.
It seems that the tipping point here is how this might negatively impact a child who might have to try to reason out for themselves what this person of the opposite sex is doing in a place that repetition has taught them is exclusively either for boys or for girls. What does dad or grandpa do when he walks his daughter (or granddaughter) to the door of the ladies' bathroom and stands guard at the door only to have an adult male walk past him into that same facility? Do you take the chance that the person is well intention-ed and do you hold off because you don't want to offend someone only to find out that they had another agenda and that child is now scarred for life, perhaps physically as well as mentally?
Speaking only for myself I can honestly say that when I become verbally "aggressive" about a particular topic it is because something in that discussion causes a fear response in me and it is more acceptable for me, as an American male, to demonstrate rage and perhaps borderline bigotry than it is to show fear. This whole thing is a big step and it's not an easy one to expect people to just accept until they see that it is being handled in such a way as to minimize or eliminate unnecessary risks to those that we care about. And the idea of victimizing schoolchildren in states that don't comply with this "law" by withholding federal education funds is, in fact, particularly reprehensible. If this was actually the right thing to spring on the public would such a threat actually be needed? I'm thinking not.
*deleting old posts*
Quote from: LotsaBadKarma on May 14, 2016, 02:29:07 PM
It seems that the tipping point here is how this might negatively impact a child who might have to try to reason out for themselves what this person of the opposite sex is doing in a place that repetition has taught them is exclusively either for boys or for girls. What does dad or grandpa do when he walks his daughter (or granddaughter) to the door of the ladies' bathroom and stands guard at the door only to have an adult male walk past him into that same facility? Do you take the chance that the person is well intention-ed and do you hold off because you don't want to offend someone only to find out that they had another agenda and that child is now scarred for life, perhaps physically as well as mentally?
Speaking only for myself I can honestly say that when I become verbally "aggressive" about a particular topic it is because something in that discussion causes a fear response in me and it is more acceptable for me, as an American male, to demonstrate rage and perhaps borderline bigotry than it is to show fear. This whole thing is a big step and it's not an easy one to expect people to just accept until they see that it is being handled in such a way as to minimize or eliminate unnecessary risks to those that we care about. And the idea of victimizing schoolchildren in states that don't comply with this "law" by withholding federal education funds is, in fact, particularly reprehensible. If this was actually the right thing to spring on the public would such a threat actually be needed? I'm thinking not.
In the first instance, I think that educating/ teaching younger generations that people of a different gender are just as human as they are and have as much right to use the same facility as them, IMO is a positive attitude that will lead to the breakdown of social stereotypes and stigma.
As for their agenda, well dude, we just don't know. I certainly don't. There are incidents of abuse and worse in some cases, but for the most part, they are there for the same reason. (No's 1 and 2).
Your response to conversation that makes you feel uncomfortable or uptight is understandable, man, we've all done it, at least you recognise it stems from fear or a lack of understanding or whatever, so, dudos to you. I can't or shouldn't tell you how to act, it's not my place to do so.
Sometimes seeing things in text form gives us insight into our own character. (Well, it works for me, sometimes I type things our 2 or 3 times before posting and occasionally still get it wrong).
Quote from: SagebrushSage on May 14, 2016, 02:55:39 PM
It is not difficult to explain trans people to kids. "Some boys like to live like girls, and some girls like to live like boys, and that's okay." One sentence. You can tell the difference between trans and cis people by how they dress. It's not exactly hard. Do what the Dude would do. Don't worry about it, and it'll be fine.
Just use your judgement, dude. Get to know some trans people, and you'll be able to tell the difference between a transsexual and a sexual predator, no problem.
Ed: The explanation for gay people is similarly easy: "Sometimes, men love men or women love women, and that's okay."
I dig your style, dude :-)
*deleting old posts*
What I have read in here so far is just like everyone's opinion, man, no harm intended.
*deleting old posts*
Quote
You know, as members and clergy of the Church of the Latter Day Dude, I don't recall any part of the sign-up process wherein it was stated that we either had to abandon our individual opinions (and the ability to express them) at the door or willingly accept the idea of our fellow clergy going all Walter on us for having an opinion that differs. I mean the whole idea of an enlightened group like this is being able to have a conversation without resorting to calling each other names that accomplish nothing more than the end of a sensitive conversation.
I agree, though sometimes opinions will cause offence no matter who we are.
Quote
For example, I happen to believe that this whole trans-toilet thing is yet another of the orchestrated efforts of people in power to divide the proletariat into smaller and smaller groups based upon nothing more than differences of opinion.
I disagree, I think having unisex/gender neutral facilities would, as I have said, breakdown social division.
Quote
I'm just saying that this is some borderline psycho bullshit. If you have a penis you go to the boys' toilet, if you have a vagina you go to the girls' toilet. If you can't make the distinction you maybe go to see a psychiatrist.
This is the kicker. I have issue with this statement, gender identity and sexual orientation, are NOT a mental health issue. This attitude is (partly) why people have difficulty with coming out and/or talking to people they want/ need to accept them as human beings.
Quote from: Brother D on May 15, 2016, 03:58:08 AM
Quote
I'm just saying that this is some borderline psycho bullshit. If you have a penis you go to the boys' toilet, if you have a vagina you go to the girls' toilet. If you can't make the distinction you maybe go to see a psychiatrist.
This is the kicker. I have issue with this statement, gender identity and sexual orientation, are NOT a mental health issue. This attitude is (partly) why people have difficulty with coming out and/or talking to people they want/ need to accept them as human beings.
The following is from the CDC page:
LGBTQ youth are also at increased risk for suicidal thoughts and behaviors, suicide attempts, and suicide. A nationally representative study of adolescents in grades 7–12 found that lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth were more than twice as likely to have attempted suicide as their heterosexual peers.3 More studies are needed to better understand the risks for suicide among transgender youth. However, one study with 55 transgender youth found that about 25% reported suicide attempts.
This from the L. A. Times:
http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/28/local/la-me-ln-suicide-attempts-alarming-transgender-20140127
Say again, this is NOT a mental health issue? And that's just 2 of the sites, there are a shit-ton more.
And as an aside from the guilt messages that are regularly sent to people who have difficulty with the idea of suddenly sharing the bathroom with someone who would physically be described as being of the "opposite sex" give people a little time to adjust, dude. From the standpoint of people who have grown up with the idea of men's rooms and ladies' rooms to suddenly be called a transphobe because they're having trouble adjusting to this idea is just as ridiculous as bullying someone who is transgender. All I'm saying is give people time, the harder this thing gets pushed the harder some people will push back. There's a "joke" that I've seen on FB about a dad who watches a grown man follow his young daughter into the bathroom. The guy self-identifies as a girl. The dad knocks out the guy's teeth and says he self-identifies as the tooth fairy. Distasteful, yes. Are a lot of people identifying with it? Judging by the number of times I've seen the thing re-posted I would say definitely. Whether the response is nature or nurture it can't just be shoved down peoples' throats. That's gonna cause some problems.
Here's the issue from my point of view. If I'm at the mall with a relative who is a juvenile female and we see a grown man walk into the ladies' room am I really going to give a shit? No, although I will definitely take notice. Is she going in there before he gets out? Hell no. If she's in there and he walks in after her am I going in to make sure that everything is kosher? You bet your ass I am! If my answers make me a "phobe" I guess I'll just have to delight in wearing that label because if I am in a position of being responsible for the safety of that child everything else takes a back seat including the transgender bathroom issue. By the same token, if I see a child who (for whatever reason) I know to be transgender being bullied am I going to step in? Well, if I don't I'm not much of a man, am I?
I also stand by my conspiracy theory.
Are we splitting hairs here?
I am saying there are issues surrounding LBGTQ identity and being gay/trans etc is not a mental health issue in itself. People used to be chastised for being left handed/ ginger, which is not a problem, it's just how their bodies are.
You are entitled to your opinion, man, I'm trying to get a better understanding of it that's all.
Suicide etc in this case, is a result of societies attitude towards the demographic in question and I think if they were in an environment where it was totally cool and accepted, there wouldn't be so much of an issue. When my daughter told my wife and I she digs chicks, neither of us batted an eyelid, so long as she's happy and if she wants to be identified as something else, also fine by me.
Yes, there are exceptions to the rule and not everyone is automatically going to feel comfortable right off the bat, but part of being human is supporting and protecting your friends and family regardless of who they are. (Unless they harm others, mentally and/or physically, then they should face the consequences of their actions).
Also, am confused with CDC thing, aren't the CDC to do with diseases? (Which is also not a gender issue). Help me out dude.
I'm also aware, this maybe straying off topic too.
*deleting old posts*
I'm still shocked this is even an issue, wouldn't the easiest solution be to just use the bathroom that matches your parts? I don't mean the parts you were born with I just mean whatever parts your currently have. If you have a dick go to the men's room and if you have a vagina go to the women's room, what's so hard about that?
I get that there are people that identify as the opposite gender and haven't started the process of making the switch yet but I'm not convinced that justifies people getting to use which ever restroom they want. Some women probably aren't comfortable with big ol' Johnson in the same bathroom as them and then it becomes the issue of whose comfort is more important.
I have a younger daughter and honestly I'm not so much worried that she'll get attacked since if someone's going to do that the sign on the door wasn't going to stop them anyway, I'm more worried that she'll be exposed to a bunch of swinging Johnsons in a place she really shouldn't have to worry about that. But like every thing else that's just my opinion, Man. Plus I mainly believe this is all just another distraction technique by the media since trans people have been using whatever bathroom they choose this whole time anyway.
*deleting old posts*
But at what point does the comfort level of a trans person become more important than the comfort level of a person who isn't trans? That's my only issue in all of this, we are saying as a society that feelings of the few out weigh the feelings of the many and anyone who disagrees with that is labeled a bigot.
I'm a 6'2, 230, bald headed, and big bearded man. If I went into the ladies room I can guarantee that I would make the women in there uncomfortable, not even through actions just by simply being in there so my point is at what point does my wanting to use their bathroom become more important than their feeling of security?
It goes back to the incident that pretty much made this a national discussion. The 16 year old boy who identified as a girl wanting to use the women's locker room at his high school. This made the girls uncomfortable and when they voiced their concern they were labeled as bigots. The boy refused getting his own locker room and the privacy screens when they were offered and the school still sided with him. Why are his feelings more important than all the girls? Don't those girls have the same right to feel secure?
People should be able to live whatever kind of life they want but it shouldn't come at the expense of others.
*deleting old posts*
Quote from: SagebrushSage on May 16, 2016, 10:32:20 AM
You see, this is the difference between a bigot and a reasonable person. A bigot, in this case, says "this diversity issue is cause for revolution! growl! hiss! raar!". A reasonable person says "I'm generally fine with these people, but I have specific, reasonable concerns a, b, and c..." So, I do not call RandoRock a bigot.
So this is where nothing productive happens with this conversation Dude. No matter how much you may disagree with the position as soon as you're resorting to calling him out as a bigot because of his position, no further reasonable discussion can occur. While I don't think that LotsaBadKarma has thought his position out very well, I don't think it does anything productive to "Discuss" things while passing insults around. It's a sensitive topic, for sure... but we're Dudes... take a breath, think how to discuss it.
Now my take... and why I don't think the position is well thought out.
The position you (LotsaBadKarma) take is that your concern is over how children will be confused, or not know how to process a transgender person using their restroom. While I agree with an earlier comment of the explanation of such an event shouldn't be that difficult to explain to the child, I think you are not thinking out what will generate the questions. What would your child question or find more difficult to process, someone in the ladies restroom.... dressed as a lady. Or someone dressed as a male using the ladies restroom? A transgendered person is not going to be a woman, dressed as a woman generally, or a man dressed as a man. They will be dressed as their sexual identity has lead them. So wouldn't there be much more difficulty in your child processing the idea of someone dressed as a woman using the mens restroom? A child isn't going to be looking for an adams apple, their not going to be as visually critical as you. Whether you know it or not you have been sharing restrooms with transgendered women for a long time. The laws just mean that they can legally feel safe using the restroom of the gender they identify with. Women's restrooms have doors on the stalls, a pre-op transgendered person is not going to be using a urinal, and would also be in a stall. What opportunity would a child have to see the genitals you are concerned with them seeing to bring up the question? The child predator (or predator argument in general) is generally pretty ridiculous. Someone with intent to break the law to perform a sexual act on an unwilling participant is NOT going to care if it is legal to go in a restroom or not. Unfortunately people use fearmongering to push positions that can not stand up strong enough to scrutiny on their own.
Welp,
Having let the original post sit for some time and accumulate some responses (which I'm glad to have seen, thanks ya'll), I'm going to drop some much-needed knowledge on Sage. He needs the education ASAP. I'll respond to better posts (such as the eminently reasonable thoughts expressed by Losta) later.
Sage, you (perhaps quite intentionally) misrepresented my reasoning. My post was about an out-of-control federal government run amok, imposing unconstitutional and illegal mandates on local schools: a government so obsessed with exhibiting its tumescence that it seeks to govern our most private quarters (e.g., bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers) in contravention to a couple hundred years of established privacy rights and traditions. You have adduced absolutely no authority to the contrary, your dick-hurt feelings notwithstanding. I therefore presume you either agree or have not bothered to educate yourself on the factual and legal matters.
You have an agenda, Sage. Admit that and stop the accusations of bigotry. Your side (i.e., progressives) have lost all moral authority by wantonly, uncritically, and capriciously yelling racism, xenophobia, bigotry, etc. I am not a bigot simply because I point out your president is a power hungry dictator who abuses executive orders and, more to the point, issues advisory letters like this one to avoid the rigors of the Administrative Procedures Act. (Look it up, kid, you need to have some indication of the motive behind the action, even if you agree with it. The next guy in the office may well abuse the process in a way you don't find quite so comfortable.).
You want to make this about whether the trans-gendered are prone to raping children? That's on you - it sounds like a psychological projection or defense of sorts. I didn't say that was the issue. It helps to read a post before you respond, dude. I am very curious but won't speculate at why you jump there so readily.
By the way, the LGBTQ-LMNOP community has emphasized that sex and gender are different things for the last, oh, 20 or 30 years. Ironically, however, it is only by conflating sex and gender that they now seek to cover trans-gendered under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. (And why, exactly, do you not even address this - it's the foundation of the legal argument your betters are espousing). That argument found a receptive argument in the 4th Circuit, but that was a political decision devoid of any actual reasoning or authority...which means the Supreme Court would likely agree. Such are the times in which we live. I will say you seem to grasp that sex is a biological fact. And it is - well, roughly, 99.7 of the time and we're not talking about the rare genetic disorders that are the exception. Yet you insist that one's subjective belief they are a boy, or a girl, or a unicorn, or the reincarnation of Milton Berle's cigar, must trump that biological fact. Astoundingly poor logic. You're better than that. By the way, do you disagree with my concerns over the unknown dangers of dosing young kids with hormones of the opposite sex? Because you didn't address that point, either...
You should also be aware the advisory letter expressly says that providing gender-neutral facilities is not acceptable. No, they mandate a full and unbounded acquiescence to their opinion under the threat of financial punishment. No dissent is permitted. Hmmm, that's rather fascistic, no? But we've changed the meaning of words, so no one knows. Orwell would laugh, but knowingly.
Tutoring you is laborious and likely unproductive. I'll close by emphasizing I'm not raising an "ethical opposition" to the existence of trans-gendered. I'm simply saying they're not members of a protected class (as the law is currently written) and not entitled to special protection. And the fact that a craven politician says otherwise and attempts to dictate rules so adverse to existing norms only proves his ignorance and irrelevance, not the correctness of his position. But, yes, I am advocating revolution and militant extremism (if we're talking about the same things). Not simply over this. It's long overdue on all accounts. (You can see my position on many of them in this very section of the forum). So you gave me too much credit there.
*deleting old posts*
*deleting old posts*
*deleting old posts*
*deleting old posts*
*deleting old posts*
I'm not sure British politics are any better, man. You'll get fucked in the socio-economic ass wherever you go. I don't think anywhere is perfect. VIVA DUDETOPIA!
We should all just throw in and buy an island.
Fuckin' A, I got $4 almost 5.
*deleting old posts*
Quote from: SagebrushSage on May 17, 2016, 08:40:05 AM
I own about $15 at the moment. That makes an even $20. We now have enough to buy a house in Detroit. Wish I was joking.
Fuck, make it $30 and we can have a mansion!
Quote from: SagebrushSage on May 17, 2016, 12:47:51 AM
God, it's all fucked, isn't it? In my own fool optimism, I try to pick a side to support.
100% with you there, man. And we're cool.
It is, indeed, all fucked. I tried to pick sides for a long time. Finally realized the two-party system IS the problem. Most of their disagreements are manufactured to hide the fact both parties are taking advantage of the citizenry at large.
*deleting old posts*
The problem with the current system is it's set up to only support one extreme or the other so good ideas get lost to both sides. You can't be pro gay marriage and second amendment rights while still trying to say you belong to one side or the other because of how different each side takes those two things. Imagine what we could accomplish if we kicked out two party politics and actually focused on the issues instead of what side we're on.
Like taking the best bits out of everything and making the best system possible that best benefits everyone
It's like Lenin said.
Quote from: RandoRock on May 22, 2016, 12:28:03 AM
The problem with the current system is it's set up to only support one extreme or the other so good ideas get lost to both sides. You can't be pro gay marriage and second amendment rights while still trying to say you belong to one side or the other because of how different each side takes those two things. Imagine what we could accomplish if we kicked out two party politics and actually focused on the issues instead of what side we're on.
The two-party system is organized to elevate interest groups over principles. Let me show you what I mean. The two examples you gave (gay marriage and gun rights) are easily reconcilable by a single principle - limited government. It's none of the government's damn business who you kiss or whether you own a gun. But limited, constitutional, governance does not benefit either party: it only benefits individuals. So, one party attacks personal liberties on one side, while the other attacks personal liberties on the other side. Both sides' partisans are happy because they get to inflict their control fetish on others. But they object when that same tactic is used against them. This just calcifies the extremes, which was really the goal all along. It's pretty genius if you can overlook how completely evil it is.
By the way, this is also why Barry's nominee for the supreme court (Merrick Garland) is lauded as a "consensus" pick by democrats and republicans (even if they refuse to vote on him for other reasons). The unifying principle in his decisions is to side with the government against the citizen. The left and right both like him because he reflexively fellates government while kicking private citizens in the shins. Fuck him and fuck them.
Exactly! It's all about control and the illusion of the greater good. A population that is divided is a population that is easy to control; the media, government, politicians, and paraquats of the world keep these imaginary lines drawn so people feel obligated to pick a side. We are distracted by the idea that one side has to be right and the other wrong. Instead of it being just common sense or what works for everyone it has to be one extreme or the other, people are so willing to throw logic and reason out the window just to keep up this idea of party loyalty. Some how we turned Democracy into a team sport where instead of being active participants in the process we are no more than just fans rooting for our side to win.
I think we just need to become an anarcho syndicalist commune and take it in turns to act as sort of an executive officer for the week. But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting. By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more .... BE Quiet!
Sorry, couldn't help myself.
I thought we were an autonomous collective....
Well, at least we've avoided bringing class into it again.
That's progress of a sort.
Had to do this, sorry ;-)
http://youtu.be/JvKIWjnEPNY