Reply With Quote
Who said it was to accommodate that percent of the population? And even if that was the case, they won't always be that small.
Also, yes I do think they will do that.
Not sure why gay men would be offended.
Breast feeding moms pop a all the time in public.
I could see uptight religious nuts being publicly outraged but secretly excited
Who said it was to accommodate that percent of the population? And even if that was the case, they won't always be that small.
Also, yes I do think they will do that.
Last edited by Spurminator; 04-21-2016 at 11:37 PM.
It's not a double standard. If you don't want to use a bathroom with a transgender, you can wait. If they don't want to use the bathroom with your sex, they have to break the law or go home.
lol... its not my fault you think subjective somehow meant choice
what exactly do you want me to answer? no, its not a choice. i've been quite clear about that this entire time, and if that's really what you needed clarification on, then i question your mental capacity
this operates under the assumption that they were in there first
Subjective but not voluntary:
And all qualia while we're at it.
I think all the arguments against gender-neutral bathrooms are silly and rely on poor logic and scare tactics. But again, there's no point in us even having genders if people and flow between them with just a thought. Something has to give.
der Kraut Hammer admits the Repug bathroom obsessed perversity is yet another bogus, fabricated "problem"
Charles Krauthammer unloads on Fox News colleagues for believing NC transgender bathroom law is a real issue
"Do we really have an epidemic of transgenders being evil in bathrooms across the country?" he asked
“I haven’t heard of a single case.”
If it has happened at all, Krauthammer continued, it is still a “very small problem at the edges of other problems having to do with gender iden y that’s become national precisely because Republicans in North Carolina decided it was a problem.”
“It is not a major national problem, and it should have been left that way,” he concluded.
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/22/watc..._a_real_issue/
The bull masquerade is "gotta protect the women and girls" but if daddy or brother or cousin or anybody rapes the daughter, sister, cousin, the girl MUST not have an abortion and MUST carry the bas to term. God loves rape babies.
Here you called it a subjective iden y
You separated it out from "objective" traits.
If you think you were clear on it not being a choice when you said "subjective iden y", then lol.
If it's not a choice, then how is it not a civil rights issue on a moral level?
I think it's just a matter of time before the Civil Rights Act is amended to include gays and trans
Interactive map -- trannies per 100k pop
https://www.graphiq.com/wlp/8XywaKuBqSN
LOL #BoycottTarget.
I didn't realize the Target restroom was such an essential part of the Target shopping experience. Seems like people should be more concerned about catching ebola in there than getting molested.
Target survived the boycott after they banned open carry from their stores. These are the exact same people boycotting.....again
Would you be OK with gender neutral bathrooms only?Target survived the boycott after they banned open carry from their stores. These are the exact same people boycotting.....again
of course i did. because it's subjective.
that doesn't make it any less of a choice. i'm not sure if you are being purposely dense or not. you trying to equivocate subjectivity with choice is your problem, not mine.
Absolutely. I've traveled in Europe and Asia enough to know that most places only have gender neutral bathrooms. They are common in the finest marble and chrome hotels in Paris and Beijing. The only difference is there are no open urinals, just private stalls. I never saw anything in one but people washing their hands or fixing their hair. Which, coincidentally, is all I've ever seen in any women's only bathroom here; not one genital--ever!
So you'd be OK letting a 12 year old girl go use the restroom at a park or sporting event at the same time as a convicted sex offender?
What does "subjective iden y" mean compared to "objective trait"
Subjective absolutely implies personal opinion vs objective fact. You even posted the definition. It's right there.
But fine you can "win". I want to move on since we agree that it's not a choice.
If it's not a choice for some people, then why wouldn't it be a civil rights issue, similar to sex and race?
Last edited by Blake; 04-22-2016 at 03:29 PM.
NBA threatens to cancel ASG
you're right. subjective means not objective. bravo.
nowhere have i implied that it's a matter of choice
and we always have, i don't know why you said "oh so you're in the choice camp." it was pretty out of nowhereBut fine you can "win". I want to move on since we agree that it's not a choice.
civil rights are a lot more complex than choice vs non-choice. eye color isn't a choice but people with blue eyes aren't a protected groupIf it's not a choice for some people, then why wouldn't it be a civil rights issue, similar to sex and race?
False, that would be a protected group.
Discrimination against eye color would be no different than skin color.
It's not that complex.
are they currently a protected group? i hadn't checked the cons ution or civil rights acts amendments lately
Color is a protected group. Always has been.
There's also the GINA of 2008
eye color is a protected group?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
