Some Gays Can Go Straight, Study Says

[Statler Waldorf]

If the past history of the Y isn't enough for you, look into present-day nudist/naturist resorts or organizations. The funny thing is that, once you get past the fact that everyone's naked, the activities there are almost aggressively sexless (And, yes, this was disappointing for a teenaged Reverend to find out.) There are a few exceptions, but, naturally, they're rare.

Children are not allowed in nudist resorts, adults exposing themselves to children is sexual assault in all 50 states.  

The purpose of a looker room is so people can get dressed and store shit. The function is the same.

Nope, the purpose of the women’s locker room is for women to get dressed and store their belongings, not men who claim to be women.  

Not in a place where people are already supposed to be naked  

There is no exemption for this in any of the 50 states’ criminal codes for sexual assault.  Try harder I guess.

Nah you brought up pedophiles because you're trying to imply transpeople are pedophiles and you seem obsessed with the subject...Very particular  

Transpeople who engage in pedophilia are by definition pedophiles.  I realize you want to give them a pass, but I will not.  

America's free speech laws also contain limits so bringing this up is irrelevant  

Where do they contain limits regarding pronouns?  Citation needed.

Actually, they say so is evidence. You simply don't like it, And no one cares  

That’s not evidence, there’s people who claim to be dogs, they’re not.  Claims have no bearing on a person’s ontology.  No wonder all the sophisticated atheists have left this site.  

It's sexual assault or abuse so this whole statement collapses on itself  

So you agree with me?  It is sexual assault, then why condone it?

False comparison and another nonsequitur and you might brush up on your epistemology

Wait, an anorexic is not really obese?  They claim to be! Just ask them 😊  Who are you to say they’re wrong?  Whoops, you made a mistake.

They said thier trans and there a women. That's all we need.  

Yikes, is English your first language? You used the wrong “they’re” twice and did it differently each time lol.  Let me guess, you identify as an English scholar so therefore it’s ok?   Anorexics claim to be obese, I guess they are then huh?

So are you now done embarrassing yourself?

This might help you in the future.  “Sam and Diane said that THEY’RE taking THEIR dog over THERE.”  

Where is AreWeThereYet defend little girls being forced to see penises. I can't seem to find that post.

I thought they did, but may have gotten the posters confused or replied to the wrong post.  If I did, I am sorry. @arewethereyet  

I'm having trouble finding out how the law defines sexual orientation. Perhaps my google fu is weak. The impression I'm getting is that it vares by state and there is no official federal definition of sexual orientation. But as I said, it may be a problem with how I'm googling.

States should define it similarly, but I imagine you can find a definition if you look up federal definitions for protected classes.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

If the past history of the Y isn't enough for you, look into present-day nudist/naturist resorts or organizations. The funny thing is that, once you get past the fact that everyone's naked, the activities there are almost aggressively sexless (And, yes, this was disappointing for a teenaged Reverend to find out.) There are a few exceptions, but, naturally, they're rare.

Children are not allowed in nudist resorts, adults exposing themselves to children is sexual assault in all 50 states.  

The purpose of a looker room is so people can get dressed and store shit. The function is the same.

Nope, the purpose of the women’s locker room is for women to get dressed and store their belongings, not men who claim to be women.  

Not in a place where people are already supposed to be naked  

There is no exemption for this in any of the 50 states’ criminal codes for sexual assault.  Try harder I guess.

Nah you brought up pedophiles because you're trying to imply transpeople are pedophiles and you seem obsessed with the subject...Very particular  

Transpeople who engage in pedophilia are by definition pedophiles.  I realize you want to give them a pass, but I will not.  

America's free speech laws also contain limits so bringing this up is irrelevant  

Where do they contain limits regarding pronouns?  Citation needed.

Actually, they say so is evidence. You simply don't like it, And no one cares  

That’s not evidence, there’s people who claim to be dogs, they’re not.  Claims have no bearing on a person’s ontology.  No wonder all the sophisticated atheists have left this site.  

It's sexual assault or abuse so this whole statement collapses on itself  

So you agree with me?  It is sexual assault, then why condone it?

False comparison and another nonsequitur and you might brush up on your epistemology

Wait, an anorexic is not really obese?  They claim to be! Just ask them 😊  Who are you to say they’re wrong?  Whoops, you made a mistake.

They said thier trans and there a women. That's all we need.  

Yikes, is English your first language? You used the wrong “they’re” twice and did it differently each time lol.  Let me guess, you identify as an English scholar so therefore it’s ok?   Anorexics claim to be obese, I guess they are then huh?

So are you now done embarrassing yourself?

This might help you in the future.  “Sam and Diane said that THEY’RE taking THEIR dog over THERE.”  

Where is AreWeThereYet defend little girls being forced to see penises. I can't seem to find that post.

I thought they did, but may have gotten the posters confused or replied to the wrong post.  If I did, I am sorry. @arewethereyet  

I'm having trouble finding out how the law defines sexual orientation. Perhaps my google fu is weak. The impression I'm getting is that it vares by state and there is no official federal definition of sexual orientation. But as I said, it may be a problem with how I'm googling.

States should define it similarly, but I imagine you can find a definition if you look up federal definitions for protected classes.

Found it. The US Department of Labor [sic] defines it this way:

"Sexual orientation" refers to an individual's physical, romantic, and/or emotional attraction to people of the same and/or different gender. Examples of sexual orientations include straight (or heterosexual), lesbian, gay, and bisexual.

It’s unclear if this has the force of law, or is simply descriptive.

Boru

[The Architect Of Fate]

Children are not allowed in nudist resorts, adults exposing themselves to children is sexual assault in all 50 states.  

So no actual argument about how it's sexual assault...Gotcha 

Nope, the purpose of the women’s locker room is for women to get dressed and store their belongings, not men who claim to be women. 

Nope the purpose is for people to do that. The gender or sex of those people is secondary if not completely irrelevant 

There is no exemption for this in any of the 50 states’ criminal codes for sexual assault.  Try harder I guess.

It's not sexual assault. Nor have you made any argument. So no you try harder....

Transpeople who engage in pedophilia are by definition pedophiles.  I realize you want to give them a pass, but I will not. 

That's clearly not what you were implying....

Where do they contain limits regarding pronouns?  Citation needed.

It clearly does and your demands are ignored

That’s not evidence, there’s people who claim to be dogs, they’re not.  Claims have no bearing on a person’s ontology.  No wonder all the sophisticated atheists have left this site. 

It is evidence whether you like it or not. And nope the atheists we have now are probably the best we ever had. Too bad we just keep getting garbage-grade theists like you. 

So you agree with me?  It is sexual assault, then why condone it?

No, I don't. I have no idea where the hell you get that idea from.

Wait, an anorexic is not really obese?  They claim to be! Just ask them 😊  Who are you to say they’re wrong?  Whoops, you made a mistake

Nope no mistake you just really seem to like false analogies and non-sequiturs 

Yikes, is English your first language? You used the wrong “they’re” twice and did it differently each time lol.  Let me guess, you identify as an English scholar so therefore it’s ok?    Anorexics claim to be obese, I guess they are then huh?

So nitpicking grammar and again a false analogy and a non sequitur. You are really bad at this ...

This might help you in the future.  “Sam and Diane said that THEY’RE taking THEIR dog over THERE.”  

Yawn nitpicking grammar. Don't care.


Well, it's another boring attempt by you at pretending you're clever ...

[The Architect Of Fate]

Well, I think I have fed the troll enough for today. Don't want to make it pop 

So I'm just going to put it on ignore for now

[Angrboda]

[Rev. Rye]

If the past history of the Y isn't enough for you, look into present-day nudist/naturist resorts or organizations. The funny thing is that, once you get past the fact that everyone's naked, the activities there are almost aggressively sexless (And, yes, this was disappointing for a teenaged Reverend to find out.) There are a few exceptions, but, naturally, they're rare.

Children are not allowed in nudist resorts, adults exposing themselves to children is sexual assault in all 50 states.  

Actually, no. Literally all I had to do to check is google “are children allowed in nudist resorts” (hopefully, this doesn't put me on a watchlist) and I found out that, as a rule, they are. I found one in California which didn’t, and this decision is controversial, especially among nudists.

Of course, the rest do seem to have provisos that children have to be supervised at all times (usually by their parents specifically), and that’s on top of the usual prohibitions on taking photos (some resorts allow photography but ONLY if anyone in the frame consents to having their picture taken, some forbid it altogether), which are extremely understandable and reasonable. And for an example, here’s one set of rules from a naturist resort in my home state.

[WinterHold]

By defending little girls being forces to see penises.  That's sexualizing children.  It's wrong on the playground just as it is in the locker room.

Where is AreWeThereYet defend little girls being forced to see penises. I can't seem to find that post.

Here it is:

https://atheistforums.org/thread-64899-p...pid2140821

Arewethereyet:

March 25, 2023 at 5:39 pm (This post was last modified: March 25, 2023 at 5:40 pm by arewethereyet.)
Let's say that eight year olds are taking gang showers...what if one of them is starting to feel urges toward girls? How do we weed out the *gasp* future lesbians, bisexuals, gender fluids, etc. etc. etc? Hmmmm?

Surely you have thought this through since you are so concerned about the sexuality of others.

[arewethereyet]

Where is AreWeThereYet defend little girls being forced to see penises. I can't seem to find that post.

Here it is:

https://atheistforums.org/thread-64899-p...pid2140821

Arewethereyet:

March 25, 2023 at 5:39 pm (This post was last modified: March 25, 2023 at 5:40 pm by arewethereyet.)
Let's say that eight year olds are taking gang showers...what if one of them is starting to feel urges toward girls? How do we weed out the *gasp* future lesbians, bisexuals, gender fluids, etc. etc. etc? Hmmmm?

Surely you have thought this through since you are so concerned about the sexuality of others.

Where did I say little girls should be forced to see penises?

In what order do you put the words I wrote to say that?

[WinterHold]

For some reason, a person's sexual orientation has never been an issue for me.  It may be because I had a great aunt who never married and dressed in what would be considered a quite masculine manner back in the day...she even smoked a pipe.  I just never took the time to concern myself over what anyone else was doing with their parts....as long a what they did was consensual.

I simply don't understand why people are so worried about it.  I will surely mess up pronouns and such...I am still very much a ma'am and sir person and after nearly 66 years that's a little hard to shake.  And I have goofed up but found that trying to fix it seems to make it worse and more uncomfortable.

Changing body parts is something I was forced into thanks to breast cancer.  I had to learn to deal with it.  For someone to choose to make a body change that's similar can't be an easy thing to do or something done on a whim.

Governing and judging others based on their body parts, their wish for a body change, or who they are attracted to is just something I don't want to have to pencil into my day.

I'm sorry for you having cancer.
If it's comforting to you, I have M.S. It's miles away from cancer, but hey.

As for that comment, even without breasts a woman is a woman. There is no changing your gender; it is a gift from God.

Which makes us discover the goal of this topic more and more: even if a man or a woman practiced sex as the opposite gender, it won't change the truth: it's a mere illusion.

[Statler Waldorf]

It’s unclear if this has the force of law, or is simply descriptive.

Right on, well done!  …so if a person’s gender did change then their sexual orientation would also change because rather than being attracted to someone of the same gender they are now attracted to someone of the opposite gender or vice versa, right?  

So no actual argument about how it's sexual assault...Gotcha  

I don’t need an argument, I can read…
Randomly pick a state…

Kentucky!  
Indecent Exposure: 1 year to 5 years imprisonment and a $1,000 to $10,000 fine for three or more convictions for offenses committed in the presence of a minor.”

Let’s try again…

Montana!

Indecent Exposure: Committing indecent exposure in the presence of a minor under 16 years of age: Felony, 4 to 100 years imprisonment and up to a $50,000 fine for indecent exposure to a minor under 16 years of age.


North Dakota!

Exposing their penis, vulva, or anus in a public place or to a minor in a public or private place
Exposing their penis, vulva, or anus by unsolicited electronic means
Exposing their penis, vulva, or anus to a minor by any electronic means

• Penalty: Up to 5 years imprisonment and up to $10,000 fine for a Class C felony
• Up to 10 years imprisonment and up to $20,000 fine for a Class B felony

Ohio!

Ohio's public indecency statute outlaws indecent exposure of a person's private parts. Ohio has various degrees of indecent exposure depending on the offender's criminal record or if a minor is present.

Pennsylvania!

Indecent exposure in the presence of a minor under 16 years of age: Misdemeanor in the first degree. Up to 5 years imprisonment and up to $10,000 fine for indecent exposure in the presence of a minor under 16 years of age.

Visit https://www.findlaw.com for the other states.

It’s so weird, I tried and tried to find an exemption for showers and transmen, but I just could not find any…isn’t that weird?  It’s almost like you were totally making that up or something!  I can tell you one thing, you’d better stay away from Montana though.

Nope the purpose is for people to do that. The gender or sex of those people is secondary if not completely irrelevant  

Then why do transpeople care which locker room or restroom they use?

It clearly does and your demands are ignored

No surprise there, hard to find a citation for something that isn’t true.

It is evidence whether you like it or not. And nope the atheists we have now are probably the best we ever had. Too bad we just keep getting garbage-grade theists like you.  

Yeah, you’ve been on here so long lol.  Ten years ago there were atheists on here who cared about reason, science, and rationality.  I miss them.  

No, I don't. I have no idea where the hell you get that idea from.

Read what you typed.

Nope no mistake you just really seem to like false analogies and non-sequiturs  

They’re both forms of dysphoria and disproportionately affect teenage girls.  Very analogous.  You should look up the baseless assertion fallacy; it’s your motus operandi for sure.  

So nitpicking grammar and again a false analogy and a non sequitur. You are really bad at this .

Nitpicking?  You don’t know the difference between their, there, and they’re! lol.  Pick up a book on elementary level grammar and one on logic and then we can talk again.  Stay out of Montana, I don’t want to see you spend 4-100 years in prison for showering with kids.    

Actually, no. Literally all I had to do to check is google “are children allowed in nudist resorts” (hopefully, this doesn't put me on a watchlist) and I found out that, as a rule, they are. I found one in California which didn’t, and this decision is controversial, especially among nudists.

Of course, the rest do seem to have provisos that children have to be supervised at all times (usually by their parents specifically), and that’s on top of the usual prohibitions on taking photos (some resorts allow photography but ONLY if anyone in the frame consents to having their picture taken, some forbid it altogether), which are extremely understandable and reasonable. And for an example, here’s one set of rules from a naturist resort in my home state.

They’re allowed in but they cannot be around the naked adults?  I wonder why that is if there is nothing wrong with naked adults being around kids?  You should look up the state laws on this matter.  Not sure why you’d be on a watchlist if there’s nothing wrong with all of this.

Where did I say little girls should be forced to see penises?

In what order do you put the words I wrote to say that?

Yeah!  That’s the post!   Kind of creepy to be talking about little girls’ sexual urges.  Now I know why I said you were sexualizing children, because you were.  Apology retracted.  Glad someone else on here thought it was inappropriate.