https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ap5EM8leRdA

Shit just got real

Below the belt, metaphorically and literally

Too far

Shame that I gave drippy some rather good advice and saw he was on this thread after I posted it. And yet no acknowledgement from him whatsoever.

(April 15, 2016 at 4:41 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:

(April 15, 2016 at 4:17 pm)Expired Wrote: Because he really deserves it, he is a cunt, and so are you for that matter backing the horrible catholic church. Stop and think for a minute about the damage your stupid fucking cult has done to people.

Easy there, tiger.

She doesn't "back" the church, she's a member of the church. You need not respect her beliefs (no one need respect anyone's belief, contrary to popular assertion), but you should respect her.

That was way, way, way over the line. C_L is a respected member of this community.

And you are?

Thank you TRS.

@Yeauxleaux 


da gif version

(April 15, 2016 at 4:09 pm)abaris Wrote:

(April 15, 2016 at 3:47 pm)BlackBird Wrote: Of course, plenty of your wording and implications merit conversation about bigotry and hate, but you cannot say that nobody has addressed your points.

He's pretty selective about his sources. As I already said, the OP stems from conversion therapists. I would never do something like that. Just today I watched Secular Talk because Kyle amuses me, but the story he was reporting on was blown out of proportion and outright wrong in places. I would never place something from liberal news outlets as fact, unless I checked them for verity first. Mabe because I'm used to do it professionally or because rightwingers have less of an inhibition to post anything meeting their preconceived notion.

Yeah, they're pretty bad about that. It's probably a lot of the reason I only do Facebook in spurts, just to occasionally see what's going on. I had to actually unfollow my mom because I just couldn't take it anymore.

And, of course, his choice of sources is plenty of reason to bring up things like "bigotry" and "hate". 

I'm about done with Drich. I should have known better than to get dragged into this. I've seen plenty of his other posts.

(April 15, 2016 at 1:59 am)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(April 14, 2016 at 10:35 pm)Sterben Wrote:          Third party bathrooms are a unnecessary cost to employers, in the U.S people can claim lawsuits for facilitates not providing them. I disagree with some aspects of the LGBT community, they have a lot of valid points and some points that are nonsense. If your a man who wants to dress like a woman and get breast implants that's fine, at the end of the day your still a male no matter what you change your name to. Transgenders are still people that deserves rights and protections. These protections can only go so far though, they still have to deal the repercussions of there choices, in the aspect of society. They can't always sue for be denying jobs, no matter how accepting we become as a society there will always be the aspect of protecting your business. If a transgender person wants to work for a daycare facility, it stands a high chance that person would hurt there business; no matter how professional they are, appearance still plays a major part in face to face business's. A homosexual man or woman can look normal by our society standards, a transgender person does not have many choices there since those changes take a long time to effect. Since the process is not a easy transition (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-y...ery-works/).

First off, *you're *their. Seriously, you're a grown up (I assume).

To your points, I agree that making a third bathroom or changing all bathrooms would be an unnecessary burden on employers.

However, your understanding of what it means to be transgender is lacking. It's not a man who wants to dress up like a woman and get breast implants. Gender is not the same as sex. A person can have a penis and be a woman, and the science is backing this up in spades. fMRI scans are showing differences in both brain chemistry and neural pathways, resulting in M-F trans individuals having brains more similar to females, and vice versa. Trans men report having phantom penises, like an amputee with a phantom limb. From the time before they really know the difference in sex organs, trans kids report being in the "wrong" body. This isn't a new phenomena. It's understandable that there is a lot of confusion, thinking that all this is talking about drag queens or something of the sort, but it's not. This is a real segment of the population, and the likelihood that you've met someone suffering from GD is pretty high.

So saying that a person should be subject to losing their job because of their outward appearance is ludicrous. If a trans person is qualified to work at a daycare center, why on Earth should they be fired or laid off because a customer has a bigoted reaction? That sounds heinous to me.

       I am a grown adult and I was not condoning the practice of letting people based of appearance. I was conducting a thought experiment to where a common workplace was used. It is a heinous reaction to a person who is going a through such a major change within there lives. I can also understand the business's side of the argument, they have a right to protect there own lively hoods. If the daycare facility started to lose profit cause some parents were uncomfortable with leaving there child there. They stick to there guns and keep a trans-employee and when other parents start to look up reviews on the facility. The parents that were freaked out by the trans-employee posted that they have a Trans-gender attendant. Now there starting to lose profit and eventuality shuts down. Do company's facing these problems have a right to protect themselves? Or for social change to happen, are casualties necessary to force the issue into everyone lives?

(April 15, 2016 at 6:32 pm)Sterben Wrote:

(April 15, 2016 at 1:59 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: First off, *you're *their. Seriously, you're a grown up (I assume).

To your points, I agree that making a third bathroom or changing all bathrooms would be an unnecessary burden on employers.

However, your understanding of what it means to be transgender is lacking. It's not a man who wants to dress up like a woman and get breast implants. Gender is not the same as sex. A person can have a penis and be a woman, and the science is backing this up in spades. fMRI scans are showing differences in both brain chemistry and neural pathways, resulting in M-F trans individuals having brains more similar to females, and vice versa. Trans men report having phantom penises, like an amputee with a phantom limb. From the time before they really know the difference in sex organs, trans kids report being in the "wrong" body. This isn't a new phenomena. It's understandable that there is a lot of confusion, thinking that all this is talking about drag queens or something of the sort, but it's not. This is a real segment of the population, and the likelihood that you've met someone suffering from GD is pretty high.

So saying that a person should be subject to losing their job because of their outward appearance is ludicrous. If a trans person is qualified to work at a daycare center, why on Earth should they be fired or laid off because a customer has a bigoted reaction? That sounds heinous to me.

       I am a grown adult and I was not condoning the practice of letting people based of appearance. I was conducting a thought experiment to where a common workplace was used. It is a heinous reaction to a person who is going a through such a major change within there lives. I can also understand the business's side of the argument, they have a right to protect there own lively hoods. If the daycare facility started to lose profit cause some parents were uncomfortable with leaving there child there. They stick to there guns and keep a trans-employee and when other parents start to look up reviews on the facility. The parents that were freaked out by the trans-employee posted that they have a Trans-gender attendant. Now there starting to lose profit and eventuality shuts down. Do company's facing these problems have a right to protect themselves? Or for social change to happen, are casualties necessary to force the issue into everyone lives?

Dammit, man. It's hard to read your posts. Come on.

There = place: "over there"
Their = possession: "their store"
They're = they are: "they're coming soon"

---

I'll ask you a question as a counter to your hypothetical. If you replaced transgender person with black person, would it be okay to fire a person for being black in a racist community?
How about gay? Would it be okay to fire a perfectly qualified homosexual because some parents thought their kid could catch the gay?

You'll also have to prove that this is something that actually could happen. If a person loses a client or two because the client(s) is bigoted, that's part of the free market. I don't know of a place where a person loses all of their clients because they all are bigoted. I think you have posed an unrealistic hypothetical.

Also, to be clear, what your are proposing amounts to "there are bigots out there who will discriminate against transexuals, and we should protect businesses from those bigots, not the people who are being discriminated against.

(April 15, 2016 at 11:45 am)Mathilda Wrote:

(April 15, 2016 at 10:59 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: No. There are much more men on women sex crimes than women on men or women on women sex crimes. Men are much more likely to be into peeping tomery and much more likely to have kinky fetishes.

But sexual kinks and sex drives are a product of the brain, not the body. Male to female transsexuals have female brains according to brain scans. Pre-operative transsexuals take extremely high doses of oestrogen in order to feminise their bodies, to the extent that they have to have regular blood tests. And post-operative they can lose a lot of their sex drive because unlike cisgendered women they don't have any means of creating testosterone.

But what the new laws do mean is that female to male transsexuals who are taking high doses of testosterone, which is known to increase sex drive, now have to use the female toilets. Not to mention that it ignores that lesbians exist. So the logic behind the law is completely screwy.

The only way it makes sense is if you see it as a product of the right wing Christian male's obsession with female fertility and seeing women as baby making objects to be owned.

I wasn't referring to transexuals at all.

(April 15, 2016 at 11:58 am)Mathilda Wrote:

(April 15, 2016 at 11:31 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Nonetheless, the main problem I think with allowing anyone to use any restroom so long as they claim transgenderism is the fact that many women would not feel comfortable with people who are physical men going into women's bathrooms/lockerrooms, even if those people identify as women. 

What do you even mean by people who are physical men?

Someone who has the body of a man.

(April 15, 2016 at 12:07 pm)Mathilda Wrote: I actually find this whole debate insulting to men. It's basically assuming that all men are potential rapists and is just another form of bigotry.

Oh my goodness, that's not at all what I'm doing. I'm saying the sort of fetish for peeping on women is a real fetish. I, in no way shape or form, said that all men are like this.