(Today at 1:22 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(Yesterday at 6:39 pm)TheWhiteMarten Wrote: First Stage - Non Sequitur
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement A:  "Allowing men - transexual or not - into women's bathrooms poses an inherent risk to women."

Response: "You allege that any sort of man, trans or no, is dangerous."

You don't seem to understand that "risk" involves danger, and that imputing one implies the other. If men of any sort are an "inherent risk" to women in a restroom, it follows that men in a restroom of women are dangerous.

It's not the fact that they are men that makes the situation dangerous; it is, yet again, the location and security conditions of the woman.

Let's try it another way; I'm a big fan of analogies, so let's try that route.

3 Ml of water, sitting in a glass on a table, is not dangerous by any inherent nature of being water.
33,333,333 Ml of water, churned up by seismic activity and crashing directly towards Buenos Aires, is not dangerous by any inherent nature of being water.

Both are water, but it is not the nature of a being water that makes them dangerous; I don't view people as inherently dangerous simply because they have physical differences than me and that's frankly a very dangerous manner of thinking.

Rather it's their behaviors and the situations they are placed in.

There is no empirical data demonstrating allowing Trans People to use the washroom that corresponds to there gender puts women more at risk then before and the CIS people my misbehave is not a justification to take it out on Trans People who themselves face risks in bathrooms corresponding to their sex . This is weak fear based justification.

(Yesterday at 7:51 pm)TheWhiteMarten Wrote: One day, *one day,* I'm going to get you to accidently let down your armor and actually justify a statement you make.

It's going to be wonderful and I'm gonna crack open a beer in celebration, so just known you are cheating me out of that if it gives you more motivation to play tough.

Dude, this says a lot. It's a discussion forum here. You don't win anything. No cupcakes, no hookers and blow, no jellybeans stuffed up your ass by a cute brunette.

If you're here to discuss, let's discuss. If you're here waiting for the "gotcha" moment so you can lighten up and have a beer, shit, I'll cry uncle right now so you'll get off your hot-rod, put your ass in some ice, crack open a cold one, and get real.

FFS, this shit is so 2014.

(Today at 1:22 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(Yesterday at 6:39 pm)TheWhiteMarten Wrote: First Stage - Non Sequitur
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement A:  "Allowing men - transexual or not - into women's bathrooms poses an inherent risk to women."

Response: "You allege that any sort of man, trans or no, is dangerous."

You don't seem to understand that "risk" involves danger, and that imputing one implies the other. If men of any sort are an "inherent risk" to women in a restroom, it follows that men in a restroom of women are dangerous.

This is not a non sequitur. This is a logical extension of your claim.

I understand you want to dance on the balance beam, but you really can't have it both ways. You think that allowing men into a women's room, including trans women, is dangerous to women. Now present your evidence that this is so.

His whole argument of risk is simply hysteria

(Today at 1:36 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(Yesterday at 7:51 pm)TheWhiteMarten Wrote: One day, *one day,* I'm going to get you to accidently let down your armor and actually justify a statement you make.

It's going to be wonderful and I'm gonna crack open a beer in celebration, so just known you are cheating me out of that if it gives you more motivation to play tough.

Dude, this says a lot. It's a discussion forum here. You don't win anything. No cupcakes, no hookers and blow, no jellybeans stuffed up your ass by a cute brunette.

If you're here to discuss, let's discuss. If you're here waiting for the "gotcha" moment so you can lighten up and have a beer, shit, I'll cry uncle right now so you'll get off your hot-rod, put your ass in some ice, crack open a cold one, and get real.

FFS, this shit is so 2014.

Facts

(Yesterday at 10:17 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(Yesterday at 10:14 pm)TheWhiteMarten Wrote: No; so that you can stop making an ass of yourself.

RFK Jr is a known conspiracy lunatic who believes in chemtrails [...]

Chemtrails are a fact! We Americans doused those Nazi louses with them to win the war, damn it.

(Today at 1:34 am)The Architect Of Fate Wrote: There is no empirical data demonstrating allowing Trans People to use the washroom that corresponds to there gender puts women more at risk then before and the CIS people my misbehave is not a justification to take it out on Trans People who themselves face risks in bathrooms corresponding to their sex . This is weak fear based justification.

Honest question, do you *really* need a study for everything to know if it's true or not?

I can listen to women when they tell me they feel uncomfortable with a biological male is in the restroom with them.

I can use my mind and realise, "Yeah, if you allow any man who presents as a woman to enter into a bathroom, you have just provided a mechanism for sexual predators to enter into a bathroom without drawing attention and commit a crime." 

We have "segregated" bathrooms, generally intended for families to change baby diapers and for the disabled. Just use those.

Human traffickers (whom I hadn't given much thought of in the equation before now) and predators both would be licking their lips over that prospect. 

-----

Just to be clear, you are arguing that transgendered feelings are more important than women's feelings?

(Today at 1:36 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(Yesterday at 7:51 pm)TheWhiteMarten Wrote: One day, *one day,* I'm going to get you to accidently let down your armor and actually justify a statement you make.

It's going to be wonderful and I'm gonna crack open a beer in celebration, so just known you are cheating me out of that if it gives you more motivation to play tough.

Dude, this says a lot. It's a discussion forum here. You don't win anything. No cupcakes, no hookers and blow, no jellybeans stuffed up your ass by a cute brunette.

If you're here to discuss, let's discuss. If you're here waiting for the "gotcha" moment so you can lighten up and have a beer, shit, I'll cry uncle right now so you'll get off your hot-rod, put your ass in some ice, crack open a cold one, and get real.

FFS, this shit is so 2014.

Crazy the moment I start playing your own games how the tone shifted. Though just to be clear; none of that was sarcasm nor anything else, I'm truly waiting for the day they defend a position so I can get a read on where they are coming from, though now that I know part of it is language barrier it's all good and none of the insults are personal.

Politeness truly is overrated.

Quote:Honest question, do you *really* need a study for everything to know if it's true or not?

Again no actual real world evidence so you have nothing 

Quote:I can listen to women when they tell me they feel uncomfortable with a biological male is in the restroom with them.

Sucks to be them if a bunch of them said they didn't want lesbians or black women in the bathroom should we blindly agree and kick them out ?

Quote:I can use my mind and realise, "Yeah, if you allow any man who presents as a woman to enter into a bathroom, you have just provided a mechanism for sexual predators to enter into a bathroom without drawing attention and commit a crime." 

So again you have no actual data so you have nothing

Quote:Human traffickers (whom I hadn't given much thought of in the equation before now) and predators both would be licking their lips over that prospect. O

Once again  you have no actual data  so you have nothing

Quote:Just to be clear, you are arguing that transgendered feelings are more important than women's feelings?

Nope I'm arguing their feelings aren't sufficient grounds to deny a whole group the bathroom facility nor is hysteria about imagined evildoers.


So again you got nothing but speculation and conjecture and some women won't like it as if any of those are grounds for anything.