(April 13, 2016 at 10:59 am)Drich Wrote:(April 13, 2016 at 9:57 am)ChadWooters Wrote: The denial of access is justified because bathroom segregation is based on objective biological sex not subjective gender identity.
Drich! These guys claim to be all about science and objectivity...except when it comes to sex. Then its all about how people "feel" and not the objective facts.
Hypocrites!
This is how Jesus felt when trying to teach the pharisees.
It's not hypocrisy. Many laws and policies are based on feelings, such as the stalking law I mentioned earlier (it must demonstrably cause "fear or alarm", in most statutes' wording), as well as laws about threats made.
Besides it's not just about how they feel. It's who they are at the deepest possible level. It's so strong that the dysphoria causes severe psychological issues until resolved (if the person decides the surgery/hormone therapies are worth it, of course), which is why it's in the DSM5. Basically, it's people like you who hurt them so badly based on a freakin' body-part, which causes it. You should read about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_dysphoria
If you were objective, instead of reacting emotionally to something that you find disgusting, you could see this clearly instead of clucking like a pair of hens and patting yourself on the back for finding a bit of (false) righteous indignation to make you feel like Jesus.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
