Theist, it's a bad version of the "slippery slope" argument, in this case taking something which has never been an issue and turning it into one.
What part of "they can still walk in there just as they did before" do you not get? These laws don't even come close to offering the level of protection you pretend they do, yet they set the state authorities up as being anti-transgender.
If trangendered people did not exist, ever... it if was never a thing... then perverts could still disguise themselves as women and do what you're suggesting, and no amount of "bathroom law" would stop that. When you want to make a law that suppresses a given part of the population from engaging in private activities (such as going to the bathroom), then you have to have a pretty damned good justification for it. The weak excuse of "oh well it will make things easier for the perverts" is not an argument, unless you also want to ban the internet because perverts use it.
But transgendered people DO exist, have been using these restrooms for years, and the scientific consensus is overwhelming on these points (see Mathilda's post, a couple pages back). It is not just "how they feel" or a lifestyle choice. They are very real people who already have enough troubles without bigots using the "what about the kiiiiiiids!?!" bullshit to further marginalize and stigmatize them.
Finally, you are out of your MIND for saying that the Obama administration is the one pushing this agenda. These "states' rights advocates" are the ones picking this fight, and the Justice Department is doing its best to stand up for the marginalized and the outcast who deserve not to have their rights abridged by sheer bigotry and fearmongering.
It should be the Christians who are standing up for the weak, not the ones who are oppressing them. But, that doesn't seem to be the way of things, does it?
What part of "they can still walk in there just as they did before" do you not get? These laws don't even come close to offering the level of protection you pretend they do, yet they set the state authorities up as being anti-transgender.
If trangendered people did not exist, ever... it if was never a thing... then perverts could still disguise themselves as women and do what you're suggesting, and no amount of "bathroom law" would stop that. When you want to make a law that suppresses a given part of the population from engaging in private activities (such as going to the bathroom), then you have to have a pretty damned good justification for it. The weak excuse of "oh well it will make things easier for the perverts" is not an argument, unless you also want to ban the internet because perverts use it.
But transgendered people DO exist, have been using these restrooms for years, and the scientific consensus is overwhelming on these points (see Mathilda's post, a couple pages back). It is not just "how they feel" or a lifestyle choice. They are very real people who already have enough troubles without bigots using the "what about the kiiiiiiids!?!" bullshit to further marginalize and stigmatize them.
Finally, you are out of your MIND for saying that the Obama administration is the one pushing this agenda. These "states' rights advocates" are the ones picking this fight, and the Justice Department is doing its best to stand up for the marginalized and the outcast who deserve not to have their rights abridged by sheer bigotry and fearmongering.
It should be the Christians who are standing up for the weak, not the ones who are oppressing them. But, that doesn't seem to be the way of things, does it?
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.
