Colorado parents of transgender 1st-grader file complaint over restroom ban

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

This is the argument from incredulity fallacy. Can you articulate exactly what you find wrong with her undergoing hormone therapy?

Ugh. I'm getting so tired of teaching logic in this forum. I understand basic fucking logic and still I see so many misuses. There actually has to incredulity for it to be an argument from incredulity.

Let's pretend that her having hormone therapy is p. Things that are not good are q. For this to be an argument from incredulity, it would have to go something like:

1. She is getting p

2. I cannot imagine p being ~q

Therefore, p is q

or

1. She is getting p

2. No one can explain why p is ~q

Therefore, p is q

or

1. She is getting p

2. No one can imagine p being ~q

Therefore, p is q

Since I did not construct an argument at all, but rather only gave my conclusion, you cannot have any of the above or any imagined arguments from incredulity you may have mustered. It would be fucking stupendous if people in this forum would stop trying to gain the upper hand by pulling fucking logic out of their asses hoping that the audience is ignorant.

Construct an argument next time then rather than leaving us to infer.

Now, moving on, pumping hormones into children is bad form for several reasons. Instead of spoon feeding them to you, I'll just give you a general idea via an expert. Given that you have a history of being contrary for the sake of being contrary, I won't put much of my own effort in, unless you state your opinion from the get-go and make an honest debate out of it.

Estrogen may cause growth to slow or stop early in children who take large doses for a long time. Estrogen may also affect the timing and speed of sexual development in children.

And a slew of other side effects http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/drugi...de-effects

So, pretty much fuck any parent who thinks gender identity in a prepubescent child is important enough to risk the health of a six-year-old.

This is more like it. I'm not going to argue with you on that.

---

And if they could, would they want to? Because I thought they would rather have vaginas.

Hardly matters. They have penises. Penises do not belong in ladies rooms. You can see slightly through the cracks in doors. It's not all about rape or assault, nor have I even slightly made it such.

If it's not about rape or assault, then what's the problem with penises? Is this just some irrational fear of yours of penises in the ladies room?

And would they be any more threatening than natural women lesbians? A lesbian could rape too with a strap on, or even without one for that matter.

Again, we're not just talking about rape. However, if we were, I would take a lesser risk than the obvious greater risk. Not to mention the fact that, when I talked about rape, I was not talking about transgender individuals raping people. I was talking about unisex bathrooms making it not suspicious for men to follow women into bathrooms and vice versa. Are you purposely moving the goalposts?

No, I just can't see any possible reason why somebody would fear penises in the women's restroom if it wasn't for fear of rape or assault. It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever to me at all.

ETA: Now, I do not mind if transgender individuals use the bathroom so much that I would put up a stink about civilized individuals doing it without making it obvious or making some point about it. There is no harm if no one notices. There is harm if your dick is swinging while you are peeing or you are peeing with your ass to the door, which I previously mentioned a child might easily see through unwittingly.

What "harm" is this exactly?