RE: Colorado parents of transgender 1st-grader file complaint over restroom ban
March 4, 2013 at 8:26 pm
(This post was last modified: March 4, 2013 at 8:32 pm by Shell B.)
I can't speak for everyone with a vagina, Lills. I have only ever spoken for myself here. I'm pretty sure that is clear in what I write. Repurposing things is wonderful. It doesn't change that tampons are for vaginas.
Whateverist, my argument does not depend whatsoever on the convenience of said rooms. I only stated that they are made with that in mind. They are not determined by clothing, but by genitals. Why this is still being argued is beyond me.
TEGH, a little girl seeing a penis before it is intended is not necessarily harmful, nor did I state that it is. Most parents would prefer not and I think I defer to them in cases of children being shown genitals.
How is that similar? Did I define the bathrooms? I'm not appealing to definition. I'm appealing to function, which has not been shown to be illogical. Furthermore, fallacy or not, you have failed to show me how that is unsound. People are always forgetting that a fallacious argument can still be a sound argument, though they typically are not. Helps if you can spot a fallacious argument, regardless.
Whateverist, my argument does not depend whatsoever on the convenience of said rooms. I only stated that they are made with that in mind. They are not determined by clothing, but by genitals. Why this is still being argued is beyond me.
TEGH, a little girl seeing a penis before it is intended is not necessarily harmful, nor did I state that it is. Most parents would prefer not and I think I defer to them in cases of children being shown genitals.
(March 4, 2013 at 7:56 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: Now the appeal to definition fallacy is as follows (taken from logicallyfallacious.com):
Quote:The dictionary definition of X does not mention Y.
Therefore Y must not be part of X.
Your argument is similar:
The men's restroom was designed with penises in mind. The women's room was designed with vaginas in mind. Therefore, humans with penises should not use women's and vice versa.
How is that similar? Did I define the bathrooms? I'm not appealing to definition. I'm appealing to function, which has not been shown to be illogical. Furthermore, fallacy or not, you have failed to show me how that is unsound. People are always forgetting that a fallacious argument can still be a sound argument, though they typically are not. Helps if you can spot a fallacious argument, regardless.
