RE: Colorado parents of transgender 1st-grader file complaint over restroom ban
March 4, 2013 at 9:35 pm
(This post was last modified: March 4, 2013 at 9:45 pm by Shell B.)
TEGH, not necessarily harmful. As in, it is not always going to be harmful. That is not a necessary result of the experience. I'm a cunt hair away from comparing the "okay, let's go ahead and sexualize children in the name of freedom" mentality here with the "children can have sex if they want to" mentality I see elsewhere. It really all comes down to whether you think it is okay for rooms where children take their clothes off to be co-ed. If you think that is okay, that is your opinion. I might point out that you have failed to demonstrate why it is okay, but I'm unlikely to get anywhere with you. *please prove me wrong*
It is impossible to carry on this conversation. Qualifiers are not there for decoration. The cherry picking I see here, along with treating off-hand comments that were actually directed to a side conversation and were not arguments for the question at hand, make it clear that we're not going to have an adult conversation. Context, vocabulary and proper usage are all parts of language. You cannot communicate well without them. I am trying very hard to convey points to you, but you are ripping little bits out of context and ignoring points. If you want to make it really simple, we can go one point at a time, properly labeling premises as premises and highlighting words that might get left out and lead to confusion, such as qualifiers. Oh, who am I kidding? No one actually wants to listen to opposing arguments here, do they?
Wrong, Lilly. It is obvious by everything about both rooms that it has to do with genitals. If it were about "gender," this would not be an issue at all. The girl would be able to use the girl's room. If said girl had no penis, there would be no distinction. It is clearly an issue of penis. How that is out of grasp here is beyond me. I cannot help anyone to understand the form and function of male and female specific bathrooms if the goal here is only to pretend they are completely arbitrary (while then saying it has to do with muscles an aggression. Bully for consistency). Oh, and we cannot brush off other definitions, but be biting sticklers for the proper use of the word gender. We're either throwing the dictionary out of the window or keeping it. Doing both is going to render me absolutely unable to communicate, as I prefer to use my imagination figuring out what the other person is saying, not how they are defining the words they are using.
Whateverist, of course I'm not mad. I find a lot of this silly and time consuming, but I'm not angry. I'm also not going to mud wrestle. I don't mean to be a bitch, but every fucking time two women debate on this forum, a guy comes in and says something about mud wrestling. Is it a little dismissive of two women possibly having opposing points without being idiotic and physical about or is that just me? I just never see women being so weird about men debating. It always comes down to mud wrestling. I'm going to start saying, "Oh, you two. Kiss, make up and have butt sex." Yep. My new favorite thing. I'm off to suggest butt sex. Laters.
Why would I retract it? Saying that a men's room is made for people with penises is not defining a bathroom. It is stating the fucking obvious. Man=penis, Woman=vagina. Would you not argue that your proper genitalia would be a vagina and you are rather consumed by that notion? Well, if you want to retract your belief that you should have a vagina because you are a woman, we can go back and redefine what makes a lady a lady and then redefine what makes it a ladies room. If you want to say I was appealing to the definition of boy and the definition of girl, you can go right ahead and say that. I was. I was not appealing to the gender specific definition of the restroom, but rather describing its function and using that in my argument. Now, you can also go right ahead and tell me what is unsound about an argument that appeals to a definition, because if we are not claiming the argument is unsound, then we are off on a goose chase . . . again. What is the point of saying it is an appeal to this or that if you cannot say why that is wrong or correct? It's just another waste of time.
It is impossible to carry on this conversation. Qualifiers are not there for decoration. The cherry picking I see here, along with treating off-hand comments that were actually directed to a side conversation and were not arguments for the question at hand, make it clear that we're not going to have an adult conversation. Context, vocabulary and proper usage are all parts of language. You cannot communicate well without them. I am trying very hard to convey points to you, but you are ripping little bits out of context and ignoring points. If you want to make it really simple, we can go one point at a time, properly labeling premises as premises and highlighting words that might get left out and lead to confusion, such as qualifiers. Oh, who am I kidding? No one actually wants to listen to opposing arguments here, do they?
Wrong, Lilly. It is obvious by everything about both rooms that it has to do with genitals. If it were about "gender," this would not be an issue at all. The girl would be able to use the girl's room. If said girl had no penis, there would be no distinction. It is clearly an issue of penis. How that is out of grasp here is beyond me. I cannot help anyone to understand the form and function of male and female specific bathrooms if the goal here is only to pretend they are completely arbitrary (while then saying it has to do with muscles an aggression. Bully for consistency). Oh, and we cannot brush off other definitions, but be biting sticklers for the proper use of the word gender. We're either throwing the dictionary out of the window or keeping it. Doing both is going to render me absolutely unable to communicate, as I prefer to use my imagination figuring out what the other person is saying, not how they are defining the words they are using.
Whateverist, of course I'm not mad. I find a lot of this silly and time consuming, but I'm not angry. I'm also not going to mud wrestle. I don't mean to be a bitch, but every fucking time two women debate on this forum, a guy comes in and says something about mud wrestling. Is it a little dismissive of two women possibly having opposing points without being idiotic and physical about or is that just me? I just never see women being so weird about men debating. It always comes down to mud wrestling. I'm going to start saying, "Oh, you two. Kiss, make up and have butt sex." Yep. My new favorite thing. I'm off to suggest butt sex. Laters.
(March 4, 2013 at 9:16 pm)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote: You did, yes... 'boy's room = penis, girl's room = vagina'... a statement you DID make, which IS a definitive statement for boy's room and girl's room.... one which has been repeatedly shown to be unsound (transsexuals, intersex individuals, drag queens, gay men not wanting to get beaten to a pulp).
Unless you'd like to retract that statement, or edit it under the evidence stacked against it's truth (say, with 'penis is part of the consideration as to who goes to which room' <--- a much more reasonable alternative to your blanket)... this conversation isn't going to go any further than that of theists asserting an unevidenced claim until people just start to ignore it.
Why would I retract it? Saying that a men's room is made for people with penises is not defining a bathroom. It is stating the fucking obvious. Man=penis, Woman=vagina. Would you not argue that your proper genitalia would be a vagina and you are rather consumed by that notion? Well, if you want to retract your belief that you should have a vagina because you are a woman, we can go back and redefine what makes a lady a lady and then redefine what makes it a ladies room. If you want to say I was appealing to the definition of boy and the definition of girl, you can go right ahead and say that. I was. I was not appealing to the gender specific definition of the restroom, but rather describing its function and using that in my argument. Now, you can also go right ahead and tell me what is unsound about an argument that appeals to a definition, because if we are not claiming the argument is unsound, then we are off on a goose chase . . . again. What is the point of saying it is an appeal to this or that if you cannot say why that is wrong or correct? It's just another waste of time.
