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

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

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.

---

Now the appeal to definition fallacy is as follows (taken from logicallyfallacious.com):


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.

A sound argument is one in which the premises are true and the inference is correct. Your implicit premise about function (that intended function is authoritative in all cases) is not supported and needs to be backed with more arguments. We use things outside of their intended function all the time because the designers could not possibly every situation in which alternative uses of their design might work well. Just the other day I used a laundry hamper tied to a rolling language carrier as a case to move a piano keyboard. Of course those two things weren't intended to serve that function but why should that stop me? It worked better than me carrying it with my hands.

What you need to do is support your assertion that intended function should be always followed.

---

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*

Why must I prove it is ok? There's nothing obviously wrong with it to me and there's been no evidence as far as I'm aware to suggest it is harmful. For practicle purposes, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary I have to assume it's okay. Maybe there are negative side effects but I can't know that. Maybe red colors are harmful too but I don't know that they are or have reason to suspect so I'm going to continue to wear red.

---

Most parents would prefer not and I think I defer to them in cases of children being shown genitals.

So? I'm sure a lot of parents were upset about the desegregation of schools too.