Posts: 5466
Threads: 36
Joined: November 10, 2014
Reputation:
53
RE: Transexuals
April 27, 2016 at 10:53 am
Drich, you do realize that transsexuals aren't asking for a new law to be written that allows them to enter the bathroom of their choice, right? But rather that the NC state legislature wrote a new law prohibiting them from doing, until now, what they wanted since, well, forever? And that your points 1-4 are moot because what you think is happening isn't actually happening?
Also, as a point of order, your first link is utterly irrelevant given Canada isn't the US.
"I was thirsty for everything, but blood wasn't my style" - Live, "Voodoo Lady"
Posts: 7392
Threads: 53
Joined: January 15, 2015
Reputation:
88
RE: Transexuals
April 27, 2016 at 11:15 am
Drich: me! me! me! me!
Everyone else: You're wrong
Drich: me! me! me! me!
Everyone else: No. As we said ...
Drich: me! me! me! me!
Everyone else: What's for dinner tonight?
Drich: me! me! me! me!
Posts: 3101
Threads: 10
Joined: September 7, 2015
Reputation:
49
RE: Transexuals
April 27, 2016 at 11:51 am
Why's it always about the daughters?
Are the boys in the men's room, where the predators can already go, not in danger just as much? (Pedophiles care more about the age/innocence of the victims than they do about the gender.)
And "taking advantage of" what law? As someone already pointed out, the only laws in discussion here are ones being made against transexuals, who have never been shown to be a danger, themselves. The thin excuse that accommodating the rights of the minority will endanger us all (or the kids, man, the kiiids!) is ludicrous in the extreme, even if there are a few predators who take advantage. I just can't see any major difference between these anti-trans arguments and the Klan arguments of the 1960s, when miscegenation was no longer being outlawed, that black men would be more likely to rape "our" daughters.
If you were here, doing exactly what you're doing by citing to a few rare cases, as an argument against toleration of race-mixing, in the claim that if we let black men date white women, it would mean endangering our daughters, we'd call you a racist fuckwad. After all, allowing race-mixing DOES allow a few actual predators to operate more freely. That has nothing to do with the rights of black men and women in this country, or whether or not we should accommodate them.
But that's almost exactly what you're doing, here. You're creating a bogeyman out of straws that you must reach surprisingly far to grasp at. Just say what you mean: the Christian culture has taught you that there's something wrong with people who are transgender, and you wish to make sure things conform to your religious-cultural expectations of the world instead of recognizing their basic humanity.
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.
Posts: 23917
Threads: 300
Joined: June 25, 2011
Reputation:
150
RE: Transexuals
April 27, 2016 at 12:09 pm
(This post was last modified: April 27, 2016 at 6:56 pm by Whateverist.)
More than a 130 fucking pages on transexuals?! My gawd but some people are just obsessed with sex and bathrooms. A Drich thread I see. Ho hum, too predictable. I don't even have to read a word to know what he would be ragging on about. Dreary.
