NC Gov on the wrong side of history......

[The Grand Nudger]

Because calling your audience names leads to them changing the channel, rather than signing a check?

[vorlon13]

With God all things are supposedly possible.

Cleaning up the whorish abominators INSIDE THEIR OWN FUCKING MOVEMENT otta be a piece of cake. No?

If'n it ain't, what chance has God got with the hardcore sinning atheist scum here ??

[vorlon13]

You know, I don't want to overload or unnecessarily tax God's capabilities, but Jesus Fucking Christ Christians:

your movement is perniciously ROTTING from the inside out !!

Do something !!!! PRAY HARDER !!!!!!!! BESEECH the LORD !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GET GOD OFF HIS FUCKING ASS AND PUT HIM TO WORK CLEANING UP YOUR SHIT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Jackalope]

@vorlon - it occurs to me that nonexistence is a decided disadvantage in the getting-shit-done department. Go figure.

[vorlon13]

GASP !!

The Christers might have to clean up their own poo !?!?!?!

OMFG  . . .



er,



um . . .




OMFG !!!!

[Brian37]

This story is billions of times more likely to happen than a stranger molesting or assaulting a kid or women in a high traffic bathroom. This kid fortunately was found safe, but this kidnapping did not happen in a bathroom, and it was her uncle.

http://www.johnsoncitypress.com/News/201...alert&lp=1

[I_am_not_mafia]

This thread should be merged in with Drich's thread, posts are just being repeated. But rather write out each argument again, I'm just going to quote them.

There is no existing problem as exemplified by history and other countries:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-42551-po...pid1248850

Transgendered people have been around since there have been humans. They have been trying to live their lives the best way they can. Only in the last few years have they started to be accepted, at least in modern day society. And this acceptance and acknowledgement from the larger population has brought the ire of the bigots and Christian far right who are running out of targets.

Well, in America that is, not in all of the rest of the world. Definitely not in northern Europe. And this is an important point to consider. If it was a problem with the transgendered population, then you would hear of this happening in other countries where trans people can use the toilets (bathrooms) of their desired gender and have been given rights and protection in law. Instead there have been great strides made where trans people can change their birth certificates to reflect their new status and get married as such.

Think about this. A male to female transsexual from the UK say, could move to North Carolina and use the woman's bathrooms and even get married to a straight American man and no one would be able to do anything about it because and they wouldn't even realise. Their birth certificate and passport would both have Female written on it.

So don't worry about what might happen without looking at other countries to see whether it actually does.

It doesn't.

[I_am_not_mafia]

You can't base toilet access on someone's surgical status:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-42551-po...pid1250526

No one is suggesting that a pre-operative male to female transsexual who has not yet started transitioning and therefore has a completely male body should use the female facilities.

But those aren't the ones who are in danger. It is precisely the ones like Caitlin Jenner who are otherwise completely female but have not had the final surgery which you seem to be advocating should use the male toilets. You have on many occasions now said that the line should be a 'sex change' despite the fact that there is a period of at least a year, more likely many years, in which pre-operative transsexuals have to live passing as women but without the final operation.

Not that the recently passed bills specify gender reassignment surgery. They demand that post operative transsexuals who have spent the majority of their lives successfully living in their chosen gender to use the toilets for the gender that they were born as.

[Rhondazvous]

Transgender includes everyone who identifies with a different gender to the one assigned at birth, so yes it includes people who have not had SRS. "Transsexual" is sometimes used to describe people who have already had SRS, but "transgender" still applies to them.

However, you can't necessarily tell who has had SRS or not just by looking at them. Most of the secondary sex characterstic (breasts and hips in transwomen, facial and body hair in transmen) are brought on by hormone treatments, not SRS. You can have transgender people who look VERY passable (physically look like the gender they identify as perfectly) who still have their birth genitals.

That's why the "birth genitals" argument for bathroom segregation gets fuzzy and doesn't make sense. You can have transgender men who, with clothes on, you'd never guess wasn't born a man, but still has a vagina. Same for transwomen. Laws like this are suggesting those people should still be made to go into the bathroom based on their genitals, you'd literally have a straight-up woman (from outside appearance anyway) going into mens' bathrooms, and vice versa.

That was a clear and intelligent explanation. Thanks.

It's all quite disingenuous. If they're really concerned about protecting children. why not keep catholic priests out of the bathroom?

I remember when my uncle was in high school, he didn't want to join the football team because he felt uncomfortable undressing in front of guys. I'm glad science has come a long way in helping us understand this mind/body disconnect. But as long as there are theists there will be idiots.

[Neo-Scholastic]

It seems to me that the issue is independent of any theism/atheism divide; but rather whether one believes that some words, like "sex" do or do not refer to objective facts and whether or not some human traits are normative. I was always led to understand that sex and gender identity were two separate things, although not always in alignment. Either being in alignment is normative or it isn't.

Many people have arthritis, but having arthritis is not normative in the same sense that variety skin pigmentation is. If it is not normative, then gender dysphoria would seem to fall under the purview of the Americans with Disabilities act under which would require public and some private organizations to make reasonable accommodations. I could buy into that. What I find problematic is that activists are making the assertion that gender dysphoria is just a one place on the spectrum of normative human traits while at the same time discussing health implications and suggested treatments.