NationStates

Northern Freikur wrote:

Grenartia wrote:
1. Who gives a fuck about the safety of trans people, amirite?

2. Reality has a well-known liberal bias, as we all know. So really, the schools are quite centrist when it comes to reality.



1. Read. My. Sig. Then as yourself why I, of all people, would call for something which oppresses people outside the gender binary.

2. What I said was meant as a guideline to distinguish between legitimate identities and transphobic "jokes" like the attack helicopter meme.

3. So, you'd be perfectly fine with this guy in a women's locker room? After all, he was born with a vagina (and most transmen don't opt for bottom surgery due to its inadequacies), so he obviously belongs with fellow vagina owners.



4. Gender isn't biological, its psychological.



Good luck convincing your fellow conservatives to spend tax money on a 3rd restroom in every public building.



1. And? This generation is capable of the same thing.

2. Non sequitur.

3. Fallacy of relative privation.

4. So you have no problem with us being beaten, raped, and/or killed? To say nothing of the fact that you want men in a women's locker room, all the while, screaming and hollering against transwomen in the same room? You make no sense whatsoever.

Allow me to say that you all keep committing Strawman Fallacies.

I never have supported locker room idea.

I'm done with this. People keep misinterpreting my posts, and I see that the only way to preserve common sense, is to drive a rift between it and leftism.

Ok, Now I'm off...

Neutraligon wrote:

Northern Freikur wrote:
Crime extends beyond race my friend. I'm not saying that-

Aw never mind, Someone is going to just strawman my argument again...

You have claimed that the choice of restroom should be based on plumbing. We are trying to get you to justify that. We are comparing gender to sex as they are very similar situations. No one claimed that crime does not "extend beyond race." Your argument in this particular case was that nothing should be done about transgender people being raped or assaulted due to their restroom choice because people will be raped and assaulted anyway, or at least that is how your argument sounded.

Wallenburg wrote:That is a terrible argument if that's the one you want to use. Hell, I ended up in the women's bathroom once purely by accident. Zero rapes.

And Des-Bal was not making that argument...Des-Bal was claiming someone else was basically making that claim, which ironically enough, I do not think that person was actually making. I think Des-Bal was misinterpreting what The Void was saying.

Neutraligon wrote:

Noraika wrote:The problem with that is you had no argument to strawman really. You just essentially just made your claims and just ran off as a "take my word for it ,despite the fact you offered no facts or support for your claims. That being said, despite all evidence going against you, I spider we ought to simply take your word over well established facts eh?

??? How does one spider?

Des-Bal wrote:

The V O I D wrote:
No, there are also women sexual assault convicts out there. They would also likely try to rape FtM transgenders who had the transition and walked into the ladies' room with a penis because we forced them. That's why they should either use the bathroom of their identity in any case, especially when transition is done, or all bathrooms should be made unisex.

So our goal should be to separate the penises and vaginas? Because from what you're saying right now you just can't get them near each other without it being a rape fest.

The V O I D wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:
You have claimed that the choice of restroom should be based on plumbing. We are trying to get you to justify that. We are comparing gender to sex as they are very similar situations. No one claimed that crime does not "extend beyond race." Your argument in this particular case was that nothing should be done about transgender people being raped or assaulted due to their restroom choice because people will be raped and assaulted anyway, or at least that is how your argument sounded.



And Des-Bal was not making that argument...Des-Bal was claiming someone else was basically making that claim, which ironically enough, I do not think that person was actually making. I think Des-Bal was misinterpreting what The Void was saying.

To be fair, people have told me I tend to be unclear at times. I prefer Void, by the way, or just 'V' sometimes. Depends on my mood, really.

Anyways, yeah. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough for Des-Bal to understand me... not sure how to clarify, though.

Noraika wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:
??? How does one spider?

I'm out on my mobile right now. Needless to say, I don't use it much for forum posts.

Neutraligon wrote:

The V O I D wrote:
To be fair, people have told me I tend to be unclear at times. I prefer Void, by the way, or just 'V' sometimes. Depends on my mood, really.

Anyways, yeah. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough for Des-Bal to understand me... not sure how to clarify, though.

Works for me. I can go back and see if I can get the correct interpretation. I mean I think you hold a similar viewpoint as me, which is that unisex restrooms are better for safety reasons regardless of where in the transition someone is (or even regardless of if they are trans since more traffic would help reduce things like assault). If unisex restroom are not a possibility then laws protecting the right for trans people to use the restroom of their choice is an OK alternative, a means of protecting trans individuals from assault as well as helping to ensure their mental health.

Northern Freikur wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:
Considering trans people have been assaulted and severely beaten or killed for their restroom choice, you are wrong about it being a first world problem. Second and they had it worse is not a good reason to ignore civil rights issues. Finally, when we desegregated based on race the white majority did not want that. How is desegregating based on gender/sex any different?

If the majority doesn't want it, It doesn't happen. That is how Democracy works.

Don't compare Gender to Race. If I tried to Identify as anything but White, I'd be lynched.

Neutraligon wrote:

Umm, that is not the argument I am hearing at all. That particular response was talking about how women are not the only one in danger of being raped (for some reason people tend to focus on mtf in the restroom). No one said the threat only existed after they transitioned. I think you are reading stuff into these posts that do not exist.

Des-Bal wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:

Umm, that is not the argument I am hearing at all. That particular response was talking about how women are not the only one in danger of being raped (for some reason people tend to focus on mtf in the restroom). No one said the threat only existed after they transitioned. I think you are reading stuff into these posts that do not exist.

The argument was that if a fully transitioned female to male transsexual walked into the women's room "with a penis" They would be raped by "women sexual convicts." By that logic a male to female transsexual who currently has a penis would need to fear rape at the hands of those same "women sexual convicts." Logically switching the rooms they use is just changing whether it's the transitioned or untransitioned parties being raped.

Neutraligon wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:That is a terrible argument if that's the one you want to use. Hell, I ended up in the women's bathroom once purely by accident. Zero rapes.

And Des-Bal was not making that argument...Des-Bal was claiming someone else was basically making that claim, which ironically enough, I do not think that person was actually making. I think Des-Bal was misinterpreting what The Void was saying.

Neutraligon wrote:
Void seems to have pretty much agreed with me on my interpretation. In this case I believe they were pointing out that woman can and do rape, something many people ignore when it comes to the trans debate, and that ftm are who have already transitioned are in danger when forced to go into the women's room from female rapists who rape men as mtf who are forced to use the men's room from male rapists who rape women. The state of transition matters only in so far as whom the person who is raping them tends to rape.

Des-Bal wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:
Void seems to have pretty much agreed with me on my interpretation. In this case I believe they were pointing out that woman can and do rape, something many people ignore when it comes to the trans debate, and that ftm are who have already transitioned are in danger when forced to go into the women's room from female rapists who rape men as mtf who are forced to use the men's room from male rapists who rape women. The state of transition matters only in so far as whom the person who is raping them tends to rape.

So the entire argument comes down to the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual rapists with the added factor of whether or not they determine victims based on gender identity or genital configuration?

Neutraligon wrote:I still am trying to understand how this bill would work considering the number of females who use the men's room when the line to the women's room is too long.

The Rich Port wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:I still am trying to understand how this bill would work considering the number of females who use the men's room when the line to the women's room is too long.

It would not work. /thread

I believe that the logistical nightmare caused by any attempts to enforce this law has been plenty discussed.

Neutraligon wrote:

The Rich Port wrote:
It would not work. /thread

I believe that the logistical nightmare caused by any attempts to enforce this law has been plenty discussed.

It just seems to me the law makers didn't think when they made this bill.

Neutraligon wrote:
No, the argument was the unisex restrooms are better for people in general, but barring that allowing trans people to choose their restroom (which would most likely be the restroom of their gender presentation) would be best as far as safety was concerned for trans people. Considering that the assaults and the such are based on gender presentation rather than sex or gender if restrictions must be in place (no idea why) then gender presentation may be the best way to segregate toilets as far as trans safety is concerned.

Des-Bal wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:
No, the argument was the unisex restrooms are better for people in general, but barring that allowing trans people to choose their restroom (which would most likely be the restroom of their gender presentation) would be best as far as safety was concerned for trans people. Considering that the assaults and the such are based on gender presentation rather than sex or gender if restrictions must be in place (no idea why) then gender presentation may be the best way to segregate toilets as far as trans safety is concerned.

2. So rapists are not at all interested in the genitals of their victims?

Des-Bal wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:
No, the argument was the unisex restrooms are better for people in general, but barring that allowing trans people to choose their restroom (which would most likely be the restroom of their gender presentation) would be best as far as safety was concerned for trans people. Considering that the assaults and the such are based on gender presentation rather than sex or gender if restrictions must be in place (no idea why) then gender presentation may be the best way to segregate toilets as far as trans safety is concerned.

1. If safety is an issue why does that issue disappear when we have unisex restrooms. By the logic you are presenting it just opens a larger class of people up for rape.
2. So rapists are not at all interested in the genitals of their victims?

The Rich Port wrote:Well... No.

Rape is rarely about sexual lust.

It is about anger and domination.

Though I suppose it would have minor impacts on someone who would rape's train of logic, no, it sometimes doesn't matter at all.

A good example is prison rape.

Des-Bal wrote:

The Rich Port wrote:Well... No.

Rape is rarely about sexual lust.

It is about anger and domination.

Though I suppose it would have minor impacts on someone who would rape's train of logic, no, it sometimes doesn't matter at all.

A good example is prison rape.

Prison rape is a great example of rape that doesn't involve gender presentation which torpedoes the whole fucking thing. At this point we're just talking about bathroom rapists on the prowl for warm bodies and it's turning me off the idea of bathrooms altogether.

Wallenburg wrote:1. And you also open up a larger class of people to come in and stop it. Twice as much traffic,
2. Oftentimes, no. That's why you have heterosexual men who rape other men.

Wallenburg wrote:WE NEED TO BAN BATHROOMS! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

Northern Freikur wrote:

The V O I D wrote:
Not how it works. A woman is a woman when she identifies as such. A man is a man when he identifies as such. The transition surgery isn't always perfect or done well, not everyone can afford it, and sometimes changing birth records takes a long time. So, bathroom signs shouldn't matter; we should have unisex bathrooms, but if we're going to keep it segregated, let people who identify as women use the correct bathroom - the women's room - and let people who identify as men do the same.

So you say that I can "identify" as a Woman at any time, for any reason, and then identify as "Man" again? I'm going to steal the regressive liberal "Get Educated" term. If you need to look up the definition of "man" and "woman", there is the Internet, and there are dictionaries.

I will also bring up my AH64 argument.