What would it take?

Forum rules
Here, you can discuss your Politics. Post political memes and quotations, and discuss your Political beliefs. If you don't want to see Politics being discussed, please respect the rights of the people here to do so in peace. We respect that right, that's why this forum was created. Discussion should always be respectful of the people here and thier beliefs. Discussions will be respectful. We recognize that political discussions can sometimes become incendiary and we will step in from time to time if it does in order to cool things down. Posts that use terms and descriptions of others such as "Wing Nuts", "Libtards", "Rethuglicans", DemocRATS", and others of a demeaning nature will be deleted. Keep discussions on point, centered on facts, and based on the principal that two individuals can come to different conclusions based on the same information and can disagree, but discuss those disagreements in an agreeable manner. Please contribute to the discussion, not try to tear down an individual because he disagrees with you. Make you comments be on the post, and not the person posting.
User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 689
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: What would it take?

#106

Post by BillyBob66 » Sun May 29, 2016 11:01 pm

GregD wrote:
BillyBob66 wrote: I appreciate your honesty, May I ask for clarification about what in your view "disrespect human dignity." would consist of? Would requiring a teenage girl to share her after swim team shower with a male disrespect her human dignity, as well as deny her basic human rights? For me, that would do both of those things without question. It would, in fact, be very close to requiring her to politely accept a sexual assault, being forced to expose herself against her will to the opposite sex.
You. Are. Right.

There. I said it. Happy now? :oops:

My assessment of the situation doesn't count here. Hers does. If there is no better alternative the facilities can be used in shifts, for example. There could also be religious accommodation implications. Yes, certainly, absolutely, positively, unquestionably, you must of course be completely correct on this point; it could not possibly be otherwise.

I'm still voting against Trump.
Happy? I am exuberant (if your response is not sarcasm). Thank you. Not because I am right, but because I don't have to wonder about your sanity or other related things. It turns out you are apparently both sane and not all that different than most humans through most of history in regard to what most people would want for their daughter or wives, and what most of those females would want for themselves ( with varying and unusual sexual proclivities left out of that consideration for now), regardless of what the Obama admin, Justice Dept and NYC Human Rights commission and several states and cities want for these girls and women. And that you realize that their ( women/girls ) rights count also. Which of course you would.

As for voting for Trump, I will almost certainly vote for Trump. At least considering the alternatives. It is incomprehensible that I would vote for Clinton or socialist Sanders. ( although, I can't imagine that even Hillary would want her daughter forced to share her shower with whatever male popped in) However, if Trump wins, I'm pretty sure that gives me absolutely no guarantees whatsoever how he will side in this debate. If it had been Cruz, maybe, even probably, a normal persons attitude towards this craziness. But Trump? I do not know. Any one know?


Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 689
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: What would it take?

#107

Post by BillyBob66 » Sun May 29, 2016 11:23 pm

Sarge said: "The federal government . . . has now set in motion a potential Title IX collision course between its directives on sexual violence and on bathrooms. Schools attempting to comply with the federal bathroom policy have at least two possible ways of doing so: allow students to use sex-segregated bathrooms and locker rooms based on their gender identity, or move away from sex segregation of such facilities. The latter, gender-inclusive arrangement, which was in place in my college dormitory more than twenty years ago, is not uncommon on campuses, and a social movement to desegregate at least some portion of bathrooms is growing. Some colleges have made every bathroom on campus open to any gender, and this solution could well become a practical choice at K-12 public schools.

But there is also a growing sense that some females will not feel safe sharing bathrooms, shower rooms, or locker rooms with males. And if a female student claimed that a bathroom or locker room that her school had her share with male students caused her to feel sexually vulnerable and created a hostile environment, the complaint would be difficult to dismiss, particularly since the federal government has interpreted Title IX broadly and said that schools must try to prevent a hostile environment. . . .

According to the federal government, a transgender girl who is told to use the boys’ locker room, or even a separate and private stall, instead of the girls’ facility, has a claim that the school is violating Title IX. A non-transgender girl who’s told she must share a locker room with boys may also have a claim that the school is violating Title IX. But would she not have a similar claim about having to share with students who identify as girls but are biologically male?

Well, not if her discomfort and “emotional strain” should be disregarded. But this week, in a letter, dozens of members of Congress asked the Attorney General and the Secretary of Education to explain why they should be disregarded. The federal government is putting schools in a position where they may be sued whichever route they choose. . . ."

Can you believe the insanity of this s***? The enslaving crap our government is continually coming up with? And they are indeed happy to disregard her discomfort, emotional strain and even physical safety. Because there is a new favored class that must be given whatever privileges they want, at all cost. Hence the directives elsewhere that if a non-transgendered person complains, they are the one who must be sent to a different facility, if possible. Oh my goodness, what has happened to this nation?
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 513
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: What would it take?

#108

Post by GregD » Tue May 31, 2016 7:52 am

BillyBob66 wrote:But would she not have a similar claim about having to share with students who identify as girls but are biologically male?
In my view this claim is not equivalent to the claim of a transgender student for equal access, and if the two claims were in direct conflict which could not otherwise be resolved, the equal access claim should prevail. My preference is to move more rapidly toward unisex facilities to eliminate such conflicts and accommodate everyone equally. Lets fix it, not fight about it.

The traditional notion that gender is determined by body parts and chromosomes is squarely under attack here. If that is the real conflict we might all find the discussion more satisfying if we address it directly. On another thread.

Fundamentally, many of us are passionate in our support for equality for all. We should celebrate and cherish this. But there will be times when we have conflicting perspectives on how to apply this principle for a specific situation. Our passion must not make us blind to the most important fact - we are all actually on the same side. I am not without guilt here.

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 689
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: What would it take?

#109

Post by BillyBob66 » Tue May 31, 2016 12:04 pm

I just thought this was an interesting quote, FWIW:
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/177366- ... ard-knocks
Off Topic
“Men fight for liberty and win it with hard knocks. Their children, brought up easy, let it slip away again, poor fools. And their grandchildren are once more slaves.”
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 513
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: What would it take?

#110

Post by GregD » Tue May 31, 2016 12:48 pm

BillyBob66 wrote:I just thought this was an interesting quote, FWIW:
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/177366- ... ard-knocks
Off Topic
“Men fight for liberty and win it with hard knocks. Their children, brought up easy, let it slip away again, poor fools. And their grandchildren are once more slaves.”
I think that quote is pretentious self-absorbed poppycock.

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: What would it take?

#111

Post by sarge » Tue May 31, 2016 1:27 pm

GregD wrote:
BillyBob66 wrote:But would she not have a similar claim about having to share with students who identify as girls but are biologically male?
In my view this claim is not equivalent to the claim of a transgender student for equal access, and if the two claims were in direct conflict which could not otherwise be resolved, the equal access claim should prevail. My preference is to move more rapidly toward unisex facilities to eliminate such conflicts and accommodate everyone equally. Lets fix it, not fight about it.

The traditional notion that gender is determined by body parts and chromosomes is squarely under attack here. If that is the real conflict we might all find the discussion more satisfying if we address it directly. On another thread.

Fundamentally, many of us are passionate in our support for equality for all. We should celebrate and cherish this. But there will be times when we have conflicting perspectives on how to apply this principle for a specific situation. Our passion must not make us blind to the most important fact - we are all actually on the same side. I am not without guilt here.

Well, I think I'll go with Professors Volokh and Suk. When I see someone who teaches at Harvard Law give a legal opinion, I tend to give the opinon at least some credence even if I don't agree with the politics.

So far what we're getting from Democrats is

"My guess is little girls probably won't get molested, and perverts won't be trying to see them with thier clothes off."

"I disagree with the Law Professors who analyzed the way that this Dear Collegaue Letter uses Title IX."

"This issue is so important, we're going to withdraw Federal Funding from the school lunch and other Federally supported School programs if schools don't comply. It is literally so important that we need to take food from the mouths of hungry poor children to insure that it gets done."
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: What would it take?

#112

Post by sarge » Tue May 31, 2016 2:33 pm

And lets be more specific with our terminology.

"Unisex" bathrooms means then same thing as "Gender Non-Specific."

It means men can use the same bathrooms as women and little girls without restriction or challenge.

That, and not Transgenders, is what we all have a problem with.

Using that method to address the problems that three tenths of one percent of the population has is like cutting off your leg to cure a hangnail.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 513
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: What would it take?

#113

Post by GregD » Tue May 31, 2016 3:58 pm

sarge wrote:Using that method to address the problems that three tenths of one percent of the population has is like cutting off your leg to cure a hangnail.
I see no useful similarity. And while I know you don't mean that an individual deserves less consideration simply because they are unusual, I'm not sure what you do mean.

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: What would it take?

#114

Post by sarge » Tue May 31, 2016 4:12 pm

Here's a solution that works for everybody:

1. An acknowledgement that trandgendered adults have been using the bathrooms of thier choice for decades under the present system with no harm to them or others and therefore no change need be made.

2. In the incredibly few cases of teenage transgenders using Public Schools, an acknowledgement that thier peer group is going to stigmatize them whether they use a designated "transgender" bathroom or one of the opposite sex, and that the sensibilities of the persons who use those bathrooms because of thier biology and those of thier parents hold equal weight with the concerns of the transgendered, and therefore the solution that works best for everybody in that case would be to designate a separate bathroom.

But with Democrats, as with all Authoritarians, its "My way or the highway." and only their concerns are the ones that carry any weight.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: What would it take?

#115

Post by sarge » Tue May 31, 2016 4:15 pm

Of course, finding a solution that works for everybody would take the issue off the table, so a solution is not what Democrats want.

What they want is what they wanted when they passed the Jim Crow Laws of the 20s, 30s, 40s, and 50s: a means to make thier voters feel morally superior to a stigmatized group. In this case its Christian Conservatives.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 689
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: What would it take?

#116

Post by BillyBob66 » Wed Jun 01, 2016 11:21 am

GregD wrote:
BillyBob66 wrote:I just thought this was an interesting quote, FWIW:
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/177366- ... ard-knocks
Off Topic
“Men fight for liberty and win it with hard knocks. Their children, brought up easy, let it slip away again, poor fools. And their grandchildren are once more slaves.”
I think that quote is pretentious self-absorbed poppycock.
I guess that points out yet again the rather vast difference between us.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 689
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: What would it take?

#117

Post by BillyBob66 » Wed Jun 01, 2016 11:41 am

sarge wrote: So far what we're getting from Democrats is

"My guess is little girls probably won't get molested, and perverts won't be trying to see them with thier clothes off."

"I disagree with the Law Professors who analyzed the way that this Dear Collegaue Letter uses Title IX."

"This issue is so important, we're going to withdraw Federal Funding from the school lunch and other Federally supported School programs if schools don't comply. It is literally so important that we need to take food from the mouths of hungry poor children to insure that it gets done.".......................................................................................................................................................
Sarges next post:
Here's a solution that works for everybody:

1. An acknowledgement that trandgendered adults have been using the bathrooms of thier choice for decades under the present system with no harm to them or others and therefore no change need be made.

2. In the incredibly few cases of teenage transgenders using Public Schools, an acknowledgement that thier peer group is going to stigmatize them whether they use a designated "transgender" bathroom or one of the opposite sex, and that the sensibilities of the persons who use those bathrooms because of thier biology and those of thier parents hold equal weight with the concerns of the transgendered, and therefore the solution that works best for everybody in that case would be to designate a separate bathroom.

But with Democrats, as with all Authoritarians, its "My way or the highway." and only their concerns are the ones that carry any weight.
I was going to say: "hence" and add a quote here that equates liberalism with mental illness, using the above quotes describing the craziness as more evidence, but I'm not sure if that would be perceived as a lack of civility? In fact, does even this previous sentence describing what I planned to do, is that uncivil? If so, please just delete or edit as needed.

However, the above quotes from Sarge are IMO a very accurate description of the current situation, and are indeed IMO at the very least evidence of some serious problems with either logic by the liberals or if not that then lack of concerns with the needs of the many by the other side. I am trying to avoid being uncivil, but logically if they insist on their new transgender laws- which allow any one into any private area they desire to go regardless of which biological sex they are, can it still be said that they give a dang about the needs of all those little girls and young women? Or that they even give a dang about the needs of children for federally funded school lunches and other programs? IMO opinion it is totally illogical that they care about those things, and it is very obvious what they do care about. They care only about the tiny minority, plus their desire to rule over their slaves( the majority made up of more traditional Americans) with an iron hand.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 689
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: What would it take?

#118

Post by BillyBob66 » Wed Jun 01, 2016 12:00 pm

BillyBob66 wrote:
GregD wrote:
BillyBob66 wrote:I just thought this was an interesting quote, FWIW:
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/177366- ... ard-knocks
Off Topic
“Men fight for liberty and win it with hard knocks. Their children, brought up easy, let it slip away again, poor fools. And their grandchildren are once more slaves.”
I think that quote is pretentious self-absorbed poppycock.
I guess that points out yet again the rather vast difference between us.
Greg, I think I asked you a question earlier and I am not sure you ever replied to that specifically. Though it may have been covered in general with another response of yours saying I was right about the right of girls to not be joined by boys in a public shower. But I was never certain whether or not that was just sarcasm. And if it was sincere, I was not sure if that included the question I asked you earlier, so I will ask again.

You are, as far as I know, the main most man of science here( unless you self identify as the main most woman of science here, in which case pardon me ). Not that I ( and probably others ) don't have a fair amount of scientific education ( for me, the field of anesthesia ), I think you are probably the one with the most advanced pure scientific degrees and maybe work experience. And you often argue in other threads against anything the majority of scientists do not accept, like say creation by God, which you vigorously reject in favor of evolution. That sort of thing. So here is the question again:

As a scientist, do you accept the idea that if we take a male born with XY chromosomes and what has always been called by science male organs, and we inject that person with estrogen and or inject with testosterone blocking agents, cut off some organs and implant some plastic to make it look like that man is more feminine than he was born, do you say - scientifically speaking - that man is now a woman?

And if he is a woman after doing those things, what do you say about men who have been accidentally mutilated in the area of their sex organs? Do they then become women? Especially if they later get prostate cancer and require the administration of testosterone blocking drugs and or even castration if they had not already been castrated by accident? Do these men become women, scientifically speaking?

Or, scientifically speaking again, do you feel that rather there is no scientific way to differentiate between a male and female at birth or even after sexual maturity, but all that matters is what is in their head? All that matters is: if they say they are a woman, then by golly they are a woman?

I'd just like to know your opinion on what actual science has to say about these things?
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 513
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: What would it take?

#119

Post by GregD » Wed Jun 01, 2016 3:26 pm

BillyBob66 wrote: Greg, I think I asked you a question earlier and I am not sure you ever replied to that specifically.

...

Or, scientifically speaking again, do you feel that rather there is no scientific way to differentiate between a male and female at birth or even after sexual maturity, but all that matters is what is in their head? All that matters is: if they say they are a woman, then by golly they are a woman?

I'd just like to know your opinion on what actual science has to say about these things?
My understanding of the science is that one's physiology is sometimes different from one's self image, but I don't really "know" anything I'm just repeating what I've heard.

You are using terms (man, woman) that have context dependent meanings. In some contexts, physiology is important and feelings are not. In other contexts, feelings are important and physiology is not.

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 689
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: What would it take?

#120

Post by BillyBob66 » Wed Jun 01, 2016 4:33 pm

GregD wrote:
BillyBob66 wrote: Greg, I think I asked you a question earlier and I am not sure you ever replied to that specifically.

...

Or, scientifically speaking again, do you feel that rather there is no scientific way to differentiate between a male and female at birth or even after sexual maturity, but all that matters is what is in their head? All that matters is: if they say they are a woman, then by golly they are a woman?

I'd just like to know your opinion on what actual science has to say about these things?
My understanding of the science is that one's physiology is sometimes different from one's self image, but I don't really "know" anything I'm just repeating what I've heard.

You are using terms (man, woman) that have context dependent meanings. In some contexts, physiology is important and feelings are not. In other contexts, feelings are important and physiology is not.
It seems you do not want to answer, which I suppose is why you did not do so when I first asked. It really is a simple question about scientific facts more than it is about feelings. Clearly sometimes one's physiology is different from one's self image. But I was only asking you the scientific facts regarding if a man, born with XY and male body parts( those parts as defined by science through human history until maybe the last few years) becomes a female once we inject him and surgically alter him, or even if we don't do that but he feels he is a woman.

Is a surgically altered/injected man a woman, scientifically speaking? Now I bet if we were discussing evolution or creation you would tell me something like "there are no feelings in science, and no faith, only the facts.". Right? Science ( your realm ) is voltage/resistance= current, for example. For most of human history, and scientifically speaking, the terms man and woman have not had context determining their meaning. But in case they have, reconsider all of my questions using the terms male and female.

Can one born genetically XY and with male organs be changed into a female by injections of female hormones, blocking of male hormones, cutting off a body part and installing other silicon body parts? Is that male now a female, scientifically speaking? Yes or no?

If yes, if some of this happens accidentally to a male, and/or he is castrated and/or given female hormones and/or male hormones blocked, is that male now a female from the scientific view point? What does the scientist in you say, Yes or no?

And finally, getting back to feelings before having done any of the above, is a physiological male( by medical science definitions which have stood for hundreds of years) changed into a physiological female if he thinks he is a female, or if he wants to be a female? Would that be what you guys call magical thinking?

EDIT: Or, maybe it really is that you feel there is no scientific means of knowing if one is a male or female?
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

Post Reply

Return to “Politics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest