Bathroom controversy

It's a very difficult issue.
Someone will be hurt and offended regardless of which way society goes forward.

The issue is that we are a society of norma and expectations. Its not to much to ask for the very small minority to be willing to not force the 99% into acceptance of every detail of their lives.

Equality in the realm of livelihood, government protection, housing etc. Are no brainers. Treating people with kindness even while disagreeing is a non starter.

But cracking open doors that allow anatomical men to play women's sports and use womens showers is a line that we as a society have long been against.

The furthest left among us will make outrageous claims that people who are against such things want to push people into shadows or make them cease to exist.
Nope. We just think its stupid to allow them to take womens spots (that women worked very hard for) on the playing field and even more stupid to defend the idea of an anatomical man being allowed anywhere that women are changing or they may be changing themselves.

The equal treatment cries are hollow. Their is no equality in a world where women may be forced to be in that locker room with a male. That's backward. That isnt progress.

 

This would be a problem in the "biology" standard too. Masculine looking cis women and trans men with muscles and beards are going to be harassed by bathroom Karens because they don't look the part, even though they were born with the 'right' equipment.

 

@gator_lawyer, you clicked disagree from your island, so let me ask you bluntly.
Do you think IF a male takes his junk out in front of women that I owe him the courtesy of being careful with his gender request?

They are still worthy of me caring about their feelings on the matter even though they obviously dont care about the feelings of the gender they are claiming to be?

 

And people are still going to speed even with speed limits so lets just get rid of those too.

That's not a good reason to allow something.

 

The reason you hate this issue is because it's an attempt to normalize and rationalize mental illness and in many cases, perversion.

 

I clicked dislike because you continue to misgender the person here on the basis that she did something you can't confirm she actually did.

 

Including federal judges. SMH.

 

So I guess, its not about the comfort and safety of all women then. If they are made uncomfortable by a 'woman' with muscles and a beard or one dressed in mens clothing that looks like a man, oh well. You arent any different then the people you criticize in that regard.

 

What does it mean to "look like a man?"

Why do you associate "beards" and "muscles" with "looking like a man?"

 

I said IF.
...And you didnt answer the question.

 

Why? That doesn't matter to you, its just about a penis for you.

 

They are so caught up in trying to look progressive that they haven't even really thought about what any of it means lol.

It's comical and they think anyone that doesnt see everything just as they do is evil.

 

1. You've misgendered her multiple times in this thread.
2. The answer to the question is while I'd criticize that person for a lack of courtesy, I'd still employ the Golden Rule.

 

Can you confirm she hits the phone?
Even the news reporter says "appears to". You never see her hand hit the phone.

Can you confirm the woman said any of the things that she is accused of?

No. Its a drama seeker doing what they do.

 

Like I said, find any reporting from a credible source that Mangual exposed her genitals to Rivera. I was unable to locate any.

 

No, I’m not going to go that far. Yes, in some cases,probably many, there is a mental illness component. But I think we should treat such people with compassion, to the extent they aren’t destructive or violent. I don’t think perversion is a major component. Of the cases I’ve anecdotally known about it was never about that.

 

Oh good!....The Golden Rule. Since those are the words of Jesus can I assume you will use his pov for all things in your life going forward or just the ones that you can commandeer to fit your case?

Might want to get familiar with Jesus words in Matthew 19:4-8

 

Did you watch the video? Suing for trauma? Good lord, we all have eyes and can make assumptions.

I never said she exposed her genitals. I said IF IF IF.

Heres an idea. If you have male genitalia, use a male shower.

 

You are saying "IF" to justify something you actually did. So if the person did that, you would feel justified to misgender her. But you actually did it without discovering IF she actually did the thing that allows you to morally justify that, according to you.

 

You intentionally misgendered her and then later said it is okay to misgender trans women who pull their penises out in women's locker rooms. Am I not supposed to connect the dots?

I didn't realize that a person had to be a Christian to believe you should treat others the way you'd like to be treated. I guess in Republican Jesus's world that must make sense.