No, like I said, I have no problem with her using the female bathroom, obviously her using the male bathroom would cause a lot of problems
Bolding mine. This doesn’t quite square with your last post.
Language evolves.
First, what is the “science” preventing discrimination against Methodists? Or Episcopalians? Present your citations.
Second, you prima facie know nothing about transgender issues, which begs the question of why you feel like pontificating on them.
Third, I’ve summarized strong evidence that transgender men and women have intersex brain structure and function differences from XX and XY persons. This is well-known in medical science.
Fourth, you ignore intersex persons such as myself, meaning once again you really don’t know anything of what you’re speaking.
Fifth, there are no “special privileges” involved in being given the right to use a public restroom. It sounds just like when white supremacists described giving African Americans the right to vote a “special privilege.”
Nice try yourself.
It’s a shame that medical and psychological science disagrees with you. Keep reaching for that rainbow.
Wow, you aren’t even trying.
This problem can be solved by simply not giving a damn where somebody pees. Poof! Gone!
I’m not sure I follow. I’ve seen “German” and “Canadian” and et cetera used as both nouns and adjectives – and, I thought, accurately, in both cases. Do you ever refer to “Blacks” and “Whites” and so on, even though they’re obviously Adjective People?
If folks mention “the rich” and “the poor”, do you step in to object? How about back when “gays in the military” was the topic of debate? Or whatever, whenever?
Sure, there are some places people might pee that would be vexing. On your carpet, in the gas tank. But that’s not what I was talking about, and you guys all knew that. Most of you, anyway.
I’m not sure if they’re unacceptable per se, but “black people” and “white people” are preferred to these adjective-as-noun forms if you need to refer to their race. (Even these might not be the preferred term but I am simply comparing them to the adjective forms.)
(A weird exception to this is “woman” which I don’t think I’ll ever wrap my head around. Some people prefer to use “woman” as an adjective rather than “female”, which breaks my mind because it is a huge exception to the rule that adjectives-as-nouns and nouns-as-adjectives can be disrespectful.)
Well, fair enough, I guess, but I’ve seen it done on this board in general, and by that poster in particular – and with no more outcry than when someone refers to, oh, say, blondes. Or when someone starts talking about Republican Senators, and then says something about Republicans in the Senate. Heck, a thread just now sprang up with talk of “minority voters” and “minorities”. I don’t see the conceptual hurdle.
Only on this board would all the threads be about Trump except the threads about Trump.
Personally I can’t wait for this new healthcare plan Trump has promised that is going to cover everyone, be simpler and cost everyone less. Mind you, if he doesn’t deliver, I’m sure all the people who complained about Obama’s “If you like your doctor, you can keep it” will equally be all over Trump’s claims. Yep, that’ll definitely happen.
Stop using the constitution to justify your biases. The constitution is not a divine document handed down from heaven to the founding fathers. The founding fathers were not omniscient or perfect. We know this because the constitution required multiple amendments (most recently in 1992) and could stand with a few more. It’s a good document, but it’s not a perfect document.
Now, since you are so dedicated to drawing conclusions based on facts, did you read the links provided by other posters that present scientific evidenced on transgenderism?
Do you agree with or do you dispute the scientific findings? If the latter, on what basis do you disagree with the scientific findings? If you disagree based on your personal beliefs, how do you justify that while making the claim that your beliefs are informed by “fact-based” data?
I look forward to your thoughtful response.
And I’m sure everyone who gave Obama’s claims a pass will do likewise for Trump’s.
Au contraire, mon frer. They’ll eat that shit up just like all the other BS Trump throws at them.
No, really, it’s better that the rich get the tax breaks, and that others lose coverage and services. Because in the end, it’s all Obama’s fault.
Given that even most supporters of PPACA thought it was a dumb thing to say I’m not sure that this really works in reverse.
I thought I’d see more claims of good deeds by the fans of Dolt 45. So far I’m seeing this:
Regarding the first point- he appears to be advocating the notion that all environmental rules be abandoned if they could conceiveably be in conflict with industry. Well, too bad. We need these laws because of industry. What is killing coal is not the pollution it causes, it’s that it can’t compete with other energy sources. Coal is dying, let us pull the plug.
Every Republican president reinstates that silly gag rule preventing health service providers from referring people to abortion providers. We have to agree to disagree about abortion, you may call them “unborn children” but I think they’re more accurately referred to in the first trimester as pre-human clumps of cells.
He could have done worse than Gorsuch, but it wasn’t his seat to fill. It was Obama’s. Scalia may be late, but he was hardly great.
Your quote “aliens who were given a free pass simply because they hadn’t committed any violent crimes yet” is quite telling. You view all immigrants as future criminals, which is sad. This is just standard right wing xenophobia and bigotry.
He deserves no credit for these corporations who have announced investments in the US, these decisions have been made long ago.
Ask the people of Flint if lead is a fine thing to be leaving all over the place. So the hunters have to pay more for ammo. Cry me a river.
First of all, it’s hard to measure how many are sneaking across. What we’re seeing is a mean-spirited crackdown on people who want to come here and do the work that Americans won’t do, similar in the way that Dolt 45 can’t find an American wife and has to import them.
The Dow had quite a ride under Obama. I can’t get excited about a momentary bump.
Job growth has been robust for the past seven years. Of course, Dolt 45 says that those numbers were phony, but when the same people produce them now, they’re accurate.
Already addressed Gorsuch.
The defense spending I don’t get. We’re already spending nearly as much as the rest of the world combined. The military was NOT depleted under Obama. This buildup is unhealthy and yet another parallel to Nazi Germany of the 1930s.
Best since Reagan is faint praise, as Reagan was the 2nd worst (to W) president ever. Still, OMG couldn’t name a single accomplishment.
This illustrates the meanness of Republican voters.
From aldiboronti:
“Tough border controls” generally translates to “OMG we can’t have people coming in who don’t look like me and don’t have the same faith as I do!”
The onus is on Putin to “mend fences”. There’s a difference between mending fences and encouraging Putin’s lawlessness.
The Dakota access line is for the purpose of allowing dirty Canadian oil to get into the world market easier. It does nothing for the US.
Your rights should not be dependent on which state you are in.
In all that I don’t see a single thing to be proud of. Sad.
‘Illegals’ is meant to be a pejorative term. It’s a shibboleth Right Minded Americans use.
But you said “illegal aliens” is accurate. Surely what’s pejorative about “illegals” is merely whatever is pejorative about accurately noting that some aliens are “illegal”.
There’s nothing pejorative about saying “he writes mystery novels,” and so there’s nothing pejorative about saying “he writes mysteries” – in much the same way that people use “African-American” as a perfectly good adjective, and then use it as a perfectly good noun. And, again, that’s why “gays in the military” worked.
I guess a pejorative adjective would be a pejorative noun – but if so, then what difference does it make whether it’s an adjective or a noun?
Usage. The people who call aliens who are illegally in the country ‘illegals’ are the ones who do not like them, often because of their colour or language. The usage makes it derogatory.
But – look, flip it around; imagine someone genuinely doesn’t like you, and so uses words like, oh, say, “deplorables” and “irredeemable”. Would you be placated if such a person hastened to assure you that, oh, hey, I’m not saying you’re a deplorable; it’s just that you are deplorable. I’d never say you’re an irredeemable; you simply are irredeemable. Adjective, not noun – so it’s not derogatory, see?
Would you find that at all persuasive?