No. All tactics can be valid – I’m trying the “calmly and reasonably answer questions and explain” tactic (with the assumption that my position is reasonable – lance may disagree, but he hasn’t really yet that I have seen). The mockery tactic can be equally valid, and I won’t begrudge it. Different tactics work for different folks – I’ve known people who wouldn’t respond to reason unless they were mocked and insulted into it, and I’ve known people who wouldn’t respond to reason unless it was calmly explained to them.
I also enjoy it – I find these discussions fun. So even if my tactics don’t work, I’ve still had fun.
Yes, there have been a few, including recently the Governor of South Dakota. But for the most part, when I meet lawmakers face-to-face, their minds are normally long since made up. Pro or Con, by the time the bill is first aired you only seem to be able to convince a small portion.
Or they’ll say things like:
“Well yeah, you’re OK, you look like a normal woman (:rolleyes:) but what about some Frankenwoman 6-feet tall?” (:rolleyes:) (:rolleyes:) (:rolleyes:)
“It’s a sincerely-held religious belief.” Then why I show them my research articles on transgender and the Bible, “Yeah, I’d expect that sort of propaganda. All I know is my minister/priest/rabbi/etc. says I’m supposed to vote this way, and HE knows God better than YOU.”
My favorite exchange was:
Councilman: “What if this bill saves one single little girl from being raped by a child molester. Isn’t that worth it?”
Me: “What if the bill leads to one, single transgender girl being raped in the men’s room. Is it still worth it?”
Councilman: “In my opinion, people should face the music for their lifestyle choices. If a boy wants to dress like a slut and go to the men’s room, he’ll be treated like a slut.”
Me: (combination of despair and head exploding)
Sometimes the best we can do is get an anti- person to abstain, because “the issue needs further study…”
So can you tell me what you think I think? That way, if you’re wrong, I can tell you that you’re wrong, and perhaps actually make you understand why. If you already know what I think, that will be the end of that. I’m guessing you still don’t.
I understand your point, and I understand that you are incapable of directly stating your point without JAQing off or pretending to be a “devil’s advocate”.
No, you don’t understand my point, and you are a pathetic loser who is so desperate that you simply accuse me of lying so that you can put words in my mouth instead of having the respect to let me speak for myself. Fuck off.
I don’t oppose transgender rights. In fact, I support them more than most people, because I’m not afraid to follow the logic of my own beliefs.
I support not only the right of people to choose their gender, but also to choose what that means, rather than having to follow some specific societal expectation. One doesn’t have to look like a traditional man or woman to be one, let alone have the biology to match.
It’s similar to how I support marriage rights. Some people go around saying “anyone should be able to marry who they love” but then when they are asked to live up to that belief by allowing multiple marriage, suddenly they are opposed to marriage equality. I don’t go around saying things like “do you support polyamory” to undermine gay marriage, I do it because I really do believe in it. Same with this issue. Some of you have knee-jerk reactions and think anyone who dares to even think in detail about things must be a crude bigot trying to undermine your beliefs, but you’re wrong. I’m just a person who isn’t afraid to think.
And you have proved to one and all as to your so-called “sincerity” in this thread. Sit this one out? You can’t even see the ring from your nosebleed seat, “son”.
Sure, I’ll do my best, though I’m curious why you didn’t respond to my posts #147 and #149.
I think you’re saying (at least on one particular aspect of the issue) that it’s neither consistent nor logical to consider race/religion/etc. for bathroom facility segregation unacceptable, while considering gender segregation for bathroom facilities acceptable.
And I hold that they are different, since clear harm has been demonstrated (and complained about by victims) for the first type of segregation, while it has not been for the second, except in the case of discrimination against trans people. And since almost everyone wants gender-segregated bathrooms, and almost everyone abides by them without coercion, and conflicts or violations or unpleasantness will only happen extremely rarely (as in the past), it’s entirely consistent, logical, and reasonable to continue with gender-segregated bathrooms that do not discriminate by trans status, even with the understanding that some trans people may not present with a traditional-gender-appearance (or whatever you’d call it), and some very small number of pervs will act pervy. It’s a polite fiction, but it’s one that nearly every abides by and will continue to abide by, and therefore reasonable to continue until some harm is clearly demonstrated (and complained of), in which case we should consider re-evaluating conventions and practices (and possibly laws).
But who has argued against this? How is this relevant if everyone agrees with you on this?
There are many reasons to support gay marriage (or multiple marriage, for that matter), and there are plenty of reasons why it might be perfectly reasonable to support legalization of the former but not the latter.
I thought I did. Never mind, we can just go from here.
Close.
I’m saying it’s problematic (I wouldn’t go so far as logically inconsistent) to declare that using a certain restroom is a right in a system where using restrooms are already banned for certain people based on certain characteristics.
More important, I’m saying that this issue isn’t as easy as it seems to fit in that neat package of civil rights, because it replaces one bright line - sex - with a much more fluid and arbitrary one - gender. Who is to say that appearance defines gender if sex doesn’t? How can we insist that men are people who dress or look a certain way? Isn’t that just as bad, if not worse, for gender-based rights?
Sure, but it’s the other way around too - the reason we have gender-segregated restrooms is because people would feel harmed by sharing the restrooms. The harm is based entirely on their comfort level. Saying it’s only about harm opens the door (so to speak) to someone simply saying “I’m harmed by using a restroom with a trans person.”
And on the flip side, the defense of whites only restrooms was that blacks weren’t harmed by them. They were “separate but equal.” That slogan was an attempt to say that segregation simply kept people apart without harming either group.
