You missed my entire point. Every human being experiences a maturation process which allows them to understand who they are, children haven’t even come close to completing that process which is why I think it’s ridiculous to talk about transgendered children or gay children especially if they’re pre-teens and I really don’t want the schools or the government involved in that process in any way.
Are you really this afraid of opinions which do not closely align with your own?
Whether you or anyone else likes it or not what Obama did is going to effect the Democrats in November. How much, we’ll have to wait and see.
blueliner, what did you mean in the post quoted by t-bonham? What “decision” are you referring to that people “old enough or mature enough” have made for themselves?
Really? That’s what you meant? You meant something that you weren’t even talking about? You made no mention of people’s public persona at all in any of your posts, but suddenly that’s what you were talking about? Let’s look at your whole post again (bolding mine):
See? You’re not talking at all about how people present themselves in public, so how could that possibly be what you meant by “that decision”? Do you believe that gay people aren’t really gay, that they have all simply chosen a public persona of a gay person?
This thread is about Obama’s actions regarding transgendered kids in public schools and if his actions will harm the Democrats in November. You may want to read more into my comments then there is but that doesn’t mean you’re right because you’re not. I’d like to remind you that the post from another poster that you asked me about said that I said that gay was a decision to make, that’s not true because this thread isn’t about gays, it’s about the transgendered. If you want to fight with me over a different topic then start a thread and call me out. I’ll be there.
I would like to avoid reading more into your comment than there is. So would you be kind enough to expand on your understanding of what President Obama’s actions are with respect to transgendered kids in public schools and in what way it translates to child abuse?
In the future I may. But right now the question is will Obama’s actions hurt the Democrats in November. I think they will and I’ve already spent more than enough posts on this.
As for the child abuse angle, do you have a point no one else has brought up yet? I’ve taken enough on that tangent already. If you’re specific about your question and you’re not a jerk I’ll answer you.
You’re the one making a point. I’m simply asking for clarification on that point. How, in your view, do Obama’s recent actions regarding treatment of transgendered people translate to child abuse in public schools?
Clearly, the word “clearly” does not mean what you think it means. I do not support the laws passed recently in NC and other states. I oppose the directive the Obama administration sent to schools. Not the same thing.
And I believe transgendered persons who have mature, functional male sex organs are probably less likely to commit sexual violence than are cisgendered persons who have mature, functional male sex organs (men and adolescent boys). But they are almost certainly more likely to commit sexual violence than are those who do not have mature, functional male sex organs (ciswomen/girls, preadolescent boys).
Furthermore, you seemed to miss that I proposed allowing prepubescent boys to use the locker room where mature penises were not allowed.
So that does leave the possessors of adult male genitalia potentially vulnerable to others with same. But I am extremely skeptical that such people get raped to anywhere near the same degree that ciswomen and children do. If you are asserting otherwise, I would say the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that this extraordinary claim has merit.
Yeah, they kinda are–barring some sort of libertarian position that the President shouldn’t get involved. But you make a big deal about voting for Clinton, so you’re not a libertarian.
All the Presidential decree does is say that you should not follow the school restroom part of the North Carolina law. It just reverses it.
Furthermore, you followed the above paragraph with a paragraph saying that trans women were more likely to be rapists than cis women. You confirmed what they said.
And you take it as clear, and think that we have to prove otherwise. No, the default is the non-bigoted one–to treat trans women as fully women, and not half women. You must treat trans women the same as cis women the same way you treat white women the same as black women.
You have to prove a reason to do otherwise. The default is no discrimination.
I assume, then, that you agree with the “redacted trans activist” in this email exchange? Through the looking glass, IMO. (I learned about this “cotton ceiling” concept from a Doper who PMed me, not wanting to jump into the fray himself/herself but lending moral support from the feminist left.)
Getting back to the political angle: I posted more or less the same opinions on Facebook and two of my friends responded with similar antagonistic rhetoric. But several other friends “liked” my post and comments, though only one of them was brave enough to post any comments in the thread. Notably, all of the friends expressing their support are staunch Democrats. That tells me that the support for forcing schools to allow self-declared M–>F transgirls with penises into the girls’ locker room has a very limited constituency, and if this becomes the position the Democratic Party is identified with, it could be damaging. Let’s hope that in the mind of the public, it is associated with bathrooms only and not locker rooms, but given that actual case from the heartland, I’m not terribly optimistic on that front.
My one friend who spoke up on Facebook with support for my position made what I think is the key point. He wondered why we don’t look at this as similar to rights for the disabled, which were guaranteed in the landmark ADA legislation a quarter century ago. That law requires that “reasonable accommodations” be made for disabled people. It does not require that heaven and earth be moved to do everything humanly possible for every disabled person to more closely approximate the lifestyle of a non-disabled person.
That doesn’t change my point in the slightest. Allowing people to use the locker room of their gender identity requires neither celestial nor terrestrial rearrangement.
But it demonstrates how this issue has exposed the futility of gender-segregated restrooms. If someone who “looks female” according to our culture but is biologically male can use the women’s room, and someone who “looks male” according to our culture but is biologically female can use the women’s room, then what’s the point? What’s left to care about if anyone who looks like the opposite sex or actually is the opposite sex can use the restroom with you? You can’t possibly know what sex, or gender, they are anyway.
It would only be futile if most people didn’t prefer gendered bathrooms, and most people don’t need any extra motivation or enforcement to use them. Until there’s evidence that lots of people would prefer to abolish gendered bathrooms, then it’s entirely reasonable to continue with them.