Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When the hell are you people going to understand that rape is not about sex, it's about domination and power.
And nobody is advocating unisex bathrooms and locker rooms in schools, BB.
Rape in the United States is defined by the Department of Justice as "Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."
Pulled that right off the DOJ's website.. it's about sex.
When the hell are you people going to understand that rape is not about sex, it's about domination and power. 89-90% of rapes go unreported, and only 2% of the ones that ARE reported are false. Only 6% of rapists who are tried see any jail time.
The reasons rapes go unreported should be obvious, considering some of the posts in City-Data alone.
And nobody is advocating unisex bathrooms and locker rooms in schools, BB.
Sure about that ? It isn't labeled "unisex" but they are allowing "non conforming gender" students to use which ever locker room they choose.
If I were in high school, I would refuse to even take PE under those condition. Let the PC crowd send me to the gallows over it.
I never have liked to change in front of men, and I damn sure am not going to change in front of women. How f'n sick our society has become. Completely private toilets and changing rooms and showers is what's needed.
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,555 posts, read 12,517,887 times
Reputation: 10465
Quote:
Originally Posted by lunalvr
Broadening the scope of any concept absolutely changes the factors to consider.
No it doesn't. If a person wants to rape another it really doesn't matter if it happens in a bathroom or elsewhere.
Quote:
But this specific topic is about allowing transgender people the peace and freedom to use the public bathroom that correlates to their projected gender identity. Who's checking anatomy at the door? How would you ever know what "working parts" a person may or may not have?
You just refuted your own argument. Why would a transgender with a penis need to go into a female bathroom instead of going into a male bathroom if no one would know what "working parts" they have or don't have?
Quote:
Michelle Martinez was convicted of raping a little girl, and rightfully so! She deserves to rot in prison for eternity for it. This heinous crime did not take place in a public bathroom though, so its a spurious correlation. Transgender people are still people, and like some cisgender people, some transgender individuals have a propensity towards criminal and violent behavior. This propensity, though, is not because they're transgender. Make sense? And sure, I'll give you this correction - do I know for a fact that no transgender person has ever assaulted another human being in a public restroom before? I sure don't. Do I know that there haven't ever been any news stories of such an occurrence? I sure do. In today's sociopolitical atmosphere, something like that happening in Anytown, USA wouldn't just be national news, it would be global news. Everyone would know about it and everyone would use that as justification for the bathroom bill. I hope a story like this never breaks.
And re: "innocent until proven guilty" - I keep hearing this in relation to what's happening with Kavanaugh and my response is similar every time. Kavanaugh is not on trial in a court of law. If he was, then yes - presumption of innocence absolutely would apply. The burden of proof would be on the prosecution! But ... nobody is being prosecuted. Again, what's happening right now is akin to a hiring manager calling someone's references. If a candidate provides 6 references to a potential new boss and 4 of the 6 give outstanding recommendations but 2 of the 6 share a different experience ... well, we don't just ignore the 2 negative references because they're the minority and hope for the best. We carefully consider what we've been told (both positive and negative), what information is available to us, and how the candidate performs in the interview - then we make an informed decision and either hire the guy or not. If we automatically assume that the 2 negative references are true and make our decision based on those alone, we could very well be missing out on the absolute best person for the job. If we assume the 2 negative references are lying or have ulterior motives and we ignore them, we might end up with someone in the position who really shouldn't be there.
If she provides no proof then her accusations should be ignored. If she provides 'absolute' proof that he did do what she accused him of then they should vote no. Which would make it - innocent until proven guilty.
Quote:
Some call this character assassination, period. Others, like myself, consider all of this a necessary (albeit painful, for some) process to determine whether or not a person's character (+ experience, education, etc.) makes them a good fit for the job. I'm in HR. I do this all day, every day.
When? Where?
First of all, transgender males do not have male genitalia unless surgically altered, in which case, they'd rightfully be in the men's restroom; "transgender male" implies a female-to-male transition. You meant to say transgender female. And secondly, an "unwanted glimpse" of body parts in a changing room is a far cry from someone shoving their body parts in your face and demanding that you "kiss" that body part. One of these things is not like the other.
How can someone demand anything of another when that other is passed out on the floor?
Rape in the United States is defined by the Department of Justice as "Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."
Pulled that right off the DOJ's website.. it's about sex.
No, it's about power over the victim. Try reading up on it.
I'd like to apologize. 40 years ago, in college, I may have bumped/rubbed up against a co-ed's breasts. I may have been drunk. Again I'm sorry. I'm humiliated. #metoo
Rape in the United States is defined by the Department of Justice as "Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."
Pulled that right off the DOJ's website.. it's about sex.
Right. But it isn't sexual, it's violence. It's not about pleasure or love or getting off. It's about controlling and hurting a person. That's what this poster meant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarabchuck
Again with the pronouns , what distinguishes a transgender female from a transgender male ?
It's really not that complicated, honestly. Transgenderism is typically a final-stage state of a lifetime of gender and/or identity dysphoria. For those who think it's a simple matter of an individual waking up one day and just deciding to be the opposite gender for laughs, I don't know how to help you.
When we talk about transgender rights and protections, we're talking about protecting people like Jazz Jennings and Corey Maison and Elliot Fletcher and Jaime Clayton. We aren't talking about the Jeffree Stars of the world. We aren't talking about creeps who cross-dress for nefarious purposes. This isn't about people playing dress-up in the hopes of being able to more-easily commit violent crimes. These are real people with real experiences who deserve a voice. These are real people who are harmed by things like the bathroom bill. These are not people to fear or to judge or to exclude or to hate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by berdee
You just refuted your own argument. Why would a transgender with a penis need to go into a female bathroom instead of going into a male bathroom if no one would know what "working parts" they have or don't have?
A transgender girl (meaning male-to-female) could look like this and have not had reassignment surgery yet. She's female in expression, appearance, and identity but might still have the penis she was born with. How would you know what's under her clothes? Do you think she belongs in the men's restroom based on anatomy only?
In another reply, I posted a photo of Ian Harvie. Ian didn't elect to have bottom surgery for a long time. He would be very out of place in a women's restroom, but according to you, that's where he belongs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Again, what's happening right now is akin to a hiring manager calling someone's references. If a candidate provides 6 references to a potential new boss and 4 of the 6 give outstanding recommendations but 2 of the 6 share a different experience ... well, we don't just ignore the 2 negative references because they're the minority and hope for the best. We carefully consider what we've been told (both positive and negative), what information is available to us, and how the candidate performs in the interview - then we make an informed decision and either hire the guy or not. If we automatically assume that the 2 negative references are true and make our decision based on those alone, we could very well be missing out on the absolute best person for the job. If we assume the 2 negative references are lying or have ulterior motives and we ignore them, we might end up with someone in the position who really shouldn't be there.
