And this is where it's going, and why all this foolishness that anatomy and physiology is irrelevant to gender identification needs to stop:

 

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me...story.html

 

These transgendered people are mentally ill; doctors should be helping them get over it, not enabling it. Damned if we should be altering society to regard mental illness as healthy and socially acceptable.

I'll just repeat this:

 

This is how I feel talking with conservatives that have a deep fondness for an age gone by. 

---

I'll just repeat this:

 

This is how I feel talking with conservatives that have a deep fondness for an age gone by. 

 

Yes, yes, it's a terrible thing that sick people get help instead of encouragement to wallow in their illnesses. You guys might as well be shouting "jump" to people on the ledge.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Yes, yes, it's a terrible thing that sick people get help instead of encouragement to wallow in their illnesses. You guys might as well be shouting "jump" to people on the ledge.

Not too long ago, a large subset of the medical community insisted that homosexuality was a mental disorder. I'll just leave that there and let you respond.

---

Yes, yes, it's a terrible thing that sick people get help instead of encouragement to wallow in their illnesses. You guys might as well be shouting "jump" to people on the ledge.

The mental illness that is right wing ideals has taken full hold of the empathy center of your brain. Sorry for your loss. 

---

There's a lot of things that could be considered a mental disorder, but aren't.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

There's a lot of things that could be considered a mental disorder, but aren't.  

Some are even subsidized!

---

Thanks for the synopsis, it supports my reason for not bothering to look it up. The episode you cite has nothing to do with the situation under discussion.

 

I agree, she should accept a compromise.

 

The episode consists of Cartman claiming that being transgender should give him the right to use the girl's bathroom.

 

The situation under discussion consists of someone who is/was a boy claiming that being transgender should give him the right to use the girl's locker room.

 

 

At the very least, the episode has something to do with the situation being discussed. Saying that nothing is similar is intellectually dishonest, rj.

---

The mental illness that is right wing ideals has taken full hold of the empathy center of your brain. Sorry for your loss. 

 

You're as far left as he is right.

 

Come to the middle sometime- it isn't that bad.

---

You're as far left as he is right.

 

Come to the middle sometime- it isn't that bad.

I have middle ground stances on a lot of things such as immigration for example. 

---

The episode consists of Cartman claiming that being transgender should give him the right to use the girl's bathroom.

 

The situation under discussion consists of someone who is/was a boy claiming that being transgender should give him the right to use the girl's locker room.

 

At the very least, the episode has something to do with the situation being discussed. Saying that nothing is similar is intellectually dishonest, rj.

Actually, it really doesn't. Not in this situation anyway. The transgirl in question has identified as a female for over four years before asking to use the girls locker room, and even then she was denied (as she should be). In the South Park example, Cartman literally put on a bow then walked into the girls' restroom. That would not happen in reality. A boy who showed up to school one day wearing a dress would not be allowed into the girls' restroom and locker room right away. The transgirl in question here has been living as a girl for four years, and she still wasn't allowed to use the girls' locker room. Your hypothetical Cartman scenario just doesn't work and isn't applicable to this situation because it would never happen.

---

Actually, it really doesn't. Not in this situation anyway. The transgirl in question has identified as a female for over four years before asking to use the girls locker room, and even then she was denied (as she should be). In the South Park example, Cartman literally put on a bow then walked into the girls' restroom. That would not happen in reality. A boy who showed up to school one day wearing a dress would not be allowed into the girls' restroom and locker room right away. The transgirl in question here has been living as a girl for four years, and she still wasn't allowed to use the girls' locker room. Your hypothetical Cartman scenario just doesn't work and isn't applicable to this situation because it would never happen.

I read this and saw Huckabee in a dress. Thanks for ruining my day.

---

Actually, it really doesn't. Not in this situation anyway. The transgirl in question has identified as a female for over four years before asking to use the girls locker room, and even then she was denied (as she should be). In the South Park example, Cartman literally put on a bow then walked into the girls' restroom. That would not happen in reality. A boy who showed up to school one day wearing a dress would not be allowed into the girls' restroom and locker room right away. The transgirl in question here has been living as a girl for four years, and she still wasn't allowed to use the girls' locker room. Your hypothetical Cartman scenario just doesn't work and isn't applicable to this situation because it would never happen.

 

It is relevant. Saying they have nothing in common is false.

 

So, now after your explanation of the main difference (one has been living as a girl for 4 years, Cartman simply put a bow on), let's discuss this further.

 

1. How long should one be required to identify as a gender before they can use the other gender's facilities? Is it fair to punish someone who has felt like they were a girl for years but just came out from hiding it because they haven't "identified" long enough? Where is the line drawn?

 

2. Does the person have to resemble the other gender in appearance? In other words, if a boy claims to identify as a female for 4 years but dresses and acts like a boy, does he get transgender privilege? Is a bow enough? Is a wig needed? Where is the line drawn?

 

 

I was just going to quote your first post in this thread for being spot on, but it appears you're wavering on that a bit. I'm now interested in how you answer the questions above.

---

I have middle ground stances on a lot of things such as immigration for example. 

 

Oh, come on. You are very far left.

---

Oh, come on. You are very far left.

Yes I am. I also have centrist views on a lot of issues and have stated them here. Is that not allowed?

---

It is relevant. Saying they have nothing in common is false.

 

So, now after your explanation of the main difference (one has been living as a girl for 4 years, Cartman simply put a bow on), let's discuss this further.

 

1. How long should one be required to identify as a gender before they can use the other gender's facilities? Is it fair to punish someone who has felt like they were a girl for years but just came out from hiding it because they haven't "identified" long enough? Where is the line drawn?

 

2. Does the person have to resemble the other gender in appearance? In other words, if a boy claims to identify as a female for 4 years but dresses and acts like a boy, does he get transgender privilege? Is a bow enough? Is a wig needed? Where is the line drawn?

 

 

I was just going to quote your first post in this thread for being spot on, but it appears you're wavering on that a bit. I'm now interested in how you answer the questions above.

They have nothing in common. It's not false. You're using Eric Cartman as a key piece of your argument. Is how completely ridiculous that makes your argument look lost on you? It would be like me arguing that Mr. Hankey is a citeable refutation to Santa Claus, among other holiday season-y things.

 

1. Once sexual reassignment surgery has been performed, that person should be able to use the facilities of the opposite sex without question. Until then, they should use a neutral, genderless facility.

 

2. Have you ever known a transgender individual? I sincerely doubt that you've even met one if you're asking a question like that. The overwhelming majority of transgendered people do go out of their way to look and act like their gender. Those that don't look like a member of their correct gender are generally younger and facing massive pressure from family, friends, their support structure, etc., to repress who they are and conform with societal norms. Not coincidentally, that's typically where most of the suicides, runaways and suicide attempts come from.

 

This whole debate has taught me quite a bit about transgender individuals, more than I already knew just from life experience. I still do not think, nor will I ever think, that someone with male hardware belongs in a female locker room (or vice versa), but I can understand a bit more where this girl was coming from (she dropped the gym class, btw). I think she was being unreasonable in refusing the third location, but I can see why she would not have thought that she was.

---

They have nothing in common. It's not false. You're using Eric Cartman as a key piece of your argument. Is how completely ridiculous that makes your argument look lost on you? It would be like me arguing that Mr. Hankey is a citeable refutation to Santa Claus, among other holiday season-y things.


1. Once sexual reassignment surgery has been performed, that person should be able to use the facilities of the opposite sex without question. Until then, they should use a neutral, genderless facility.


2. Have you ever known a transgender individual? I sincerely doubt that you've even met one if you're asking a question like that. The overwhelming majority of transgendered people do go out of their way to look and act like their gender. Those that don't look like a member of their correct gender are generally younger and facing massive pressure from family, friends, their support structure, etc., to repress who they are and conform with societal norms. Not coincidentally, that's typically where most of the suicides, runaways and suicide attempts come from.


This whole debate has taught me quite a bit about transgender individuals, more than I already knew just from life experience. I still do not think, nor will I ever think, that someone with male hardware belongs in a female locker room (or vice versa), but I can understand a bit more where this girl was coming from (she dropped the gym class, btw). I think she was being unreasonable in refusing the third location, but I can see why she would not have thought that she was.

Agreed. Her request is understandable coming from her point of view it his however unreasonable when you consider the other people in the locker room and the ages involved.

---

They have nothing in common. It's not false. You're using Eric Cartman as a key piece of your argument. Is how completely ridiculous that makes your argument look lost on you? It would be like me arguing that Mr. Hankey is a citeable refutation to Santa Claus, among other holiday season-y things.

 

1. Once sexual reassignment surgery has been performed, that person should be able to use the facilities of the opposite sex without question. Until then, they should use a neutral, genderless facility.

 

2. Have you ever known a transgender individual? I sincerely doubt that you've even met one if you're asking a question like that. The overwhelming majority of transgendered people do go out of their way to look and act like their gender. Those that don't look like a member of their correct gender are generally younger and facing massive pressure from family, friends, their support structure, etc., to repress who they are and conform with societal norms. Not coincidentally, that's typically where most of the suicides, runaways and suicide attempts come from.

 

This whole debate has taught me quite a bit about transgender individuals, more than I already knew just from life experience. I still do not think, nor will I ever think, that someone with male hardware belongs in a female locker room (or vice versa), but I can understand a bit more where this girl was coming from (she dropped the gym class, btw). I think she was being unreasonable in refusing the third location, but I can see why she would not have thought that she was.

 

Come on.... I'm not using Eric Cartman as a key piece of my argument. I used it as a reference that shows just how silly it is to allow people to use opposite gender facilities by simply saying they identify as that gender.

 

1. We are in agreement here.

 

2. I think the issues that arise with question #2 are solved by your solution in answer #1. The issues with #2 come when people believe that "identification" and not hardware determines use of facilities. There are a lot of grey areas and potential slippery slopes down that route, though it appears no one here is a proponent of that.

---

Huh?

 

The two have nothing to do with each other what so ever. It takes a very very large mental leap to even attempt to link the two in any way. All that has been said is that it could be a biproduct of evolution as noted by TJ due to extreme outliers in the system nobody has said evolution made them this way that I am aware of. Are you saying they are making it up as your basis for calling it a belief? 

 

 

1. How is being asked to refer to someone as "she" an insult to you and your family? To an even greater point, how is any perceived "insult" on your part not greatly outweighed by the fact that you, in refusing to address this person as who they are vs. who you see them to be, are being far more insulting and demeaning, and potentially just adding fuel to the fire for their next major depressive episode?

 

2. What if the transgirl's parents ask you to refer to her as a girl, regardless of what gender her equipment is for? Would you go out of your way to insult that girl and the wishes of her family just to prove your point?

 

3. I really don't see how evolution and creationism are the least bit involved in this. I really don't. It's almost like you're reaching for a strawman here, but only the left would ever do such a thing, right?

 

I perhaps should have phrased it differently.

 

Those on the left believe that creationism should not be taught or "accepted" because it is perceived by some to be a belief rather than actual science.  Only evolution should be taught.

 

Yet, a 13-17 year old boy (actual science, anatomy says so) who "identifies" as a girl (belief) should be accepted and treated as a girl.  So do we not teach anatomy?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

The episode consists of Cartman claiming that being transgender should give him the right to use the girl's bathroom.

 

The situation under discussion consists of someone who is/was a boy claiming that being transgender should give him the right to use the girl's locker room.

 

 

At the very least, the episode has something to do with the situation being discussed. Saying that nothing is similar is intellectually dishonest, rj.

 

No, it is an attempt at humor depicting a ridiculous situation that bears no resemblance to the crux of the  topic under discussion. That you think the two situations are the same is exactly why we will probably never agrees on anything here except that the girl in question should accept a compromise.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

I perhaps should have phrased it differently.


Those on the left believe that creationism should not be taught or "accepted" because it is perceived by some to be a belief rather than actual science. Only evolution should be taught.


Yet, a 13-17 year old boy (actual science, anatomy says so) who "identifies" as a girl (belief) should be accepted and treated as a girl. So do we not teach anatomy?

You can sit and talk with the girl. You cannot talk with creationism nor anyone who's experimented with it.

---