• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should transwomen be legally treated as women?[W:165,1392]

Should transwomen be legally trreated as women?


  • Total voters
    160
OK so we have some common ground, does that mean they are entitled to treat him less favourably?

:shrug: sure. And he is free to do the same.*


*Again, as long as neither is acting in a governing capacity. Justice should be blind.
 
:shrug: sure. And he is free to do the same.*


*Again, as long as neither is acting in a governing capacity. Justice should be blind.

That is where we differ. America holds everyone to be free but only in certain circumstances?
 
That is where we differ. America holds everyone to be free but only in certain circumstances?

:raises eyebrow: quite the contrary - you are the one arguing for limiting people's liberty. If someone treats me mean, then that is not limiting my freedom, it is them using theirs. If I ban them from treating me unfairly, then I am reducing their liberty, stating that in certain circumstances (ie: If I don't like it) then they are not free.
 
Don't be a melodramatic and Politically Correct doofus.

If I don't agree with your opinion I am a rigid grump. Negative.
If I do agree with your opinion then I am an empathetic gentleman. Positive.

See how easy it is to identify Political Correctness now?
You're confusing correlation with causation. If you don't agree with me that black people should not be enslaved, you're not rigid because you disagree with me; you're rigid because you're rigid, and vise versa.

Conventional simplified standards are all that is required to understand the biology of male/female.

female
: of or relating to the sex that can produce young or lay eggs
Key words: "relating to"
: characteristic of girls or women
Which are subjective
: having members who are all girls or women
See above

The two of which are defined as?

Accepting the facts does not make me unempathetic. It simply makes me honest. Actually, I would argue that I am extremely empathetic to their feelings. Some people do not like things about themselves but being untruthful about it does not equate being empathetic by any stretch of the imagination. I do not talk this way to people and if you think that debating an issue at a debate site is like talking to people on the street then you have problems. We are debating an issue and the issue is not "being empathetic" but rather "is a man that thinks he is a woman actually a woman or a man". Stay on point...
We actually both are fully accepting the facts. The difference is interpretation - one of us is interpreting it in a way that solidifies our preconceived notions of sex and gender while actively hurting people in doing so, and the other is allowing their preconceived notions to be challenged in the absence of evidence outside of biology.

When does that happen? Right, it doesn't.
I'm not much of a sports fan, so I wouldn't know. I imagine it doesn't happen because of regulations, though, which would in turn be regulating trans and non-trans people. Thus there is no issue here. If you acknowledge that some women are stronger than some men and vice versa, you simultaneously acknowledge that fairness should be judged case-by-case, not generalization-by-generalization. That trans person in question should not have faced the respective opponent NOT because they were trans - but because they were way stronger.

I am not attempting to be cruel to people and this is just more evidence of Political Correctness confusing the minds of the intellectual meek... that said, I countered your point logically and you just shot yourself in the foot unless you can share the knowledge base you have that's beyond philosophical supposition in your attempt to be rude to those that disagree with you.
I don't know where you get philosophical supposition from regarding my arguments. That comes entirely from anti-trans individuals.

That is the real comedy... you feel free to insult people calling them names when they simply disagree with you confirming that you are really the unempathetic and rude person, not me.
You're allowed to hurt trans people who already live dreadful lives (mainly because of mentalities like yours), yet when I call you out on that, you're the victim - not only the victim but the victim of a made up "PC" phenomenon.

That is complete and utter crap and if you don't know it you are a part of the problem.
What problem? The problem of not being able to be an ass without social consequence? Because that's always been true essentially. You people don't want a lack of censorship; you want a lack of responsibility.

Retarded became Politically Incorrect and was replaced by Mentally Handicapped only to be replaced with Mentally Challenged only to be replaced with Special, or whatever it is now and why? Because people started referring negatively to people they didn't like as Retarded... when the new PC Term came into effect the same jerks started using the new term and that cycle will never end. Well, retarded means what it always meant and referring to a slow person as retarded, although accurate, has now become "cruel" and meets claims like yours, "I just want to be an asshole but you guys keep changing the terms and wont let me so I will attack you by making up a term: Political Correctness."
This is such a gigantic problem. I truly feel sorry for sophists who have to deal with slightly changing definitions that are trying to accommodate the feelings of feeling-oriented individuals known as "people." I'm so sorry you have to deal with this problem.

...
 
That is some funny and seriously contradicting garbage there... "You don't know what gender is but nobody does so I am right"!! :lol:
Actually we have an evidence base that dismantles your entire idea of gender and reinforces the theories that were formed FROM that evidence.
 
:shrug: you desperately attempted to leap onto a strawman argument, it was thrown back in your face. Complaining "nuh-UH" now isn't really much of a response.
There was no strawman actually?

:shrug: this isn't actually all that complicated. People try to make it so (it's good copy, and it makes for endless topics for research papers in our Humanities Glut), but with a very, very few examples of those who are biologically ambiguous, gender is pretty straightforward.
That is not a scientifically minded claim. A phenomena not being noticed by many has nothing to do with its existence or not.

Yes, and your response was foolish given that A) no one was talking about submission as a particular gender role any more than they were talking about wearing heels and B) in fact the most common gender role for females is not submission (which is actually a minority position in the US), but rather the birthing and primary care-giving for infants. Men have gender roles, as well, the most basic of which are ultimately (as with women) built off of their biology.
If you bring up a vague topic like gender roles and don't specify any, it's completely logical for the opponent to refer to the most commonly cited instance. Stop being ridiculous. Only recently is that gender role not enforced extremely prominently. Birthing is not a gender role.

Single Example: The introduction of the plow into farming required additional upper-body strength for farmers, increased agricultural output, and disadvantaged attempts to farm while taking care of small children. The result was that the gender with greater upper body strength which was less necessary to the constant care of infants and small children became expected to spend all day behind the plow in order to increase agricultural output, while the gender that was most necessary to the constant care of infants and small children became expected to remain in the home where they could focus greater attention, time, and resources on raising children; each gender working together to enable successful reproduction through specialization within gender roles on the basis of their respective biological advantages and disadvantages.
Broken clock

No, I am pointing out that you attempting to shift to a discussion of submission is a strawman argument.
It would've been a strawman had you initially given a solid example. You didn't, and thus I assumed the default, logically.
 
1. Really. You don't see any logical connection between the ability to have children and then provide their food source and the assigned role that you are better suited to actually do so. You really claim not to see a gender role in war.
What says that the gender in question is better suited? War does deal in gender roles. I am not refuting the existence of gender roles.

2. Saying something "doesn't logically follow" isn't actually an effective counter-argument - you have to be able to demonstrate your reasoning, and preferably, back it with data, as I have done for you.
If you say that potatoes are humans I'm not inclined to logically dissect your claim, sorry. I deal in the real world.

Are you currently in college?
Are you currently indulging in the logical fallacy you've presented in the form of an implicit question?



I managed to pass middle school science. But if you need to review, then that's okay :) A book, if you like.
Disingenuous. Sex and gender are used interchangeably in regards to non-human animals. Many are pushing for this to not be so so that you won't get confused about the niche arguments relating to sex and gender.

Funny, then, how you haven't actually cited any. Biological Limits of Gender Construction and Gender and Parenthood from a 30 second google search. Feel free to add it to the previously cited study on the sharpening of gender roles based off of biological advantage in agricultural societies.
My position is quite logically the default. If you claim otherwise, the burden of proof is on you.

Really. There is no evidence to support the claim that women's ability to produce milk for the feeding of small infants is a biological, rather than a socialized, development?

:lamo
Those are facts and also not gender roles. Women feeding babies with their breasts is not a gender role.

Ah. :) And now we get rather to the heart of it. You want to affirm people, and that is behind your arguments, not the science. As a result, when people point out to you the deep problems in that position, you are reduced to accusing them of opposing your motivations rather than your conclusions.
I have two agendas, based in two strongly held values:

1. Finding and promoting the truth (or as close as we can get to it) in spite of dogma, preconceived notions, and traditionalist views
2. Allowing the highest amount of people possible to get the absolute most out of their lives, since I myself am so well off

If affirming someone coincides with those, I see no issue here. I wouldn't affirm someone if one of those two agendas were not to be enforced. Just like I'm not affirming you right now - because doing so would be effectively lying and effectively contributing to oppression and hurt.
 
Huh. So, there are no public facilities, or publicly available facilities in publicly-owed buildings?


:shrug: regardless, it's only a matter of time before dudes with their tallywackers cut off, or false breasts, or wearing a dress, start suing private establishments for not letting them access the women's facilities. It will become legal fairly quickly at that point - and I guarantee that at that point both you and roguenuke who liked this post will be arguing that yes, in fact, it is a legal matter and should not be left up to the individual business policy.

Eh you're probably right, but personally, I'd only support that for men/women who are actually biologically transgender in some way, not just people who don't identify with their gender. Bathrooms divide different sexes, not genders, and aren't a question of personal preference.
 
In America, you call it the land of the free, the land to make choices to the benefit of everyone and personal liberties are seen as being a cornerstone of your society. This also emboides letting trans men and women make their decision to be what gender they want to be. Gender is arguably a social construct. We box ourselvs into a pre defined role on the basis of us either having a penis or a vagina and then subscribe to a pre defined set of attributes. People are uncomfortable with the idea of trans people as it upsets whatever sort of 'norms' that they have. If we take it that a lot of conservatives in America want loose gun control (guns can kill people) vis a vis trans rights then that is a good basis for proving what sort of value system conservative America has....

Gender is irrelevant to male and female... factual biology. Nobody argues that gay men should be allowed into female locker rooms.

But if I felt like doing so and went with the ridiculous idea of a conscience clause I could discriminate? So essentially what you are saying is that we can dish out maltretment as we do not have to hold people in parity of esteem? We can see others as inequals?

"Discrimination"... oh, here we go. :roll:

That is the beauty of the free world, letting people lead their lives as they see fit and disagreeing with them but it also involves extending the same protection to them

What "protection" are trans-people being denied?
 
That is where we differ. America holds everyone to be free but only in certain circumstances?

Actually you are the one trying to limit people's freedoms. By limiting how people can act towards each other you are limiting them... they should be free to be rude and I am free to ignore them.
 
You're confusing correlation with causation. If you don't agree with me that black people should not be enslaved, you're not rigid because you disagree with me; you're rigid because you're rigid, and vise versa.

Not really, that is just you using a subjective argument to attempt to back your claim and to dodge being a Politically Correct Super Person. We are all rigid in some ways and flexible in others. Kinda a feeble argument.

Key words: "relating to"
Which are subjective

A female that can lay eggs or produce young and is a girl or woman is not subjective. :roll:

Let me help you out on this one:

subjective
adjective sub·jec·tive \(ˌ)səb-ˈjek-tiv\
philosophy : relating to the way a person experiences things in his or her own mind
: based on feelings or opinions rather than facts


Subjective | Definition of subjective by Merriam-Webster

We actually both are fully accepting the facts. The difference is interpretation - one of us is interpreting it in a way that solidifies our preconceived notions of sex and gender while actively hurting people in doing so, and the other is allowing their preconceived notions to be challenged in the absence of evidence outside of biology.

How am I hurting trans people. Be specific now... you are sure happy to toss out the insults and I would like to see if you have the brains or balls to actually back up your stupid assertion.

I'm not much of a sports fan, so I wouldn't know.

It doesn't take beign a sports fan to figure this one out. Why do we not see little 5'2" 90 pound men taking on 6'8" (?) 250 lbs The Rock in wrestling?

...and you can't have case by case cases because that is not fair to trans-women. You argue that some should be allowed in but not all. What if some can fight fairly (Weakly) with some women but some are so tough they could destroy all women just like some men dominate all men (LeBron James, for instance). How is that fair to the dominate trans-woman? It isn't. Besides, that isn't the point as I have shown above.

I have daughters and one plays field hockey... it pisses me off because this stupid league allows boys to play this year because not enough boys could ge ta league together. Many of these boys run circles around the girls, including mine, for various reasons and the main one is speed and the other is agressiveness (running into people). I had this stupid mom from my team say that it is fine and the girls can compete with the boys. Obviously they can't, as the only all girl team they are getting smashed every week and are in dead last place. Just because there are a couple of girls in the league better than the boys, as this mom pointed out, does not mean that it is fair, as you would undoubtedly argue as well. It is a stupid politically correct, we can all get along and are the same, type of argument.

You're allowed to hurt trans people who already live dreadful lives (mainly because of mentalities like yours), yet when I call you out on that, you're the victim - not only the victim but the victim of a made up "PC" phenomenon.

I am not a victim and never indicated that I am either... vicitmhood is a mentality. The fact that you are rude does not make me a victim... it just makes you rude. I made the case for PC and you want to ignore it... as most PC people do, incidentally. :lol:

What problem? The problem of not being able to be an ass without social consequence? Because that's always been true essentially. You people don't want a lack of censorship; you want a lack of responsibility.

I am making an argument about biological fact regarding the persons SEX. "You people"... :roll:

I don't give a flying **** what a person percieves themselves to be. Good for them. Great for society. Let's all hold hands, me included with those that identify how they feel themselves to be. I don't care either way. The guy is still a guy and should not be in the woman's dressing room. That is not harming anybody. If anything, you should be arguing for a third dressing room, a gender neutral one and let people make up their own minds but calling women that don't want a man in their dressing rooms bigots, or people hurting trans-people negative names (which is political correctness CRAP), YOU ARE THE ONE INFRINGING ON OTHERS, hurting them, being oppressive and all in order to impose on society your subjective view of what you think is right.

I truly feel sorry for sophists who have to deal with slightly changing definitions that are trying to accommodate the feelings of feeling-oriented individuals known as "people." I'm so sorry you have to deal with this problem.

Here we go again... feeling oriented individuals are people and you have classified me as sub-human because I differ from your mindset. Retarded.
 
Actually you are the one trying to limit people's freedoms. By limiting how people can act towards each other you are limiting them... they should be free to be rude and I am free to ignore them.

Would that include repealing laws on racial discrimination?
 
Would that include repealing laws on racial discrimination?

Straw Man... sorry, not even logically connected. Discrimination is illegal and it should be. Being rude to people is not discrimination and being rude should be legal.
 
Not really, that is just you using a subjective argument to attempt to back your claim and to dodge being a Politically Correct Super Person. We are all rigid in some ways and flexible in others. Kinda a feeble argument.
Oh, so it is just, like, my opinion, man, that black people should not be enslaved? And as such, calling you a bigot and rigid for simply disagreeing with my opinion is not logical?


A female that can lay eggs or produce young and is a girl or woman is not subjective. :roll:
Yes, and you completely ignored the "relating to" I pointed out.

How am I hurting trans people. Be specific now... you are sure happy to toss out the insults and I would like to see if you have the brains or balls to actually back up your stupid assertion.
You are perpetuating ignorance and philosophical dislike of trans people which is inhumane. The perpetuation of such hurts them immensely in terms of societal acceptance, job security, success in general, and not surprisingly mental health - and I'm sure any interaction you'd have with a trans person would be a disaster too if you knew they were trans - which is arguably why so many feel extremely compelled to go through these "deceptive" surgeries/therapies anyway.

you can't have case by case cases because that is not fair to trans-women. You argue that some should be allowed in but not all. What if some can fight fairly (Weakly) with some women but some are so tough they could destroy all women just like some men dominate all men (LeBron James, for instance). How is that fair to the dominate trans-woman? It isn't. Besides, that isn't the point as I have shown above.
Everyone is different. There are inequalities all over sports. Why you're focusing on this one's potential is beyond me, and why you don't support LeBron James being banned to play with all of those who are clearly worse than him in spite of the last precedent you set is also beyond me.

I have daughters and one plays field hockey... it pisses me off because this stupid league allows boys to play this year because not enough boys could ge ta league together. Many of these boys run circles around the girls, including mine, for various reasons and the main one is speed and the other is agressiveness (running into people). I had this stupid mom from my team say that it is fine and the girls can compete with the boys. Obviously they can't, as the only all girl team they are getting smashed every week and are in dead last place. Just because there are a couple of girls in the league better than the boys, as this mom pointed out, does not mean that it is fair, as you would undoubtedly argue as well. It is a stupid politically correct, we can all get along and are the same, type of argument.
I don't doubt what you're saying, but an anecdote means nothing to me. There are some girls that'd undoubtedly do better than the boys in question. What's your point? You saw some typically weak girls? Okay? So what if it's factually supported that more often than not girls underperform next to guys? Create more performance and physicality regulations.

I am not a victim and never indicated that I am either... vicitmhood is a mentality. The fact that you are rude does not make me a victim... it just makes you rude. I made the case for PC and you want to ignore it... as most PC people do, incidentally. :lol:
By your descriptions of the events in politics, you are definitively a victim to this phenomena. Now, of course I find your descriptions incredibly fallacious and inaccurate. Victimhood is not a mentality, and those that spout this non-truth have telling tendencies. The fact that you so quickly dismiss that wrong things can be exacted on people (and those who are the victim of those wrong things are the victims, ala victimhood) is questionable.

I am making an argument about biological fact regarding the persons SEX. "You people"... :roll:
You so readily argue about a complex issue for your intellectual enjoyment - meanwhile people are killing themselves over the dread that is brought upon them by lack of acceptance and support.

Let's break this down:

Anatomy: Studies organisms and their parts (Notice the lack of distinction between which parts they were born with and otherwise)
Sex: "The anatomy of an individual's reproductive system, and secondary sex characteristics"

You're asserting that, because normally it's implied that when you talk about someone's "parts" you logically assume they were born with them, that all people should be applied to such a scenario, when not all people logically would apply - in fact millions of people.
 
I don't give a flying **** what a person percieves themselves to be. Good for them. Great for society. Let's all hold hands, me included with those that identify how they feel themselves to be. I don't care either way.
It's not just a matter of perception; we've been through this actually. There is a physical gender indicator in the brain, which alerts the person of the gender that they are, and that the sex they were born as does not meet the typical expectations of the alignment of the two. There is no delusion, no mental illness, no perception out of line with reality. The vast majority of relevant TRAINED PROFESSIONALS disagree with any deviation from that.

The guy is still a guy and should not be in the woman's dressing room. That is not harming anybody.
She's not a guy (assuming you're speaking of a trans woman), and your perpetuation of such falsehoods contributes actively to the oppression of this individual and others, effectively contributing to her/their likely suicide(s). But congrats, you're not "PC" and you're an amurcan who can do what he wants.

If anything, you should be arguing for a third dressing room, a gender neutral one and let people make up their own minds but calling women that don't want a man in their dressing rooms bigots, or people hurting trans-people negative names (which is political correctness CRAP), YOU ARE THE ONE INFRINGING ON OTHERS, hurting them, being oppressive and all in order to impose on society your subjective view of what you think is right.
I see nothing wrong with adding a neutral room in addition.

Oh, being opposed to people getting hurt - especially those who live oppressed lives and society does not acknowledge positively at all - is just being politically correct. My god, your privilege is showing. Tell me, who exactly am I hurting - or who is a trans person using their respective bathroom hurting? Who am I oppressing? Did I stop you from saying ignorant, hurtful (non-true) words? No, I didn't - because political correctness isn't real. Society always exerts pressures to conform with progress. That's not censorship. You can still make yourself look like an ass freely - and people will judge you accordingly too, which will yield the appropriate social consequences.

Here we go again... feeling oriented individuals are people and you have classified me as sub-human because I differ from your mindset. Retarded.
You must have interpreted my post wrong because I did not say nor imply that you are sub-human, but rather just mean - pointing out your disconnect with people and humanity.
 
Oh, so it is just, like, my opinion, man, that black people should not be enslaved? And as such, calling you a bigot and rigid for simply disagreeing with my opinion is not logical?/

Slavery literally has nothing to do with Political Correctness although I do understand that making stupid Straw Man argument like that would be a go to counter point of the PC Cops. Well done.

Yes, and you completely ignored the "relating to" I pointed out.

Yeah, “relating to” indicates a connection completely contradicting your point. Here, check it out:

Relate | Definition of relate by Merriam-Webster

You are perpetuating ignorance and philosophical dislike of trans people which is inhumane. The perpetuation of such hurts them immensely in terms of societal acceptance, job security, success in general, and not surprisingly mental health - and I'm sure any interaction you'd have with a trans person would be a disaster too if you knew they were trans - which is arguably why so many feel extremely compelled to go through these "deceptive" surgeries/therapies anyway.

The mere fact that you would equate inhumane to this circumstance truly indicates that you have no idea what you are talking about. Inhumane is the mistreatment of prisoners, gas chambers, letting children cry and cry when hungry and you have food, etc. Recognizing a mental disorder and stating it is not inhumane, that is, unless you think that stating that I have ADD is inhumane because it negatively affects me as well… but that is simply idiotic so I hope you don’t go that route.

Everyone is different. There are inequalities all over sports. Why you're focusing on this one's potential is beyond me, and why you don't support LeBron James being banned to play with all of those who are clearly worse than him in spite of the last precedent you set is also beyond me.

Why? Because a man is beating up on women, literally... If you can’t figure that out you need to go back to biology class.

I don't doubt what you're saying, but an anecdote means nothing to me. There are some girls that'd undoubtedly do better than the boys in question. What's your point? You saw some typically weak girls? Okay? So what if it's factually supported that more often than not girls underperform next to guys? Create more performance and physicality regulations.

You want to simply redefine all sports the world over just because a few men want to beat up women in a woman’s sport? Talk about delusional. :roll:

By your descriptions of the events in politics, you are definitively a victim to this phenomena. Now, of course I find your descriptions incredibly fallacious and inaccurate. Victimhood is not a mentality, and those that spout this non-truth have telling tendencies. The fact that you so quickly dismiss that wrong things can be exacted on people (and those who are the victim of those wrong things are the victims, ala victimhood) is questionable.

Victimhood where you are robbed is real. Victimhood where you are called fat and then eat a ton and become/stay fat and then blame others is a mentality. Big difference but not to the PC cops that want to blame somebody for everything not equal because hell… SOMEBODY has to be at fault!

You so readily argue about a complex issue for your intellectual enjoyment - meanwhile people are killing themselves over the dread that is brought upon them by lack of acceptance and support.

Relevance to the argument at hand? None.

Let's break this down:

Anatomy: Studies organisms and their parts (Notice the lack of distinction between which parts they were born with and otherwise)
Sex: "The anatomy of an individual's reproductive system, and secondary sex characteristics"

You're asserting that, because normally it's implied that when you talk about someone's "parts" you logically assume they were born with them, that all people should be applied to such a scenario, when not all people logically would apply - in fact millions of people.

You are conflating “gender” how a person FEELS.with biology… what a person IS.

I advocate that a person is what they are and that they are free to feel however they want but that does not mean that society has to accept it, or worse, give in to what they feel and accomodate all their wishes. People like you that do are truly bad for society.
 
It's not just a matter of perception; we've been through this actually. There is a physical gender indicator in the brain, which alerts the person of the gender that they are, and that the sex they were born as does not meet the typical expectations of the alignment of the two. There is no delusion, no mental illness, no perception out of line with reality

Physical gender indicator? Evidence of this fact or take a hike.

. The vast majority of relevant TRAINED PROFESSIONALS disagree with any deviation from that.

Prove that psychology can prove that feelings are facts… as in, I feel oppressed and that makes it a fact that I am oppressed. It can’t be done because of persecution complexes, etc. Feelings do not make fact and psychologists know this as well as anybody, including me, and that is why they will not admit it.

Only a person inexperienced in life would equate feelings with facts. My ex-wife had BPD and "felt" all sorts of horse crap that was made-up, delusional, etc. that had no basis in realty. Age, experience and learn before you spout silliness.

She's not a guy (assuming you're speaking of a trans woman), and your perpetuation of such falsehoods contributes actively to the oppression of this individual and others, effectively contributing to her/their likely suicide(s).

Incorrect. I feel nothing but empathy for people that are so confused as to think that they are a woman when they are in fact a man. Lumping me in with bigots that hate people just makes you look like an ignorant and uneducated moron.

But congrats, you're not "PC" and you're an amurcan who can do what he wants.

Not sure what your hatred of America is because this is the second time you have gone this route. Do you live in America? I don’t.

I see nothing wrong with adding a neutral room in addition.

That is all that needs to happen and all this PC bull**** would go away… instead you opt for more than just a gender neutral room and think that men should be beating up women in women’s sports.

Oh, being opposed to people getting hurt - especially those who live oppressed lives and society does not acknowledge positively at all - is just being politically correct. My god, your privilege is showing. Tell me, who exactly am I hurting - or who is a trans person using their respective bathroom hurting? Who am I oppressing? Did I stop you from saying ignorant, hurtful (non-true) words? No, I didn't - because political correctness isn't real. Society always exerts pressures to conform with progress. That's not censorship. You can still make yourself look like an ass freely - and people will judge you accordingly too, which will yield the appropriate social consequences.

There are girls and women who do not want men in their dressing rooms. You are hurting them.

Poll Shows The Majority Of Americans Oppose Transgender People Using Preferred Bathroom

Poll Shows The Majority Of Americans Oppose Transgender People Using Preferred Bathroom

You must have interpreted my post wrong because I did not say nor imply that you are sub-human, but rather just mean - pointing out your disconnect with people and humanity.

You clearly said that those that agree with you are “people”. Fact.

And as evidenced by the state above you should learn that you do not represent humanity…
 
Oh, so it is just, like, my opinion, man, that black people should not be enslaved? And as such, calling you a bigot and rigid for simply disagreeing with my opinion is not logical?

Looks like zom ran off....
 
Re: Should transwomen be legally treated as women?

I voted "Maybe."

If they still have to stand up to pee, then no.

If they have completed the transitional process, then yes.
 
Re: Should transwomen be legally treated as women?

I voted "Maybe."

If they still have to stand up to pee, then no.

If they have completed the transitional process, then yes.

What about trans-women competing with naturally born women in sports?
 
Re: Should transwomen be legally treated as women?

What about trans-women competing with naturally born women in sports?

My answer does not change.

If you are concerned about male musculature, I would think that the transgender hormonal treatments, inexperience with new body configuration, and the fact they would be competing with women who have been training for each sport all their lives would balance it out.
 
Re: Should transwomen be legally treated as women?

My answer does not change.

If you are concerned about male musculature, I would think that the transgender hormonal treatments, inexperience with new body configuration, and the fact they would be competing with women who have been training for each sport all their lives would balance it out.

I disagree that they should be allowed to until they meet some sort of standard that they are not retaining their male strength, speed, etc.

No idea how to attain that standard so I simply say they should not be permitted to compete.
 
Re: Should transwomen be legally treated as women?

Don't want to derail the topic but both are.. if not a "disorder" at least an unfortunate condition that they don't necessarily choose to have. Why would being born with one affliction make us feel sympathy while another makes the person evil scum? Psychopaths and pedophiles are born that way and need help, not hate.

Oh it started out ridiculous.

Pedophiles who sexually molest children deserve sympathy and are not scum? Interesting way to look at it. :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom