Thread: President of the US of A

Originally Posted by UKRob

I think I have a solution to the toilet issue - if you sit down to pee, use the ladies, but not if you are a man. If you normally stand up to pee but don't feel comfortable doing it in front of men - use the ladies, as long as you are wearing female clothes.

All the while singing:

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

It is sick, perverse. Just as the 'gay' marriage thing. A sick society and going down the tubes the way Rome, among others did. When I was a pre-teen guys my age used to say, "Boy, I wish I was your age, and knew what I know now." I'm glad I'm one foot in the grave and wouldn't be a young person in this world for love nor money.

But I think I would probably miss ya Jimmy !

Perhaps the bathroom issue is part of or tying into a bigger plan?

I'm not a conspiracy minded person, however, IF it becomes the norm that transgender people use bathrooms and locker rooms of the opposite sex than their biological sex, as well as, for example, men or hormone crazed boys who think they've reached Nirvana being able to declare themselves female and by doing so have free access to female locker rooms, showers, etc, I would assume most women would no longer feel safe. I'm not a woman, never been a woman. I think I can still "put myself in a woman's shoes" and I think I would be livid about what is going on. I'm actually quite surprised that there aren't protests around the country of groups of women putting their foot down and saying no to this.

So....If women lose a feeling of safety in places they previously felt safe, that may play well with an overall feeling our country may have if there are more widespread terrorist attacks on our soil. Unsafe in bathrooms, locker rooms, unsafe in public, unsafe everywhere.

That way we can all turn to government to protect us, provide for us and instruct us on how best to live our lives since we most certainly can't do those things for ourselves!

ChrisL

Y'know I was raised in the segregated south. I remember white and colored drinking fountains, bathrooms, and it wasn't an issue where I went to school because there were no black students at all. I was/am a civil rights advocate in terms of race, creed and color, and I still think that the Reverend Dr. Martyn Luther King was a great man.

I don't even understand where this sexual stuff, gender stuff is coming from. Women who do the same job should get the same pay, and should not be discriminated against because of their gender. But men/women who are confused about their sexuality ? I don't equate that as being in the same ballpark ......... no pun.

Originally Posted by honedright

when we can rationalize away and reject science and biology that says this is male, and this is female, this is human and this is not, then what is right?

As far as I know science and biology arn't quite clear cut on sex/gender as it is on human/nonhuman, though the later is also not simple black and white either.

To start with the easier one - if I remember my high school biology correctly the definition of species is based on the ability of producing fertile offspring. By this definition recent research would suggest that neanderthals are humans because they had sex with humans and passed their genes. On the reverse is speciation - not clear cut either.

As far as the biology of sex/gender goes, when our knowledge and understanding was more limited it was a matter of external genitalia. And hermaphrodites were unexplained phenomena and in many cases treated as animals.
Now, that we know about genes, DNA, and chromosomes things are not simpler - you have people with extra chromosomes, or with genitals that don't correspond to their chromosome set. All this is to say that the neat male/female classification isn't as simple as people want or have wanted it to be.
And in this context you can add psychology - some people identify as the opposite sex. The simplest solution to this, of course, is to treat them as sick/crazy/perverted/etc. and that certainly is the traditional approach. But the society has changed and plenty of people do not find this approach satisfactory anymore.

But, as I said, this seems to me yet another issue that is being blown out of proportion for purely political purposes. If gay wedding cakes had proven more effective I think that would've been the big social controversy instead. And if Obama thought a fight over it were more damaging to the left than to the right he'd have left it to get resolved the same way as the gay wedding cakes.

Originally Posted by ChrisL

I think I can still "put myself in a woman's shoes" and I think I would be livid about what is going on.

I don't know, once you put women's shoes on, you may never be the same

Do people still remember this

Originally Posted by gugi

I don't know, once you put women's shoes on, you may never be the same

Do people still remember this

I can't remember if I have never seen it.

Originally Posted by 32t

I can't remember if I have never seen it.

It may be what Ted Cruz meant by 'New York values'. However, it was reported that the purpose was 'to soften the image and get the gay vote'.

Originally Posted by gugi

As far as I know science and biology arn't quite clear cut on sex/gender as it is on human/nonhuman, though the later is also not simple black and white either.

To start with the easier one - if I remember my high school biology correctly the definition of species is based on the ability of producing fertile offspring. By this definition recent research would suggest that neanderthals are humans because they had sex with humans and passed their genes. On the reverse is speciation - not clear cut either.

As far as the biology of sex/gender goes, when our knowledge and understanding was more limited it was a matter of external genitalia. And hermaphrodites were unexplained phenomena and in many cases treated as animals.
Now, that we know about genes, DNA, and chromosomes things are not simpler - you have people with extra chromosomes, or with genitals that don't correspond to their chromosome set. All this is to say that the neat male/female classification isn't as simple as people want or have wanted it to be.
And in this context you can add psychology - some people identify as the opposite sex. The simplest solution to this, of course, is to treat them as sick/crazy/perverted/etc. and that certainly is the traditional approach. But the society has changed and plenty of people do not find this approach satisfactory anymore.

But, as I said, this seems to me yet another issue that is being blown out of proportion for purely political purposes. If gay wedding cakes had proven more effective I think that would've been the big social controversy instead. And if Obama thought a fight over it were more damaging to the left than to the right he'd have left it to get resolved the same way as the gay wedding cakes.

We can, and should, accommodate people with differences, just as long as those accommodations don't interfere with people who are different in other ways.

Maybe the gay cake thing was blown out of proportion, with culpability on both sides. And if you identify with a gender different, from that of which you were born, fine. But don't force others to go along with it, especially if they don't want to.

Maybe if everyone individually were a little more tolerant, the political opportunists would have less divisive fodder to dump on us.

Folks already have problems accepting anyone who isn't like they are meaning the same religion or ethnicity or tribe or (you fill in the blanks) but this sex gender thing is simply too much. I mean it's like a guy landing a spaceship from Arcturas and he has 4 legs and 4 arms and two heads. It's just too much beyond the pale. If the law didn't protect him they would kill him in two seconds.