Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

While I'd generally agree with you on this we are talking about a politician who's supporting a law passed for what reason exactly? If it was to fix an issue and I simply disagreed with it I'd happily give him that charity. There's a difference between respecting people of a different opinion and respecting people causing shit for political gain. Tred Cruz is fairly deserving of ridicule on this & many other issues.

"I don't like what this person is doing, therefore I am justified in intentionally misinterpreting what he says and ridiculing him over it".

That's retarded. If he's deserving of ridicule over what he has said, then ridicule him over what he said. Don't stick words in his mouth and ridicule him over those, you just make yourself look like an idiot.

But nobody is doing that, so the "words in his mouth" thing is a red herring. People are citing his actual words. Should we be putting clarifiers in there that he did not, in order to make them sound more reasonable? Couldn't we also put different clarifiers in there which make it sound less reasonable? No, what you do is look at the context of the statement to infer meaning. Then you can decide whether the statement is reasonable or is worthy of ridicule.

Cruz's entire rationale for the statement were meant in a harmful way (in support of persecuting transgender people). That's the entire context right there. That's all we need to consider. The whole thing is part of an anti-transgender scare campaign, not an attempt to reasonably quantify who can use the bathroom with whom. There's no real onus on the reader to view things in a charitable light if they're clearly meant uncharitably.

[Orange Wizard]

Yeah I sorta drifted off the point there. My original comment:

Common sense: grown men shouldn’t be in bathrooms w/ little girls.

Reminder that this is a grown man whose daughters are little girls. Does he have no part in their raising?

I'm going to be charitable and he isn't an idiot and is not including parents/relatives in that statement.

He's pretty clearly anti-transgender. I think it's reasonable to assume he's not an idiot though.

[Frumple]

I'unno, I kinda' think thinking of cruz as an idiot is the charitable interpretation. 'Cause if he's not, he's willingly pushing an agenda and spreading vicious lies and misinformation that contribute to giving transgendered folks in the US a fatality rate somewhere in the same ballpark as front-line combatants.

"Idiot" is a fair bit nicer than "murderous lying bigot", imo.

[Shadowlord]

Why be charitable? He certainly isn't.

Because it's good practise for debate. Intentionally misinterpreting what someone says is petty and dumb.

Also common sense: If someone is a transgender woman, they aren't a grown man.

Physically, they are. Unless they've had sex reassignment surgery, in which case we should probably call them transsexual. In any case, conservatives don't agree with you.

Here's a simple question: Are you physically attracted to the physical appearance of a person - masculine or feminine?

If you're going to draw a line, why not draw it at when a person starts looking like the gender they're transitioning to? You could consider it based on attraction: If you're physically attracted to women and you're attracted to someone, is that not proof enough that they're a woman? (Or men/man, if you're attracted to men.)

That argument probably doesn't work as well if you're attracted to both genders, in which case: If a man loses his penis to accident or disease, would you not still consider him a man*? If so, wouldn't a trans-man, with a vagina instead of a penis, who looks exactly the same as the previous hypothetical man except for having a vagina, also be a man? (Example given with men because it's a lot harder to lose a vagina, afaik)

Some might claim that a post-srs trans-woman still isn't a woman because she lacks ovaries and a womb and natural cycles and so on. However, some natural-born-women lack those things as well: menopause eliminates periods w/ natural cycles of estrogen, ovarian cancer (or a high risk of it) can result in ovaries being removed (which also triggers early menopause unless HRT prevents it), and it's possible for the womb to fail to develop.

* Yes, I know some people would consider a man who has lost his penis to be less than a man. Flip that around: Angelina Jolie has had a double mastectomy (and then reconstructive surgery) and also had her ovaries removed - and is she not still a woman?

(P.S. Personally, I prefer to call a person whatever they want to be called, if I know what that is. Also, I specified physical attraction because it's possible to be attracted to personality regardless of the package that it is in.)

[smjjames]

@Shadowlord: The thing is that the same exact blurred zone you're talking about (Angelina Jolie is a good example. As is Carly Fiorina, her personality and political stances aside), is also what gives conservatives fits of cognitive dissonance.

[SalmonGod]

Yeah, the reason people react with hatred to these issues is they WANT the world to be black and white.  So pointing out the grey in their logic usually just results in anger and further regression, because you've proven that their current level of regression isn't enough to produce the black & white worldview that they strive for.

[PTTG??]

The best part is, nobody cared about this until a stupid redneck republican made a fuss.

[Baffler]

I think Cruz is seeing his chances at winning the primary in a legitimate way fall apart (he's been mathematically eliminated, the best he can hope for is now is to force a contested convention and take it away from Trump because he's got a sliver more establishment support), and is trying to say inflammatory things that will get him free media coverage and get people talking about him. It just isn't working.

[smjjames]

It doesn't help him that Trump is taking the high road (or trying to) on that particular subject.

And of course, he's fallen back on the whole calling him a New York liberal thing that very likely cost him votes in NY.

[Zangi]

@Gender Restrooms
Transgender are uncomfortable using Birth gender allocated restrooms.  Versus. People are uncomfortable with what they perceive to be the opposite sex using the 'wrong' restroom.

In a society that generally does not have coed restrooms.  Going over well.

Also, can anyone just claim they are transgender while using the 'wrong' restroom?  How do you back that up or... disprove it?
/adding wood

[Cruxador]

The thing is, Zangi, this isn't a problem that happens. Nobody uses the "wrong" restroom and then, when questioned, says they're trans. The problem that this is here to solve is one that has literally never happened according to any public evidence.

[Culise]

Plus, as it is now, you'll have these feminine women and masculine men using, respectively, male and female restrooms while claiming they're following their birth genders because plenty of post-op folk can pass quite effectively for their new gender.  If one hypothetical can be considered, so then should the converse be considered as well.

[Ogdibus]

Also, can anyone just claim they are transgender while using the 'wrong' restroom?  How do you back that up or... disprove it?
/adding wood

I don't know how the various policies work, but an openly trans person is going to have friends, family, or acquaintances that know.  There is a good chance that their doctor knows.  Possession of hormones is also a pretty clear indicator, but it shouldn't be considered the only one.  A person that spontaneously decides to impersonate another gender probably won't have any of those things.

I'm not saying that people should have to take a test.  The evidence should be a way to disprove an a false accusation.

Edit: grammar

[smjjames]

Also, can anyone just claim they are transgender while using the 'wrong' restroom?  How do you back that up or... disprove it?
/adding wood

I don't know how the various policies work, but an openly trans person is going to have friends, family, or acquaintances that know.  There is a good chance that their doctor knows.  Possession of hormones is also a pretty clear indicator, but it shouldn't be considered the only one.  A person that spontaneously decides to impersonate another gender probably won't have any of those things.

I'm not saying that people should have to take a test.  The evidence should be a way to disprove an false accusation.

Okay, then how do you do a test right on the spot?

The answer is, you simply can't, not without doing something as drastic as ripping the persons clothes off totally or something as futuristic as taking a cell sample (blood, saliva, skin, hair) and doing a DNA test.

The whole thing makes no logical sense and is simply unenforceable without using something equally absurd as 'bathroom police'

[Geltor]

what are the issues associated with doing away with gender-oriented restrooms? hasnt this been done anywhere with success? i heard theres no gender segregation in the norwegian military and it was ok.