Nebraska governor signs order narrowly defining sex as that assigned at birth

[The Barbarian]

Wrong, naturally? Even slavery in history of the usa, in the last few years and longer ago,
was sometimes peaceful, whether moral or not.

No. Involuntary servitude is by it's very nature, violent.

So also the things you object to or are opposed to are your subjective opinion limited by your own knowledge .

It's just a fact. By definition, forcing someone to do work against their will is an act of violence.

 

[The Barbarian]

Apples vs oranges

Nope. It's "we don't allow that kind of person to use that facility." Same thing. Ironically, the law requires a girl misidentified as a boy at birth to go to the boys' restroom. I know it's mainly political theater to pander to the lowest of the electorate. But it is still in the law, and if enforced, it would do exactly what it purports to prevent.

 

[BPPLEE]

Nope. It's "we don't allow that kind of person to use that facility." Same thing. Ironically, the law requires a girl misidentified as a boy at birth to go to the boys' restroom. I know it's mainly political theater to pander to the lowest of the electorate. But it is still in the law, and if enforced, it would do exactly what it purports to prevent.

I don’think anyone would know,care or expect a girl in such a case to be subjected to this law. And like most other legislation there are unintended consequences

 

[The Barbarian]

I don’think anyone would know,care or expect a girl in such a case to be subjected to this law. And like most other legislation there are unintended consequences

As I said, it's just a bomb waiting to go off. Such laws have been used by conservatives to punish people they don't like. At best, it's useless, and at worst, an abominable abuse of state power.

And yes, I get that it's mostly theater, not meant to be actually enforced. But that's how abuses happen.

 

[Aaron112]

No. Involuntary servitude is by it's very nature, violent.

Not naturally, no.

 

[Aaron112]

It's just a fact. By definition, forcing someone to do work against their will is an act of violence.

No, it is not.
In fact as well as history (including today) it is very very common. Sometimes it may be, often in may be, with violence, but not at all necessarily, no.

 

[BPPLEE]

As I said, it's just a bomb waiting to go off. Such laws have been used by conservatives to punish people they don't like. At best, it's useless, and at worst, an abominable abuse of state power.

And yes, I get that it's mostly theater, not meant to be actually enforced. But that's how abuses happen.

And when it goes off the civil suit will ensue and supporters will have another cause to get behind and the end result will be the opposite of what was intended

 

[The Barbarian]

He should get wide support for following the science instead of social construct.

Except he's denying the science, and following the social construct of the whackos.

 

[The Barbarian]

And when it goes off the civil suit will ensue and supporters will have another cause to get behind and the end result will be the opposite of what was intended

Likely so. And my thought is that genetics pretty much defines gender. This law is running directly against that reality.

 

[The Barbarian]

In fact as well as history (including today) it is very very common.

And it's always implemented with violence or the threat of violence. Take away violence and slavery goes away.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

The exceptions are the 0.01 percent of intersex people and the 0.05 percent of people actually suffering gender dysphoria.

Right - as you said, address any issues in the courts. There's no need to write legislation specifically targeting the exceptions. Because that's what this legislation does - it's totally irrelevant to 99% of the population.

 

[HARK!]

Right - as you said, address any issues in the courts. There's no need to write legislation specifically targeting the exceptions. Because that's what this legislation does - it's totally irrelevant to 99% of the population.

I like the law. It helps to prevent boys from raping girls, in the girl's bathroom at school, because they can lay there in wait for them, because they say to themselves, "oh, I'm special."

 

[RDKirk]

Right - as you said, address any issues in the courts. There's no need to write legislation specifically targeting the exceptions. Because that's what this legislation does - it's totally irrelevant to 99% of the population.

The trans activists don't want the exceptions--which are trans people, actually a small subset of trans people--handled in court. They want the broad law crafted in favor of the exceptions and against the majority.

 

[Bradskii]

I like the law. It helps to prevent boys from raping girls, in the girl's bathroom at school, because they can lay there in wait for them, because they say to themselves, "oh, I'm special."

I'm sure I read somewhere that there's already a law against that. Maybe somebody with a legal background can verify that...

 

[HARK!]

I'm sure I read somewhere that there's already a law against that. Maybe somebody with a legal background can verify that...

Some states allow boys, posing as girls, to hang out in the girl's bathrooms. There are numerous cases of the posers raping girls in the news. You might want to look into it. It's a horrible problem.

 

[The Barbarian]

No. I did not ignore it, nor did I ignore you.

I showed you the research, in which they collected facts that led to their conclusions.

The things you presented so far are all subject to verification and testing, and not at all reliable in these circumstance, i.e. not "facts" until and unless actually proven ..

If you had bothered to read the paper, you'd have seen that the facts support the conclusions.

 

[The Barbarian]

Some states allow boys, posing as girls, to hang out in the girl's bathrooms. There are numerous cases of the posers raping girls in the news. You might want to look into it. It's a horrible problem.

Hmm... A quick look didn't turn up anything verifiable by police records. What do you have?

 

[Aaron112]

If you had bothered to read the paper, you'd have seen that the facts support the conclusions.

The source(s) are not at all verified as reliable - rather the opposite to me.

 

[The Barbarian]

Wrong, naturally? Even slavery in history of the usa, in the last few years and longer ago,
was sometimes peaceful, whether moral or not.

It's never peaceful. By definition, slavery is forced servitude.

So also the things you object to or are opposed to are your subjective opinion limited by your own knowledge .

I do know that slavery is, and always has been upheld by violence.

 

[The Barbarian]

The source(s) are not at all verified as reliable - rather the opposite to me.

Doesn't matter. The evidence is presented. Reality might be annoying, but denying it won't do you any good.