Yet Again, At Planet Fitness...

[Ceallaigh]

Still, though I don't agree with him in all respects, rturner has raised an interesting issue about personal modesty. Women are to be protected from seeing a strange male genitalia in public. I sympathize with that as I don't find the sight of another man's genitals particularly edifying either, but for some reason I have to put up with it. Why the asymmetry?

That's not the issue really, despite those on the left obsessing over it. Genitalia on the brain. Strange.

Apparently you all are seeing lots of genitalia in this picture:

 

[BCP1928]

You're correct, no one is concerned to offer it for the reason I stated: we're different. But you can seek protection if you want, that's up to you.

Just saying "we're different" is hardly a reason. You might just as well say, "because that's just the way it is." But it isn't, and hasn't always been that way, in this and other cultures. But if who gets to see whose genitals and under what circumstances is merely culturally determined, why is it so important?

 

[Ceallaigh]

genitals

Please, enough already.

 

[BCP1928]

That's not the issue really, despite those on the left obsessing over it. Genitalia on the brain. Strange.

We're just trying to understand what the issue really is.

Apparently you all are seeing lots of genitalia in this picture:

I don't really see an issue, either.

 

[Chesterton]

Just saying "we're different" is hardly a reason. You might just as well say, "because that's just the way it is."

That is what I'm saying - that's the way it is. I'm a realist who deals with reality.

But it isn't, and hasn't always been that way, in this and other cultures. But if who gets to see whose genitals and under what circumstances is merely culturally determined, why is it so important?

If you want to argue "social construct" the burden's on you to prove that it's a social construct. But even if you prove it's a social construct, it remains that this is "the way it is".

 

[BCP1928]

That is what I'm saying - that's the way it is. I'm a realist who deals with reality.

If you want to argue "social construct" the burden's on you to prove that it's a social construct. But even if you prove it's a social construct, it remains that this is "the way it is".

Which should not be subject to change? Why not? rturner proposed that we should return to an earlier cultural practice in which nobody was exposed to anybody else's genitalia regardless of gender, yet that was rejected with only a slight nod to the matter of practicality. Why?

 

[Ceallaigh]

We're just trying to understand what the issue really is.

I don't really see an issue, either.

Women don't like men being in their restrooms and locker rooms. End of story. It doesn't have to involve genitalia and rape. They're just simply very uncomfortable with it. It seems it would take an incredible amount of thick-headedness for anyone to not grasp something so extremely simple.

 

[Chesterton]

Which should not be subject to change? Why not? rturner proposed that we should return to an earlier cultural practice in which nobody was exposed to anybody else's genitalia regardless of gender, yet that was rejected with only a slight nod to the matter of practicality. Why?

EDIT: I think I misread your post. I haven't read every post in this thread, so I don't know exactly what rturner said.

 

[MehGuy]

All this talk from the left about toxic masculinity..

Now they claim that men and women sharing the same locker room/bathroom is no big deal. We can just have separate stalls and locker rooms. Better make sure they are also sound proof. Don't want creepy men trying to audio record women going to the bathroom. Although that presents other safety concerns.

 

[BCP1928]

Women don't like men being in their restrooms and locker rooms. End of story. It doesn't have to involve genitalia and rape. They're just simply very uncomfortable with it.

If I was to make a generalization about "all women" it would be that they like to do their business in private from both men and other women. That, I know, is true of many men as well, who won't use a urinal if there are other men using them. but go to a stall instead.

It seems it would take an incredible amount of thick-headedness for anyone to not grasp something so extremely simple.

Would a cosmetically transitioned woman who still had female genitalia but looked like a man cause the same discomfort?

 

[BCP1928]

EDIT: I think I misread your post. I haven't read every post in this thread, so I don't know exactly what rturner said.

He was talking about Planet Fitness shower arrangements which are apparently on the open plan so that all users can see each other disrobe and shower, as apposed to having the showers in booths or stalls where disrobing and showering can be relatively private regardless of gender. The response to his proposal was apparently that the general desire for such privacy can be ignored., so long as persons with male genitalia are kept out of women's locker rooms.

 

[rjs330]

That was John the Baptist. And it wasn't approving of war or violence, but an admonition against extortion, something that wasn't unheard of for Roman soldiers to do.

Yes it was. And Jesus called him the greatest born of women. He was a prophet if God, so he spoke for God. He said soldiers should be satisfied with their pay. He never stated they should stop being soldiers. And yes I am sure he was admonishing them against extortion. But he never told them to quit. Jesus never told any soldier to stop being a soldier.

But we are getting off topic so that's all I'm going to say about this.

 

[rjs330]

...or like saying a man can be a woman.

They know a man can't be a woman. That's why they came up with gender theory and use feelings as a factor in determining what someone is. What's your treating is that does not apply to ANY other feeling. Just that one.

 

[rjs330]

Why should anyone accept transgenders "identity" when they can't even accept themselves? It makes no sense.

And don't forget that the identity could change tomorrow and we need to accept that as well. That's why this is a mental illness that needs to be delt with as a mental illness.

 

[rjs330]

It's a question of how one understands the source texts and biblical hermeneutics. I reject the notion that God endorses violence.

No it's not. The Bible is very clear that God has endorsed violence. Now Jesus teaching for CHRISTIANS, his followers were to be peaceful people. And Paul taught that as much as it is possible to live peaceably with all men. Even he understood that sometimes it's not possible. But he never endorsed violence for the followers of Christ. I don't believe that it applies to using violence in defense of your life or someone else's. The command to love your neighbor would definitely imply the need to defend your neighbor from those who who do evil upon them. And Paul is clear that governments primary duty is to protect it's citizens.

And of course none of that applies to unbelievers. Unbelievers are free to do whatever they want because they are lost anyway. They are separated from God and they can be the nicest most peaceful person you can imagine and they are still condemned. As condemned as the violent terrorist. Because we don't get to be with God by our own deeds.

Once again off topic so that's it for me.

 

[Belk]

What disrespect? Trans people pretend to be something they aren’t. Stating biological facts isn’t disrespect and I’m sorry that makes some people uncomfortable.

Indeed. How could they feel disrespected when the almighty RilyG has determined they do not have a "real" issue and are "just pretending". Look, you are entitled to opinion but don't pretend that if someone came to you and said "RilyG, you are not A real Christian because XYZ" you would not feel disrespected. They are fully aware their body is not the sex that corresponds to their feelings. That is the entirety of the issue and there are many medical professionals whom are helping to grapple with a complex and difficult issue. You coming along with simplistic answers that have proved ineffective in the past is not respect.

 

[RileyG]

And don't forget that the identity could change tomorrow and we need to accept that as well. That's why this is a mental illness that needs to be delt with as a mental illness.

Absolutely! I’m not going to validate someone’s delusion.

 

[RileyG]

Indeed. How could they feel disrespected when the almighty RilyG has determined they do not have a "real" issue and are "just pretending". Look, you are entitled to opinion but don't pretend that if someone came to you and said "RilyG, you are not A real Christian because XYZ" you would not feel disrespected. They are fully aware their body is not the sex that corresponds to their feelings. That is the entirety of the issue and there are many medical professionals whom are helping to grapple with a complex and difficult issue. You coming along with simplistic answers that have proved ineffective in the past is not respect.

Simplistic? Even after transitioning, they are still unhappy and have suicidal ideation. I compare it too trans race or trans species, it’s no different.

 

[RileyG]

Still, though I don't agree with him in all respects, rturner has raised an interesting issue about personal modesty. Women are to be protected from seeing a strange male genitalia in public. I sympathize with that as I don't find the sight of another man's genitals particularly edifying either, but for some reason I have to put up with it. Why the asymmetry?

You choose to shower in a locker room as a man with other males. Women don’t need to see men naked other than those they consent to.

 

[Belk]

Simplistic? Even after transitioning, they are still unhappy and have suicidal ideation. I compare it too trans race or trans species, it’s no different.

Oh, they all feel the same do they? Yes, as I said, simplistic and disrespectful.