Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Texas mom wins right to make her son her daughter
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ThatRobGuy" data-source="post: 74421869" data-attributes="member: 123415"><p>So you honestly don't understand how the situation of "a trans-woman playing a contact sport against biological women" is different than "trans woman pooping in stall next to you then leaving"?</p><p></p><p>One creates an increased risk of physical harm, the other does not.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You'll have to ask the poster who replied that "I wouldn't want them in the mens room either", I can't speak for them.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Correct, if a person is being belligerent a the store, one has the option to walk away...which is precisely why that's not a comparable scenario to prison and shouldn't be addressed the same way.</p><p></p><p>What I'm "blathering on about" is that it doesn't make sense to push for a sweeping social policy that says "we have to treat trans women like men all of the time because of one or two specific scenarios"</p><p></p><p>My point was that treating a trans woman the same as a biological woman presents no undue or elevated risk in 99% of life's scenarios. So why push for some social mandate where we have to make 99% of trans-gender people feel bad/uncomfortable out of fear of what could happen with the other 1% when we could simply just take the approach of addressing special scenarios when they arise?</p><p></p><p>There's a valid reason why one may be concerned about a trans-woman (who happens to be a violent criminal) being housed in jail with biological women who are smaller and weaker. Treating a trans-woman as a woman while they're at Giant Eagle buying presents no safety concerns. Therefore, making the latter feel uncomfortable, using the actions of the former as justification, is inconsistent and makes no sense.</p><p></p><p>And for the record, the examples being discussed (sports and prison) are things where special considerations and precautions are already taken even when we're talking about people who are all of the same biological gender. They test for steroids in sports, and especially violent criminals get housed in the SHU or solitary in many cases. So it's not as if the "take special precautions in certain scenarios, but have a general policy for everyone else for whom that doesn't apply" is anything new or foreign.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ThatRobGuy, post: 74421869, member: 123415"] So you honestly don't understand how the situation of "a trans-woman playing a contact sport against biological women" is different than "trans woman pooping in stall next to you then leaving"? One creates an increased risk of physical harm, the other does not. You'll have to ask the poster who replied that "I wouldn't want them in the mens room either", I can't speak for them. Correct, if a person is being belligerent a the store, one has the option to walk away...which is precisely why that's not a comparable scenario to prison and shouldn't be addressed the same way. What I'm "blathering on about" is that it doesn't make sense to push for a sweeping social policy that says "we have to treat trans women like men all of the time because of one or two specific scenarios" My point was that treating a trans woman the same as a biological woman presents no undue or elevated risk in 99% of life's scenarios. So why push for some social mandate where we have to make 99% of trans-gender people feel bad/uncomfortable out of fear of what could happen with the other 1% when we could simply just take the approach of addressing special scenarios when they arise? There's a valid reason why one may be concerned about a trans-woman (who happens to be a violent criminal) being housed in jail with biological women who are smaller and weaker. Treating a trans-woman as a woman while they're at Giant Eagle buying presents no safety concerns. Therefore, making the latter feel uncomfortable, using the actions of the former as justification, is inconsistent and makes no sense. And for the record, the examples being discussed (sports and prison) are things where special considerations and precautions are already taken even when we're talking about people who are all of the same biological gender. They test for steroids in sports, and especially violent criminals get housed in the SHU or solitary in many cases. So it's not as if the "take special precautions in certain scenarios, but have a general policy for everyone else for whom that doesn't apply" is anything new or foreign. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Texas mom wins right to make her son her daughter
Top
Bottom