Trump Administration Eyes Defining Transgender Out of Existence - Page 23 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14961961
Pants-of-dog wrote:So Trump should be allowed to remove discrimination protection from trans people because voting rights were originally limited to rich white guys?


Not the way I would phrase it but that is essentially correct. It depends on what protections you are talking about whether he can do it on his own or not.
#14961969
Transgender people want the special right to use the bathroom of their choice and to be able to change clothing in the locker room of their choice regardless of their birth sex.


This is not actually true. I will not bother to get into the intricacies of this because you do not care and probably would not understand anyway.

I am angered when people point to some Christians and maintain that requiring them to recognize the constitutional rights of others is somehow forcing them to sin.

Earlier OD mentioned a baker "forced" to make a cake for a gay person and maintained that this required him to violate his religious freedom. It is so wrong in so many ways that I could write a book about it.

1. The Mormon church believed that black people carried the mark of Cain. Therefor they were denied the priesthood in the LDS church. (This has since changed by revelation.)*

2. Mormons believe that smoking violates their "Words of Wisdom".

3. Many fundamentalist Christians believe that smoking defiles the body which is the "Temple of God".

So a Mormon gets a job at a convenience store that sells tobacco. Should they be allowed to refuse to sell tobacco or liquor because it violates their religious beliefs?

4. An man, lets call him our baker, owns his bakery. He has 20 employees. He refuses to hire a gay woman because she "violates his religious freedom". How is this different from making a cake. The cake is taken away and eaten but the employee stays a long time and is paid by our bigot baker. Surly it is worse to pay a homosexual than it is to simply sell them something to eat.

5. Our same baker comes to believe that blacks bear the "Marks of Cain" and should be shunned. It was a common enough belief at one time or another. Some places still today. Should be be permitted a pass on our equal rights laws because he believes that he should get a "special right" to ignore the law?

Finally. Last comment on the abject bigots who use their religion to indulge their small minded prejudices. My New Testament is filled with words on the love of our neighbor. Jesus said that the greatest commandment is that we "love our neighbor as ourselves". No other minor rules trump this one. Prohibitions about spilling one's seed or Sunday traveling are subordinate to this rule. And we are told to feed the sinners. Visit them in prison. Give them clothing.

When I hear of so-called Christians like these people I am saddened. They simply have no clue. They seem to believe that if they join the right club and follow all of the rules, they will get rich now and live forever later. They are pathetic simpletons for the most part. The thing they have going for them is that God is forgiving. They had better hope that he is forgiving enough to give them a pass for what would be behavior too bad for an atheist.
#14961986
One Degree wrote:Not the way I would phrase it but that is essentially correct. It depends on what protections you are talking about whether he can do it on his own or not.


As far as I can tell, this is a nonsensical position that has no supporting logic.

If you want to try and explain it, go ahead, but even the Poe thinks this is asinine.

———————————-

Hindsite wrote:Transgender people want the special right to use the bathroom of their choice and to be able to change clothing in the locker room of their choice regardless of their birth sex.


Not quite.

They want the right to use bathrooms and lockers that align with their current gender. This is the same right you have.

Hindsite wrote:That is a ridiculous question, because no one is suggesting such a thing.


You are very funny sometimes.
#14962073
@Drlee
Cherry picking examples is not an argument. Should a Muslim butcher be required to butcher pork as well as beef? Should a black baker be required to make a cake for the KKK? Should a Jewish baker be required to make a cake for Nazis? These arguments always cherry pick examples when they are actually unwilling to abide by the same rules themselves.
The only argument should be whether a business owner may choose what ‘special orders’ he does? It should be common sense this must be his choice to avoid all the examples above.
I do not want to share the restroom with a woman who thinks she is a man. Just like all the examples above, I believe my discrimination is justified. Some discrimination is. Like most liberal arguments, you depend upon ‘weaponizing’ words as an argument. Discrimination is simply choices we make that create our culture. It is silliness to believe all discrimination should be eliminated. Transgenders are free to continue to make their arguments. So far, I am not convinced by their arguments. This is how it is suppose to work. The burden of proof is on them, not me. I am free to deny them these things until they convince me otherwise.
#14962076
One Degree wrote:So far, I am not convinced by their arguments.
That's rich, considering that you have no fucking argument. :knife:

You have never stated as to what privileges and rights that transgenders get that other people do not get, yet that's your claim. Put up, or shut up!
#14962080
Godstud wrote:That's rich, considering that you have no fucking argument. :knife:

You have never stated as to what privileges and rights that transgenders get that other people do not get, yet that's your claim. Put up, or shut up!


Your arguments seem to come from a recorded message. All output, zero input. Go back and read what was actually said, not what you imagine.
#14962086
Should a Muslim butcher be required to butcher pork as well as beef?


Sigh. That you don't see the difference is sad. No he should not. But if he decided not to sell beef to black people he should be shut down.

Should a black baker be required to make a cake for the KKK?


No. But if he decided not to sell cakes to white people he should be shut down.

Should a Jewish baker be required to make a cake for Nazis?


OK. Sooooo you don't see that you are comparing trans people with Nazis and violent Racists. You forgot to mention child molesters and lawyers too.

The only argument should be whether a business owner may choose what ‘special orders’ he does?


No. That is not the "only argument". We have enacted laws to protect customers from bigotry and racism. This is an extension of that.


I do not want to share the restroom with a woman who thinks she is a man.


Why? What are you afraid of? Fear can make people irrational. Always has. But really. What is it that you fear from a transsexual who is in the restroom with you? Are you somehow afraid that your masculinity will be compromised?

Admittedly I am a straight man but I wouldn't mind women in the men's room myself. You know, back in my single and heavier drinking days I used to frequent a few bars in Montana. On a busy night there was often a long line for the ladies room. (I will leave you to imagine why.) On more than a few occasions some woman, in extremis as one might say, decided that the lesser of two choices was to use a stall in the men's room. I do not think I was alone in finding that the biggest problem with this was.....well....nothing. It did not affect me at all. She got relief. I got relief...no harm no foul.

I will also admit that I have heard of sexual congress having been perpetrated in restrooms before. Oddly, it may see to you, I have never heard of this happening between a woman who transitioned to male and a man. It may have happened but it would certainly be news.

I guess we have to have "the talk". Women who transition to a male gender rarely do that so they can be gay. Male cross-dressers and transvestites are another thing altogether but they are not the subject of this thread. But here is the thing about cross-dressers and transvestites. They are overwhelmingly male and sometimes homosexual. But you see, no matter how they dress, by your rules, they are still required to use the men's room. THEY are the one's who might be, as we might say, evaluating your equipment and lusting after your papa parts.



Just like all the examples above, I believe my discrimination is justified. Some discrimination is. Like most liberal arguments, you depend upon ‘weaponizing’ words as an argument.


As you can see, I did not "weaponize" any of the above. If you feel a bit foolish right now it is not my fault.


Discrimination is simply choices we make that create our culture.



Wrong. Discriminating against people creates victims. For example, not renting housing to a white person so you can have an all-black building.

It is silliness to believe all discrimination should be eliminated.


Not when there are clear victims subject to the irrational fears of others.

Transgenders are free to continue to make their arguments. So far, I am not convinced by their arguments. This is how it is suppose to work.



No. Actually you have it backward. Our US constitution grants rights to all of the people. It is up to the naysayers to justify taking them away from anyone for any reason.

The burden of proof is on them, not me


Obviously not. A black person does not have to "prove" that he/she is worthy of equality with whites. I am surprised that even you would say this.

I am free to deny them these things until they convince me otherwise.


No. Actually you aren't.
Last edited by Drlee on 11 Nov 2018 14:04, edited 1 time in total.
#14962087
Godstud wrote:Grow up and learn to answer a question. You evade and dodge every question because you have no fucking argument. Are you incapable of answering a simple question or are you just being an arrogant ass?


Let’s look at the evidence. I respond with lengthy explanations of my position. You respond with one line insults and platitudes. I think I win. :)
#14962088
Drlee wrote:Sigh. That you don't see the difference is sad. No he should not. But if he decided not to sell beef to black people he should be shut down.



No. But if he decided not to sell cakes to white people he should be shut down.



OK. Sooooo you don't see that you are comparing trans people with Nazis and violent Racists. You forgot to mention child molesters and lawyers too.



No. That is not the "only argument". We have enacted laws to protect customers from bigotry and racism. This is an extension of that.




Why? What are you afraid of? Fear can make people irrational. Always has. But really. What is it that you fear from a transsexual who is in the restroom with you? Are you somehow afraid that your masculinity will be compromised?

Admittedly I am a straight man but I wouldn't mind women in the men's room myself. You know, back in my single and heavier drinking days I used to frequent a few bars in Montana. On a busy night there was often a long line for the ladies room. (I will leave you to imagine why.) On more than a few occasions some woman, in extremis as one might say, decided that the lesser of two choices was to use a stall in the men's room. I do not think I was alone in finding that the biggest problem with this was.....well....nothing. It did not affect me at all. She got relief. I got relief...no harm no foul.

I will also admit that I have heard of sexual congress having been perpetrated in restrooms before. Oddly, it may see to you, I have never heard of this happening between a woman who transitioned to male and a man. It may have happened but it would certainly be news.

I guess we have to have "the talk". Women who transition to a male gender rarely do that so they can be gay. Male cross-dressers and transvestites are another thing altogether but they are not the subject of this thread. But here is the thing about cross-dressers and transvestites. They are overwhelmingly male and sometimes homosexual. But you see, no matter how they dress, by your rules, they are still required to use the men's room. THEY are the one's who might be, as we might say, evaluating your equipment and lusting after your papa parts.





As you can see, I did not "weaponize" any of the above. If you feel a bit foolish right now it is not my fault.





Wrong. Discriminating against people creates victims. For example, not renting housing to a white person so you can have an all-black building.



Not when there are clear victims subject to the irrational fears of others.




No. Actually you have it backward. Our US constitution grants rights to all of the people. It is up to the naysayers to justify taking them away from anyone for any reason.



Obviously not. A black person does not have to "prove" that he/she is worthy of equality with whites. I am surprised that even you would say this.



No. Actually you aren't.


@Drlee said... (paraphrased)
“Blah, blah, blah the people I want rights for matter, the people you want rights for are racists and bigots. Everything must be decided upon my belief in the myth my view of individual rights are the only criterion.”
@Drlee hilariously said...
Actually you have it backward. Our US constitution grants rights to all of the people.

I take it this is based upon having never read the original? Lmao
See my earlier arguments on the absurdity of this argument. What was required to give women and minorities the ‘right’ to vote?
#14962095
Godstud wrote::lol: Blathering on in an uneducated fashion and thinking that doctors mutilate you, is mentally unwell.

It's got nothing to do with you, and your so-called "caring" is just you inflicting your own opinion on someone else.

edit- spelling error.


So what do you call the destruction of a healthy body part?

It seems like there should be a distinction between cutting off a useless body part which is not able to be used or which threatens the greater health of the body and destroying a healthy body part.

The word mutilation seems to fit that scenario well, doesn't it?
#14962098
:lol: Surgery is not mutilation. Your belief is preposterous and silly.

One Degree wrote:I respond with lengthy explanations of my position.
You have never once answered a single question despite lengthy explanations about irrelevant things. It's easy to answer, if you have an argument. it's not, if you lack one.

You lack an argument, so it comes back to your infantile ideology, and bullshit opinion on rights.
#14962105
Godstud wrote::lol: Surgery is not mutilation. Your belief is preposterous and silly.

You have never once answered a single question despite lengthy explanations about irrelevant things. It's easy to answer, if you have an argument. it's not, if you lack one.

You lack an argument, so it comes back to your infantile ideology, and bullshit opinion on rights.


Godstud definition:) How our government actually operates is infantile ideology. Only my misconceptions should be accepted as truth. Lol
#14962176
Verv wrote:So what do you call the destruction of a healthy body part?

It seems like there should be a distinction between cutting off a useless body part which is not able to be used or which threatens the greater health of the body and destroying a healthy body part.

The word mutilation seems to fit that scenario well, doesn't it?


So your argument is that trans people should not have any protection from discrimination becuase you feel gender reassignment surgery is mutilation?
#14962206
I see One Degree is refusing to argue any points, simply relying on some vague notion that he is right because he does not like trans people. Verve is relying on some hyperbole in lieu of an actual argument.

When someone argues any one of our points, then maybe we should care what they think. I don't like peas but I would not have them banned. Women who have breast enlargements are not "mutilated". Men who lift weights to bet bigger muscles are not "mutilating" their bodies.

I should not be surprised that these arguments are made. Though they make no sense at all they require little thought.
#14962210
Drlee wrote:I see One Degree is refusing to argue any points, simply relying on some vague notion that he is right because he does not like trans people. Verve is relying on some hyperbole in lieu of an actual argument.

When someone argues any one of our points, then maybe we should care what they think. I don't like peas but I would not have them banned. Women who have breast enlargements are not "mutilated". Men who lift weights to bet bigger muscles are not "mutilating" their bodies.

I should not be surprised that these arguments are made. Though they make no sense at all they require little thought.


False. I have argued every single point. (actually I think none were made, just one platitude)
You just did not like my arguments. I have written extensively on my reasoning. All you 3 have offered is “how is this hurting you” over and over despite it being totally irrelevant to how our system works.
#14962241
One Degree wrote:False. I have argued every single point.
This is a blatant falsehood. You argue everything BUT the point.
Your "answer" to my question, is this pile of childish idiocy:
One Degree wrote:Godstud definition:) How our government actually operates is infantile ideology. Only my misconceptions should be accepted as truth. Lol


One Degree wrote:You just did not like my arguments.
Your arguments are not relevant to the discussion. You rant about rights being taken away or granted, but refuse to specify what rights. You make up anything and everything to deflect attention away from your LACK of argument.

One Degree wrote:I have written extensively on my reasoning.
Which is completely off-topic, and a delusional view of something you don't understand... rights.

One Degree wrote:All you 3 have offered is “how is this hurting you” over and over despite it being totally irrelevant to how our system works.
Again, FALSE. We have never argued that it's "hurting us" but asked how Transgenders are in fact, hurting YOU, as your argument(or lack thereof) appears to be based on this bizarre, and false, premise.

You cannot and will not answer the question of what rights or privileges that Transgenders are going to get that will hurt you, or are "special". You've been asked numerous times, and always go on blathering incoherently about rights being myths and other such fantasy.

@Drlee is quite accurate in his assessment. Your refusal to answer the simple question only reinforces this. Others see it, as well.
#14962247
No. That's a great big fucking lie, and you know it. I'm not a Trump cultist, so I don't buy lies, like you do.

You have never explained what special rights or privileges that Transgenders are going to have, or will be given. You purposefully ignore the question because you HAVE no argument.

Accusing me of poor comprehension or poor memory is just insults to deflect from your lies, even more.
  • 1
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 33

Footage disagrees, even I posted an obvious case o[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3KPa_OfbEw https[…]

only vacation ? i think many of them moved (avoid[…]

Michael Jackson was a saint tho and still is, ins[…]