American College of Pediatricians Says Reject Transgenderism

The conservative idea that civil rights protections sexually endanger women and children in public bathrooms is not new. In fact, conservative sexual thought has been in the toilet since the 1940s. During the World War II era, conservatives began employing the idea that social equality for African-Americans would lead to sexual danger for white women in bathrooms. In the decades since, conservatives used this trope to negate the civil rights claims of women and sexual minorities.

While segregationists frequently claimed racial integration would grant black men sexual access to white women, white women also emphasized that contact with black women in bathrooms would infect them with venereal diseases. White women refused to share bathrooms with black women throughout the South and also in places like Detroit, which was flooded with white and black Southern transplants during the war years. Claiming that racial integration with blacks would cause them to catch syphilis from shared toilet seats and towels in public restrooms,

www.slate.com...

a reply to: Gryphon66

I'll take option E. Bananas

I'm not defending anyone other than my own posts.

I really dont see how using race as a comparison works here.

No one Said the Trans(black people) are abusing(bringing in cooties) people in bathrooms.

Now if the article posted about it included white people in blace face that DO have cooties are sneaking in, then I would agree with you.

I think we should get back to the subject. (I include myself.)

The subject is not bathroom use.

The subject is the OP's alleged consensus from "the Pediatricians" to "deny transexualism."

It was clearly demonstrated that the organization cited by the OP is a right-wing media/activist group trying to mimic and be mistaken for the actual professional national association for Pediatricians.

It has been clearly demonstrated that the largest medical and psychiatric associations in the country promote and substantiate equal rights for those with differing gender identities.

It has been clearly demonstrated that the matter of at what developmental stage a trans* person can begin treatments for altering their body's chemistry and structure (one would think this is a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT not open to interpretation, but whatever) is a very complex issue that has not had anywhere near enough scientific study to make a firm or final determination on, yet, even so, there is no reason that any trans* individual, in consultation with medical professionals, psychological consultants, family members, etc. shouldn't be able to make decisions about their own lives and bodies.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yeah I agree. Let's go back on topic. It's so confusing with all those threads about transgenderism.

originally posted by: Butterfinger
a reply to: Gryphon66

I'll take option E. Bananas

I'm not defending anyone other than my own posts.

I really dont see how using race as a comparison works here.

No one Said the Trans(black people) are abusing(bringing in cooties) people in bathrooms.

Now if the article posted about it included white people in blace face that DO have cooties are sneaking in, then I would agree with you.

The argument is that women (and girls) are being put in danger by allowing equal access to public restroom facilities.

The same argument was used in Jim Crow laws. (Racial equal rights)

The same argument is being used now. (Trans* equal rights)

The facts cannot be made any more plain.

If you don't "see it" or "agree with it" that's fine ... but it is quite obvious.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

a reply to: Gryphon66

the OP's assertions are preposterous.

/thread

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

Done and done.

LOL, "G'night everybody."

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
What do YOU think?

Hormones are for adults. Sexual surgery is for adults. And parents shouldn't psychologically condition their kids opposite to nature.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

I'm stubborn, no doubt!

I dont think religion has a place in my reasoning, but of course for others its very real concern.

I guess its debatable whether or not this is a real danger, I dont think its worth taking that risk.

Bringing up race struggles is bad form in my opinion. Some call it race baiting, as if to correlate opposition to the bathroom issues with racial segregation as a bigot of the same magnitude; but I'm sure thats not what was intended.

originally posted by: [post=20737894]Miracula2

Hormones are for adults. Sexual surgery is for adults.

Who says?

originally posted by: [post=20737894]Miracula2

And parents shouldn't psychologically condition their kids opposite to nature.

What if their nature is to have a different gender identity than their biological reality?

a reply to: Butterfinger

I guess its debatable whether or not this is a real danger, I dont think its worth taking that risk.

That's really what the debate is all about. We liberals truly understand your concerns. We don't want perverts in bathrooms either! What we are trying to say that it was rarely an issue.

Oh about race baiting? No read my post above. Conservatives have been arguing the same thing since the 1940's. EXACTLY the same argument.

3 Signs You Started as a Girl - Men's Health

Sometimes the truth hurts, but nothing hits harder than a blow to your manhood: All guys start out, in utero, as females. “Everyone comes from a common genetic and developmental framework that is tweaked by sex hormones,” says Richard Bribiescas, Ph.D., director of the Yale Reproductive Ecology Laboratory. We all start as a generic embryo. You have a set of male or female sex chromosomes, but the distinction doesn’t kick in until your hormones enter the picture, he explains. Without hormones like testosterone, you would stay on the path to womanhood. And, sorry to say, your body already started developing by the time this decision was made—which means your lady parts were already starting to form.

I use a specifically non-scientific source here to establish this very simple fact: were it not for "hormonal treatment" in the womb, i.e. testosterone, every human would be female.

Whether you believe that God or evolution or aliens or whatever designed the system this way ... the most basic fact is that we all begin as females and even biological males still retain three characteristics of that beginning (nipples -that would have become milk producing breasts, the penis - which would have become a clitoris, and the raphe line on the scrotum - which would have become a vagina.)

Anyone want to let that sink in for a moment?

Now ... let's take it another step ...

What Determines Sex? - Psychology Today

Many students seem to think that biologically sex is simple: it’s determined by the father’s sperm. An X-sex-chromosome-bearing sperm fertilizes an always-X-carrying-egg to make it female (XX), a Y-bearing one makes it male (XY). The truth, however, is more complicated and more intriguing. One problem is the fact that the Y-chromosome is tiny by comparison with the X and only produces 20-odd proteins, mostly concerned with highly male-specific functions like sperm-production. The X, by contrast, has almost 1200 genes, with at least 150 implicated in intelligence and cognition.

Look at it this way: if all the genes for being male were on the Y, no woman could ever have a beard! But because hardly any genes related to maleness are on the male chromosome, the vast majority must be on autosomes (the 22 non-sex chromosomes) or the X, which are of course carried by females. Such masculinizing genes could easily be turned on accidentally, explaining—and indeed predicting—bearded ladies.

Perhaps the situation isn't quite as simplistic as so many want to make it?

a reply to: Annee
You had to see what wa sposted by trollz first to get my refrence. He was trying to be smart so i responded in kind. No offense intended.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

The argument is that women (and girls) are being put in danger by allowing equal access to public restroom facilities.

The same argument was used in Jim Crow laws. (Racial equal rights)

It's not the same type of argument. If you remember it was Republicans who were against slavery, and it was the majority Republicans who sided with Republican President Abraham Lincoln on the civil war which helped get rid of slavery. The states where slavery was either abolished, or where the first laws against slavery existed first were all Republican...

Also, as I have shown in the past, even from wikipedia itself, it was a larger Republican base of Senators who voted in favor for all the civil rights Acts... Democrats voted in smaller numbers in favor of these acts even in the 1960s... Before that they voted in even smaller percentages in favor of civil rights acts. In fact for the most part Democrats only had about a 60% vote in favor, and Republicans had about an 80% vote in favor in all the civil rights acts...

Civil Rights Act of 1964
...
Vote totals

Totals are in "Yea–Nay" format:

The original House version: 290–130 (69–31%).
Cloture in the Senate: 71–29 (71–29%).
The Senate version: 73–27 (73–27%).
The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289–126 (70–30%).

By party

The original House version:[20]

Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[21]

Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[20]

Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[20]

Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)
...

en.wikipedia.org...

So this claim by you and some others is patently false.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The same argument is being used now. (Trans* equal rights)

The facts cannot be made any more plain.

If you don't "see it" or "agree with it" that's fine ... but it is quite obvious.

Facts that you, and some others, are making up?...

originally posted by: Butterfinger
a reply to: yuppa

Right, the extant education system should retroactively reeducate all citizens with the latest hashtag life choice/style meme!

Yes they should. If you are human you can learn until you die correct? Until we educate people on racism,and anything else it wont change.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Who said anything about Republicans?

I referred to Jim Crow laws.

More exactly I said this:

originally posted by: Gryphon66

The argument is that women (and girls) are being put in danger by allowing equal access to public restroom facilities.

The same argument was used in Jim Crow laws. (Racial equal rights)

The same argument is being used now. (Trans* equal rights)

You have a very strange idea of "factual" Electric. Care to address my actual argument?

Oops.

Oopse.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

"The conservative idea that civil rights protections sexually endanger women and children in public bathrooms is not new. In fact, conservative sexual thought has been in the toilet since the 1940s. During the World War II era, conservatives began employing the idea that social equality for African-Americans would lead to sexual danger for white women in bathrooms. In the decades since, conservatives used this trope to negate the civil rights claims of women and sexual minorities."

www.slate.com...

Lies...

The Republican Party, commonly referred to as the GOP (abbreviation for Grand Old Party), is one of the two major contemporary political parties in the United States, the other being its historic rival, the Democratic Party.

Founded by anti-slavery activists, modernists, ex-Whigs, and ex-Free Soilers in 1854, the Republicans dominated politics nationally and in the majority of northern States for most of the period between 1860 and 1932.
...

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Ok let's dispense with the political parties. How about addressing the points we've made? The same argument is being used (forget about the Republicans or the Democrats). Address that.