It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

American College of Pediatricians Says Reject Transgenderism

page: 21
75
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Gryphon66

We have "Family Restrooms" for a decade or more.

We have "Unisex Restrooms" since the 1960s.

I guess it's only "dangerous" when equal rights are involved, eh?



We are not talking about "family restrooms" that started becoming a trend a decade ago or more.

Were men (strangers) allowed to be with women TOGETHER in a bathroom in the 1960s?...



I am talking about "Family Restrooms" in the wider context of the bathroom/safety question, Electric.

I didn't direct that at you about your desperate squirming to get away from the fact of Jim Crow laws.

Are you denying that Jim Crow laws regarding bathrooms were intended to protect women and girls from Black men?

Say it.




posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:31 PM
link   


So while Obama and the rest of the nut cases have no problem committing child abuse (using the words from this article), the American College of Pediatricians says to "reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex.". So who to believe...a liar or Pediatricians? Not too difficult.


The answer to that was rather self evident.

reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex

Impersonation is basically what it is.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

PS though, now that you mention it ... why AREN'T you equaly upset by "Family Restrooms" and "Unisex Restrooms" ...

If someone didn't know better, they'd think it's not about the safety of women and children here from male access to bathrooms ... AT ALL ...



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
...
Are you denying that Jim Crow laws regarding bathrooms were intended to protect women and girls from Black men?

Say it.


Jim Crow laws were made to SEGREGATE... To segregate blacks and whites everywhere...

Jim Crow laws were not made in specific "because people thought black men would rape women in bathrooms"... White men were not allowed inside bathrooms with a woman either...
edit on 17-5-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96



So while Obama and the rest of the nut cases have no problem committing child abuse (using the words from this article), the American College of Pediatricians says to "reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex.". So who to believe...a liar or Pediatricians? Not too difficult.


The answer to that was rather self evident.

reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex

Impersonation is basically what it is.


.... aaaand the cycle begins again.

Differing gender identities are well-recognized as more than "impersonation."

That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it.

The laws of the land as well as the Constitution of the United States still stand, regardless of your opinion.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Some day transgender surgery will be considered barbaric and misguided, like blood-letting and the lobotomy. Medical science has a tendency to harm more than help. The Hippocratic oath is supposed to make sure doctors recognize the need for caution, but apparently that's not much of a concern anymore.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

And people need to stop calling apples oranges.

Sew an orange peel on an apple doesn't make it an orange.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm kinda getting tired. Sometimes I feel like it's pointless.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

PS though, now that you mention it ... why AREN'T you equaly upset by "Family Restrooms" and "Unisex Restrooms" ...

If someone didn't know better, they'd think it's not about the safety of women and children here from male access to bathrooms ... AT ALL ...


wow...really?... Let's see " family restrooms"... family restroom as in no stranger in the restroom with a family perhaps?... And do they allow a man together with a woman in a unisex restroom or changing room?...

Hummm, i wonder. Think very deeply on that one Gryphon. It might just swoosh over your head without you understanding...


edit on 17-5-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
The Hippocratic oath is supposed to make sure doctors recognize the need for caution, but apparently that's not much of a concern anymore.


And a lot of doctors no longer sign it because it's outdated and unrealistic with the advancement of procedures.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Don't sidestep the question.

Why not coed bathrooms and locker rooms for everyone? I'm not referring to unisex bathrooms or family restrooms.

If you want equal rights, the most equal solution is everyone use the same bathroom and restroom.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

And people need to stop calling apples oranges.

Sew an orange peel on an apple doesn't make it an orange.



It's not a human being either. Don't think either an apple or orange has a complex brain.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Gryphon66
...
Are you denying that Jim Crow laws regarding bathrooms were intended to protect women and girls from Black men?

Say it.


Jim Crow laws were made to SEGREGATE... To segregate blacks and whites everywhere...

Jim Crow laws were not made in specific "because people thought black men would rape women in bathrooms"... White men were not allowed inside bathrooms with a woman either...


Prove your claim that Jim Crow laws requiring separate bathrooms for Black and Whites were not justified because the presence of Blacks so close by would endanger White women and girls.

Go ahead. My proofs were stated clearly earlier.

Prove yours.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:42 PM
link   
I absolute love the transgender 'issue'.

The proponents of it are the very same people that flip out over GMO foods. Saying 'science' has gone too far!




posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:43 PM
link   

edit on 5/17/2016 by Deaf Alien because: Never mind. Sorry that was an insult.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: MysticPearl
a reply to: Gryphon66

Don't sidestep the question.

Why not coed bathrooms and locker rooms for everyone? I'm not referring to unisex bathrooms or family restrooms.

If you want equal rights, the most equal solution is everyone use the same bathroom and restroom.


Don't sidestep mine: I asked first.

"Co-ed" bathroom facilities have existed in American public places FOR DECADES.

Why was this not seen as the clear and present danger it is, if the danger is merely male entrance into bathrooms were women and girls are present.

I have zero problem with unisex bathrooms for the record.

Now, answer my question quid pro quo.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

How can I prove a negative?...

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
I absolute love the transgender 'issue'.

The proponents of it are the very same people that flip out over GMO foods. Saying 'science' has gone too far!



What does this have to do with a fake "Pediatrician's association"? Nothing?

Just in trying to divert the topic? We're going fine on our own actually.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:47 PM
link   
I thought a mod /thread'd this. And I thought that maybe this thread would be moved to hoax bin. Just sayin.



posted on May, 17 2016 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Gryphon66

How can I prove a negative?...

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


Okay. Then you have no proof for your claim.

I've provided ample evidence that the Jim Crow Laws were motivated by "protecting women from Black men."

Thus, comparing Jim Crow bathroom laws to these silly Anti-Trans* laws is very apt because you (among others) are relentlessly trying to drive the point home that we must "protect women."

Thanks for admitting you have no proof.

Care to answer the other questions?

Why aren't you outraged about "Family Restrooms" and "Unisex Restrooms"?

Is it because this is not really about "protecting women" or "men gaining free access to bathrooms with women"?

Is it about something else? Like, say, keeping Trans* folk in their place?
edit on 17-5-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



new topics

top topics



 
75
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join