Charlotte Observer: Girls must overcome ‘discomfort’ of seeing ‘male genitalia’ in locker ro

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Was it?

Well, it's past ridiculous to think the MAJORITY OF US would want this kind of CRAP for our families.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Was it?

Well, it's past ridiculous to think the MAJORITY OF US would want this kind of CRAP for our families.

Since voting has nothing to do with this topic, yes.

And also since the immediate next sentence in the same paragraph was "Why don't you get over yourself and get your own damn public washrooms/shower rooms and leave us all the hell alone," I'd say you were mangling all kinds of context.

damn delay in 'reply', apologies.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Since voting has nothing to do with this topic, yes.

Then neither I suppose, does what THE MAJORITY OF US want.

I'd say you were mangling all kinds of context.

No. It was quite clear that the poster thinks that the majority should dictate.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Since voting has nothing to do with this topic, yes.

Then neither I suppose, does what THE MAJORITY OF US want.

Apparently a local newspaper doesn't think so.

I'd say you were mangling all kinds of context.

No. It was quite clear that the poster thinks that the majority should dictate.

The majority normally does dictate. In America we also bestow protections to the minority, but 'protection' does not translate to telling the majority to 'get over it' and accept the feelings of a vocal super-minority and a complete re-write of polite society.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Apparently a local newspaper doesn't think so.

Yes. And because the majority does not rule, it is correct. But I don't suppose you actually read the op-ed in that local newspaper.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Apparently a local newspaper doesn't think so.

I don't suppose you actually read the op-ed in that local newspaper.

Yes, it's a typical leftist rag. Plenty of appeals to emotions and false civil rights narratives. And it flies in the face of what the majority has established and society dictates.

Because the majority does indeed rule.

a reply to: Teikiatsu
Oh, good. You read it. Tell me, where does it say "Girls must overcome ‘discomfort’ of seeing ‘male genitalia’ in locker room?"

Because the majority does indeed rule.

Not under the rule of law it doesn't. You prefer the rule of the mob?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Teikiatsu
Oh, good. You read it. Tell me, where does it say "Girls must overcome ‘discomfort’ of seeing ‘male genitalia’ in locker room?"

Last paragraph

"This is what the Obama administration nudged the rest of the country toward Friday. Yes, the thought of male genitalia in girls’ locker rooms – and vice versa – might be distressing to some. But the battle for equality has always been in part about overcoming discomfort – with blacks sharing facilities, with gays sharing marriage – then realizing that it was not nearly so awful as some people imagined."

Complete with false civil rights narrative.

Not under the rule of law it doesn't. You prefer the rule of the mob?

I prefer you read what I have already said about majority dictate and minority protections above, instead of trying to create a false premise.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Last paragraph

Yeah. Removing words from context is really awesome journalism.

Complete with false civil rights narrative.

Why false?

I prefer you read what I have already said about majority dictate and minority protections above, instead of trying to create a false premise.

I would prefer that you explain how majority rules in this country. It is your claim that that is the case.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Last paragraph

Yeah. Removing words from context is really awesome journalism.

I agree. In this case the context was maintained.

Why false?

Because blacks weren't denied access because they thought they were black. Because there is no right to marriage that gays were being denied. The false narratives get old.

I would prefer that you explain how majority rules in this country. It is your claim that that is the case.

It's not my only claim. Please try reading what I have said again. This is the second time I have asked you that. Are you willfully avoiding the minority protections caveat?

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Because blacks weren't denied access because they thought they were black. Because there is no right to marriage that gays were being denied. The false narratives get old.

The courts disagree. You know. The courts...law...stuff like that?

I wonder how all the Muslim migrants to Western countries will deal with jock-strap trannies in their daughters' locker-rooms?

They already want gender segregated pools or gender segregated hours at publically funded pools.
www.danielpipes.org...

I bet they will overcome their discomfort too.

Good luck with that one liberals!

Get ready for a good stoning.

But then again, the whole transgender issue is just another temporary ruse and social justice con.
They will be dropped like hot potatoes soon.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Because blacks weren't denied access because they thought they were black. Because there is no right to marriage that gays were being denied. The false narratives get old.

The courts disagree. You know. The courts...law...stuff like that?

Quite familiar with them. Also, notably, their rulings can be overturned. You know, laws and stuff.

Did the courts say blacks only thought they were black?

As for marriage, that's just a liberal talking point. A right cannot be canceled with the word 'No' or a divorce. It's a privilege and nothing more.

But you are derailing the thread. Stay on topic.

originally posted by: halfoldman
I wonder how all the Muslim migrants to Western countries will deal with jock-strap trannies in their daughters' locker-rooms?

They already want gender segregated pools or gender segregated hours at publically funded pools.
www.danielpipes.org...

I bet they will overcome their discomfort too.

Good luck with that one liberals!

Get ready for a good stoning.

But then again, the whole transgender issue is just another temporary ruse and social justice con.
They will be dropped like hot potatoes soon.

How does a link to an article from 2003 relate to anything about the editorial in the Charlotte Observer again?

I mean, aside from a swipe at "liberals" (not the topic) what are you saying?

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Quite familiar with them. Also, notably, their rulings can be overturned. You know, laws and stuff.

Yes. And until they are overturned, they are the law of the land.
Just like that stupid HB2.

But you are derailing the thread. Stay on topic.

Which is?

a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm saying that transgender people are the flavor of the month at the moment, but liberal society is committing a dual offense.
It is saying we must be so open about nudity, when it also wants to fill up society with highly conservative cultures.
Ultimately it cannot do both, and this is doomed to failure.

It's a lie and con that's using people for political and socially disruptive purposes.
It will probably shun and silence the transgender people who don't agree, and possibly accuse them of causing reactionary gender binarism.
It's abusing young and impressionable people as a vanguard.

And the link I shared was updated on 8 March 2016.

originally posted by: halfoldman
a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm saying that transgender people are the flavor of the month at the moment, but liberal society is committing a dual offense.
It is saying we must be so open about nudity, when it also wants to fill up society with highly conservative cultures.
Ultimately it cannot do both, and this is doomed to failure.

It's a lie and con that's using people for political and socially disruptive purposes.
It will probably shun and silence the transgender people who don't agree, and possibly accuse them of causing reactionary gender binarism.
It's abusing young and impressionable people as a vanguard.

And the link I shared was updated on 8 March 2016.

People have been fighting for trans* rights for a very long time in the United States and across the world.

Timeline: A Look Back at the History of Transgender Visibility

No one and nothing (aside from those with an agenda to stop equal rights) is saying anything about "nudity." This is about being able to use the restroom or other public facility that fits your gender, and, about the right to privacy so that activists and/or the government itself does not equate genitalia with one's identity.

The axe of allowing refugees into this country should be ground elsewhere, don't you think? Our own version of repressive religious fanatics seems to be doing just fine on their own in attempts to repress equal rights.

We hardly have to wait for an influx of others for that process to be in full swing (as we see clearly in NC, MS and Texas to say the least).

Securing equal rights for all Americans, even the ones that your personal belief structure doesn't accept, is hardly a lie, although there are plenty of lies being used for political purposes (like the article cited in the OP that is lying about what the editorial in Observer said.

The date of your link was 2003 so "the problem" as presented in that article is not related to the "current" refugee crisis that you're alluding to; that's the point of my comment.

Off topic: nice graphic of Wotan/Grimnr in your avatar.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: halfoldman
a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm saying that transgender people are the flavor of the month at the moment, but liberal society is committing a dual offense.
It is saying we must be so open about nudity, when it also wants to fill up society with highly conservative cultures.
Ultimately it cannot do both, and this is doomed to failure.

It's a lie and con that's using people for political and socially disruptive purposes.
It will probably shun and silence the transgender people who don't agree, and possibly accuse them of causing reactionary gender binarism.
It's abusing young and impressionable people as a vanguard.

And the link I shared was updated on 8 March 2016.

No one and nothing (aside from those with an agenda to stop equal rights) is saying anything about "nudity." This is about being able to use the restroom or other public facility that fits your gender, and, about the right to privacy so that activists and/or the government itself does not equate genitalia with one's identity.

Thanks.

I was gonna mention the nudity "thing".

That's coming from the Right Paranoia.

The way I read this specific OP is that a columnist argued that essentially pubescent girls must get over their discomfort of male genitalia in the locker-room.

The locker-room is very much about nudity.

Nudity also concerns voyeurs and exhibitionists, and to me this seems open to abuse.

It doesn't mean I'm anti-transgender rights, but everybody has rights, not only transgender people.

Whether it's 2003 or 2016, everyone with some cultural knowledge will know that the vast majority of Muslims will never (as in never ever, ever, ever, ever) tolerate this.
And on this, I actually agree with them.