youzer Posted April 29, 2016 Posted April 29, 2016 I can't help but draw similarities between the plight of people who openly carry guns and transgender men who wish to use a woman's public restroom. Some people fear the person who openly carries a gun. Some people fear the person who is Transgender and uses a public restroom of an opposite gender. They are both feared because of the possibility that the person is going to do something to hurt someone. Is it incorrect to equate the two as having the same stereotype?
Mister Mister Posted April 30, 2016 Posted April 30, 2016 Good comparison. I would add, that they both assume that people who mean to do harm are going to obey signs on the wall.
shirgall Posted April 30, 2016 Posted April 30, 2016 There is some difficulty getting empirical data in both categories, so the only thing people really have to go on is how much someone is deviating from the norm and how much they draw attention to that. That kind of behavior causes concern among all those with in-group preference. A desire to "freak out the squares" is a psychological phenomenon I haven't looked into very much, but I know it's pretty off-putting. http://www.opencarry.org/an-honest-look-at-crime-stats/ http://extranosalley.com/?p=48866 http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-people-be-allowed-to-carry-guns-openly/open-carry-deters-crime https://news.stanford.edu/2014/11/14/donohue-guns-study-111414/ http://www.ovc.gov/pubs/forge/sexual_numbers.html http://victimsofcrime.org/media/reporting-on-child-sexual-abuse/statistics-on-perpetrators-of-csa http://childprotection.lifetips.com/tip/117237/sex-offender-statistics/sex-offender-statistics/characteristics-of-offenders-who-commit-violent-crimes-against-children.html
dsayers Posted April 30, 2016 Posted April 30, 2016 As somebody who has openly carried, I am curious as to how such a comparison would be helpful.
TheBen Posted April 30, 2016 Posted April 30, 2016 "Transgendered" people are people that are self identifying as being fucked up psychologically and in a sexual sense. People that open carry are simply exercising their right and duty to self protection. Also people were not afraid of "trans" people using the bathroom pre-transgendered focused laws. It is societies catering to this particular brand of disordered people that is most startling. --Ben
youzer Posted May 2, 2016 Author Posted May 2, 2016 As somebody who has openly carried, I am curious as to how such a comparison would be helpful. My intention was to discuss whether or not the fear in both cases is rational or not, and whether or not there is some obligation to educate people about the irrationality of their feelings when compared to evidence.
okymek Posted May 2, 2016 Posted May 2, 2016 I can't help but draw similarities between the plight of people who openly carry guns and transgender men who wish to use a woman's public restroom. Some people fear the person who openly carries a gun. Some people fear the person who is Transgender and uses a public restroom of an opposite gender. They are both feared because of the possibility that the person is going to do something to hurt someone. Is it incorrect to equate the two as having the same stereotype? A better comparison would be: transgender is to concealed carry as dressed in drag is to open carry Blending in vs. standing out.
dsayers Posted May 2, 2016 Posted May 2, 2016 My intention was to discuss whether or not the fear in both cases is rational or not, and whether or not there is some obligation to educate people about the irrationality of their feelings when compared to evidence. If somebody comes to a conclusion by ways other than logic, reason, and evidence, then you will not be able to use logic, reason, and evidence to challenge that conclusion.
AncapFTW Posted May 2, 2016 Posted May 2, 2016 I can't help but draw similarities between the plight of people who openly carry guns and transgender men who wish to use a woman's public restroom. Some people fear the person who openly carries a gun. Some people fear the person who is Transgender and uses a public restroom of an opposite gender. They are both feared because of the possibility that the person is going to do something to hurt someone. Is it incorrect to equate the two as having the same stereotype? Can't help but think of my dad, who has a concealed carry license, but would flip out if he knew a trans man entered a public restroom with him in it.
shirgall Posted May 3, 2016 Posted May 3, 2016 Everyone knows this transgender topic is a stalling tactic.
ValueOfBrevity Posted May 3, 2016 Posted May 3, 2016 Everyone knows this transgender topic is a stalling tactic.
iHuman Posted May 11, 2016 Posted May 11, 2016 My intention was to discuss whether or not the fear in both cases is rational or not, and whether or not there is some obligation to educate people about the irrationality of their feelings when compared to evidence. IMHO Both are purely Irrational Reactions. Both have a literal mountain of facts proving the fears to be baseless, both have fears based on ignorance and a refusal to research the facts on the subject. If somebody comes to a conclusion by ways other than logic, reason, and evidence, then you will not be able to use logic, reason, and evidence to challenge that conclusion. sad and true.
dayna j. Posted May 11, 2016 Posted May 11, 2016 "Transgendered" people are people that are self identifying as being fucked up psychologically and in a sexual sense. People that open carry are simply exercising their right and duty to self protection. Also people were not afraid of "trans" people using the bathroom pre-transgendered focused laws. It is societies catering to this particular brand of disordered people that is most startling. --Ben I'm not sure how it is that you feel that it's okay to describe categories of people as being "fucked up" and "disordered", but there are better ways to express your skepticism. To simply say: "X is fucked up and disordered" while making no arguments and bringing no evidence is entirely bigoted, extremely slimy and does not represent the standard that we try to uphold here at FDR.
TheBen Posted May 12, 2016 Posted May 12, 2016 I'm not sure how it is that you feel that it's okay to describe categories of people as being "fucked up" and "disordered", but there are better ways to express your skepticism. To simply say: "X is fucked up and disordered" while making no arguments and bringing no evidence is entirely bigoted, extremely slimy and does not represent the standard that we try to uphold here at FDR. As long as the "trans" community doesn't condemn people that take part in the "transification" of children, I will consider them a predator parasitical segment of society. I have seen far too many stories in the news of this happening and I have yet to hear of one "trans" person openly objecting and showing their disgust of this, as they should. This type of child abuse cannot be tolerated IMO. I won't respond to your ad-hominems and other vapid ideas though I will add, "You say I am a bigot, fine then, I am a bigot. I am large. I contain multitudes." --Ben
SoCaliGirl Posted May 12, 2016 Posted May 12, 2016 I can't help but draw similarities between the plight of people who openly carry guns and transgender men who wish to use a woman's public restroom. Some people fear the person who openly carries a gun. Some people fear the person who is Transgender and uses a public restroom of an opposite gender. They are both feared because of the possibility that the person is going to do something to hurt someone. Is it incorrect to equate the two as having the same stereotype? FYI: "Transgender men" are f2m, individuals who transitioned from female to male... They look like this: & would likely not be interested in using a women's restroom... I believe the term you were looking for is "transgender women"... they look this: & use the women's restroom. I can't help but draw similarities between the plight of people who openly carry guns and *transgender women who wish to use a woman's public restroom. Some people fear the person who openly carries a gun. Some people fear the person who is Transgender and uses a public restroom of an opposite gender. They are both feared because of the possibility that the person is going to do something to hurt someone. Is it incorrect to equate the two as having the same stereotype? I think it's a similar situation; I am a trans woman who has open carried a 1911 .45. Both categories of scared people are scared irrationally due to ignorance of the topics involved and often emotion based prejudices. Good comparison. I would add, that they both assume that people who mean to do harm are going to obey signs on the wall. Agreed. "Transgendered" people are people that are self identifying as being fucked up psychologically and in a sexual sense. People that open carry are simply exercising their right and duty to self protection. Also people were not afraid of "trans" people using the bathroom pre-transgendered focused laws. It is societies catering to this particular brand of disordered people that is most startling. --Ben Transgender is an adjective, not a noun. IMHO Both are purely Irrational Reactions. Both have a literal mountain of facts proving the fears to be baseless, both have fears based on ignorance and a refusal to research the facts on the subject. sad and true. Agreed. I'm not sure how it is that you feel that it's okay to describe categories of people as being "fucked up" and "disordered", but there are better ways to express your skepticism. To simply say: "X is fucked up and disordered" while making no arguments and bringing no evidence is entirely bigoted, extremely slimy and does not represent the standard that we try to uphold here at FDR. Agreed.
TheBen Posted May 12, 2016 Posted May 12, 2016 Transgender is an adjective, not a noun. I believe I communicated my point quite clearly and you are not the arbiter of language. Do you agree than children should not be "transified" or are you of the opinion that it is okay to inject children with hormones in order to attempt to change their biologically assigned traits? --Ben 1
dsayers Posted May 12, 2016 Posted May 12, 2016 you are not the arbiter of language. Do you agree than children should not be "transified" or are you of the opinion that it is okay to inject children with hormones in order to attempt to change their biologically assigned traits? One need not be the "arbiter of language" to be able to identify a word's classification. Also, how do you get "it is okay to inject children with hormones" out of "is an adjective, not a noun"?
TheBen Posted May 12, 2016 Posted May 12, 2016 One need not be the "arbiter of language" to be able to identify a word's classification. Also, how do you get "it is okay to inject children with hormones" out of "is an adjective, not a noun"? I will not bow to the Cultural Marxists' shaping of the English language plus I didn't even use the word this person said I used. Am I not allowed to ask questions? Don't straw man me please. You can re-read the conversation and have more understanding of it if you like, or not. --Ben 1
shirgall Posted May 12, 2016 Posted May 12, 2016 I will not bow to the Cultural Marxists' shaping of the English language plus I didn't even use the word this person said I used. Am I not allowed to ask questions? Don't straw man me please. You can re-read the conversation and have more understanding of it if you like, or not. Even so, it's hard to have a discussion without agreement on what words mean or how they are used. I don't think he was picking a nit so much as striving for clarity.
TheBen Posted May 12, 2016 Posted May 12, 2016 Even so, it's hard to have a discussion without agreement on what words mean or how they are used. I don't think he was picking a nit so much as striving for clarity. This is why I said, "I believe I communicated my point quite clearly..." I do think he was picking a nit in order to obscure what I was saying by focusing on something completely irrelevant. Both previous respondents to what I was saying haven't yet agreed that children should not be injected with hormones to change their biologically inherited traits. This confirms my hypothesis that they think this form of child abuse is okay. This is despicable in my opinion and must be called out more, even if the PC police are going to throw ad hominem attacks. 1
dsayers Posted May 12, 2016 Posted May 12, 2016 This confirms my hypothesis that they think this form of child abuse is okay. I would think that somebody that claims that others are engaging in strawman would refrain from putting words into people's mouths. You're claiming here that you can get something from nothing. Obviously you are mistaken.
TheBen Posted May 12, 2016 Posted May 12, 2016 I would think that somebody that claims that others are engaging in strawman would refrain from putting words into people's mouths. You're claiming here that you can get something from nothing. Obviously you are mistaken. You continue to lend credence to my hypothesis. Are you going to answer my honest and straightforward question? Do you agree than children should not be "transified" or are you of the opinion that it is okay to inject children with hormones in order to attempt to change their biologically assigned traits?
shirgall Posted May 12, 2016 Posted May 12, 2016 You continue to lend credence to my hypothesis. Are you going to answer my honest and straightforward question? Do you agree than children should not be "transified" or are you of the opinion that it is okay to inject children with hormones in order to attempt to change their biologically assigned traits? I'll bite. If they are too young to give consent (that is, forbidden to have sex, enter into contracts, vote, go to see certain movies without adult supervision, drink alcohol, buy a gun, etc.) then they are too young to adequately answer questions about gender identity and probably a wider range of mature topics.
TheBen Posted May 12, 2016 Posted May 12, 2016 I'll bite. If they are too young to give consent (that is, forbidden to have sex, enter into contracts, vote, go to see certain movies without adult supervision, drink alcohol, buy a gun, etc.) then they are too young to adequately answer questions about gender identity and probably a wider range of mature topics. Thank you and I completely agree with you here. I also believe all people should be allowed to pursue happiness in any way they see fit as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. I wish the "trans" community the best, I just don't think they should be forcing their views on other people, most notably children. I have no intentions of hurting anyone of this orientation, though I personally don't want to be around them, so they would not be permitted to enter my home. I do think that the PC culture has taken this issue way too far and children are being victimized in the process. I hope these types of issues get more attention among all persuasions of people and the consensus becomes what you have written above. --Ben --Ben
Jaeger Posted May 13, 2016 Posted May 13, 2016 FYI: "Transgender men" are f2m, individuals who transitioned from female to male... They look like this: & would likely not be interested in using a women's restroom... I believe the term you were looking for is "transgender women"... they look this: & use the women's restroom. Personally if I was in the Men's restroom and a f2m person entered I probably wouldn't even notice. Now if they were m2f I would be like "I think you entered the wrong restroom." Then the person would have to explain how they were born a man and is now a woman. I assume this is why the transgender want to use the opposite sex's bathroom so they don't have to tell their life story to complete strangers while doing "I need to go the bathroom really bad" dance. To me, as a man, the f2m person going to the men's room would be equivalent to concealed carry while the m2f person would be open carry. So in regard to the South Carolina Law it more like the state saying you have to open carry versus restricting it. I think it will cause more issues than help, but isn't that always the case?
SoCaliGirl Posted May 14, 2016 Posted May 14, 2016 Personally if I was in the Men's restroom and a f2m person entered I probably wouldn't even notice. Now if they were m2f I would be like "I think you entered the wrong restroom." Then the person would have to explain how they were born a man and is now a woman. I assume this is why the transgender want to use the opposite sex's bathroom so they don't have to tell their life story to complete strangers while doing "I need to go the bathroom really bad" dance. To me, as a man, the f2m person going to the men's room would be equivalent to concealed carry while the m2f person would be open carry. So in regard to the South Carolina Law it more like the state saying you have to open carry versus restricting it. I think it will cause more issues than help, but isn't that always the case? Correct; it's not just 'not wanting to explain' when you walk in, it's also about safety... Can you imagine a trans woman such as the one pictured above using a mens room in a 'not so great' part of town on a road trip? Regardless of an individuals' perspective/knowledge/lack of knowledge about the trans experience I have a hard time taking anyone seriously that thinks that either of the two trans individuals should be forced to use the restroom that they CLEARLY no longer resemble.
Jaeger Posted May 14, 2016 Posted May 14, 2016 Correct; it's not just 'not wanting to explain' when you walk in, it's also about safety... Can you imagine a trans woman such as the one pictured above using a mens room in a 'not so great' part of town on a road trip? Regardless of an individuals' perspective/knowledge/lack of knowledge about the trans experience I have a hard time taking anyone seriously that thinks that either of the two trans individuals should be forced to use the restroom that they CLEARLY no longer resemble. I didn't think about the safety issue. I can imagine it gets pretty scary sometimes.
TheBen Posted May 14, 2016 Posted May 14, 2016 A question to all here. Should fathers be allowed to accompany their daughters into women's bathroom's in order to protect them from sexual deviants? Should the law allow for this type of thing to happen?
EclecticIdealist Posted May 14, 2016 Posted May 14, 2016 If the child is too young to go in by themselves, the girl should probably go in the men's room with their father, or the boy in the women's room with their mother. Otherwise, they can call out if there's trouble, or wait until the suspect individual has left the bathroom to enter.
TheBen Posted May 14, 2016 Posted May 14, 2016 If the child is too young to go in by themselves, the girl should probably go in the men's room with their father, or the boy in the women's room with their mother. Otherwise, they can call out if there's trouble, or wait until the suspect individual has left the bathroom to enter. So transgender parents can choose which bathroom to bring their children into but non-transgendered mothers and fathers must stick to their biologically assigned bathrooms? I don't want to straw man you here but this seems to be what you are saying. Please let me know if I am mistaken. I really think this issue is way too complex for the government to get involved in. Wouldn't it be best to just leave the decision of making these rules up to the establishment rather than use violence to enforce state given doctrine?
SirrusDundle Posted May 15, 2016 Posted May 15, 2016 Is the "transification of children" an accurate description of what is going on? What if some children actually are trans? Also, I am not aware of any actual medical professional who advocates injecting children with hormones. They do often use puberty delaying drugs, which have been used for decades on children who display signs of premature puberty, and are to all appearances completely reversible in their effects. I believe they do give hormones to some of these kids at the time puberty would normally take place, if they are committed to that path. I think the OP was comparing the irrationality of anti gun hysterics with the irrationality of the reaction to the bathroom thing... All you've done so far is provide a case study of one set of that irrationality. Just saying.
shirgall Posted May 15, 2016 Posted May 15, 2016 It is widely accepted that parents take their too-young children into the bathroom with them even if they are not of the "appropriate" gender. No one second-guesses this and everyone was polite about it. Maybe I am too old. Of course, the other men were greatly amused when I stood guard outside the stall where my daughter was happily singing about what she was doing... Government has no need to get involved. They already have "disturbing the peace" for people that are disruptive.
SoCaliGirl Posted May 15, 2016 Posted May 15, 2016 It is widely accepted that parents take their too-young children into the bathroom with them even if they are not of the "appropriate" gender. No one second-guesses this and everyone was polite about it. Maybe I am too old. Of course, the other men were greatly amused when I stood guard outside the stall where my daughter was happily singing about what she was doing... Government has no need to get involved. They already have "disturbing the peace" for people that are disruptive. Agreed, I see this all the time.
EclecticIdealist Posted May 15, 2016 Posted May 15, 2016 So transgender parents can choose which bathroom to bring their children into but non-transgendered mothers and fathers must stick to their biologically assigned bathrooms? I don't want to straw man you here but this seems to be what you are saying. Please let me know if I am mistaken. I really think this issue is way too complex for the government to get involved in. Wouldn't it be best to just leave the decision of making these rules up to the establishment rather than use violence to enforce state given doctrine? While there exist separate bathrooms for male and female, transgender people should use the bathroom which they identify (and dress) as. People who are uncomfortable with which bathroom transgender people use need to Grow the F@#$ up. If it were up to me, I'd do away with gendered bathrooms altogether and simply have private toilet stalls for all purposes. I'd have cameras in the common area, and people would have to behave in public bathrooms as they do in their own homes or the homes of others whom they visit. Shocking, I know, to expect people to behave as adults in public. As to the law, I think the law overreaches when it seeks to dictate how privately owned businesses conduct their affairs, whether, with restrooms, or even the clientele they might cater to. I don't think the issue is too complex for government to get involved, but merely completely inappropriate for government to get involved. At best, government should only involve itself where actual harm or threat of harm exists; not the hysterical fears of the sexually repressed.
dsayers Posted May 15, 2016 Posted May 15, 2016 If it were up to me, I'd do away with gendered bathrooms altogether and simply have private toilet stalls for all purposes. Agreed. There are rest areas in Montana where each "stall" is actually its own room. And those were marked with gender placards *facepalm*
Recommended Posts