1170

A district judge in Wisconsin has sided with an 11-year-old trans girl over her use of the girls’ toilets and temporarily blocked school officials from preventing her access.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No one is saying trans people = perverts. Well I’m sure some are saying that, but I’m not.

What I’m saying is that by allowing anyone to enter female-only spaces you remove the safeguards that make them safe spaces sin the first place.

Are the trans people there to assault women? No. Does it open the door to perverts that do want to assault women to just openly use female-only spaces? Yes. That’s the issue.

[-] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

It only opens the door for perverts if you are, in fact, saying trans people = perverts.

After all you're saying allowing a trans person to use their aligning bathroom is the same as allowing anyone to enter female-only spaces.

(So you kinda are saying that. It does appear you might be one of those some.)

[-] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Sigh. Read my last comment again and try again.

Even if there wasn’t a single pervert who is trans, allowing anyone to enter female safe spaces allows non trans perverts unrestricted access to these places.

Do you understand? To allow trans people in to the opposite sex safe spaces means allowing everyone to enter them.

[-] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

It really doesn't. It only feels that way if you are incapable of differentiating between a sexual pervert and a trans person.

Society can accommodate gender neutral bathrooms (meaning you don't have this social construct of genital specific genital policed bathroom spaces) alongside gendered bathrooms where people presenting as either gender can go to the bathroom. Where there is no neutral option, the closer aligning gender specific bathroom is better than the genital specific bathroom.

Or you can have it your way with bathrooms where people's genital have to be declared, revealed, matched, or somehow verified to use them. That is the only way to achieve genital specific safe spaces that you're craving. Otherwise our society can go about accepting that people presenting as a gender to use their preferred bathroom regardless of their genital status.

So how do you want verify if someone is trans or not when they're using the bathroom? Keep in mind you've already demonstrated that you're incapable of differentiating between a sexual pervert and a trans person.

The sky is the limit here:

How do you want our society to verify genitalia before providing public bathroom access?

[-] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

So you can look at a person and tell if they are a sexual pervert? Holy cow, so the fbi know about your amazing talent? That’s a game changer.

What you can pick is a biological male. Every time, without fail. No one needs to look at genitals.

You keep purposely disingenuously saying rubbish like “you’re saying all trans people are perverts”. What I’m saying is that you can’t tell who is a pervert, but you know that if they’re a biological male who is a pervert that you just gave them free and unrestricted access to girls bathrooms by sallowing trans identified people into female space because there’s no way to verify “gender identity” so anyone can simply say they are a girl if they want to access female only spaces.

This isn’t hard to understand, and your attempts to twist it only highlight how weak your argument is.

Sex separated spaces exist for a reason. They existed long before the current “gender identity” thing began.

this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
1170 points (94.8% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2725 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS