Women are now getting harassed in bathrooms because of anti-transgender hysteria

As long as we continue to tolerate radical interest groups and their knee-jerk agendas, the outcomes will never be positive. For the sake of being seen as "tolerant" and "progressive" and "with it" we're allowing things that are obviously against human nature and our own better judgement, then wondering why it turns into a disaster.

 

I despise the "like" system for forums. DI's current system is a throwback to me, a time where there was still some sophistication left to online communication that didn't follow the flavor-of-the-moment social media models that have come on over the years.

 

Slavery was once considered natural and the abolitionists considered radical.

 

At one time, people like my father or grandfather could not work in government. Those jobs were reserved for white man. Organizations were formed to ensure that "parity" was enforced in government hiring. The people who organized and demanded societal change at that time were deemed as "radical special interests". Because of the changes that came about, I now enjoy certain rights and privileges that my ancestors did not.

 

Oops! I meant to say "white men", not "white man". Too late to edit.

 

Interracial marriage was considered an abomination in the U.S. not too long ago, but race mixing has been around since there were different "races." Homo sapiens even mixed with Neanderthals. Homosexual humans have also been around from the beginning. Certain cultures have accepted transgender individuals for thousands of years. Nothing is new. Certain religions, that are young relative to the age of our species, have caused certain cultures to regress in some areas.

 

Yep, and today war is still considered a rational way to solve problems and we still fight them, but that doesn't make them any less irrational when critical thinking is applied to the matter.

 

Believing that people choose to be gay is also irrational. Could you see yourself choosing to be gay? Being gay or transgender is not against human nature. It is abnormal since the majority of humans are happy as the sex they were born as and are heterosexual, but that doesn't make being homosexual or transgender unnatural. The medical field has tried all kinds of weird and harmful therapies to try to cure homosexuality and gender dysphoria; none of them work. Their brains are just wired differently.

 

Conversion therapy has been banned in many areas in the U.S. The experts have rightly dismissed it as a "voodoo" science. More to the point, I don't know anyone in their right mind who would willingly choose to be discriminated against.

 

Sorry, but this issue isn't "obvious" to everyone. That's why there's a debate. It doesn't matter where one stands on this, but it isn't "obvious."

 

It is voodoo science. Conversion therapy doesn't result in a conversion; it is brainwashing and self-deception. If you talk to people who have been "converted" (a large percentage of recipients will never be "converted"), they will often tell you that they still battle homosexual desires. All they are doing is forcing themselves to live a heterosexual lifestyle; they aren't actually heterosexual. This type of "therapy" can cause psychological distress.

 

"Certain religions, that are young relative to the age of our species, have caused certain cultures to regress in some areas."

Sometimes, a man should seek to understand all ways/religions, in order to more and more in accord with his own way. For example, I try to follow ancient edicts like the Golden Rule, which pre-dates the bible.

 

I never said people chose to be gay in my previous posts.

To answer your question, no, I couldn't see myself choosing to be gay. All of that being said, there are plenty of people who do in fact choose to engage in homosexual behavior experimentally, people who wouldn't consider themselves to be actually gay, and I imagine that as it has become more accepted there is more experimentation.

It's worth noting that you used the term "abnormal" to describe homosexuality. I mean sure, it is abnormal when compared against the more pervasive heterosexuality, but I've found that homosexuals tend to find the term "abnormal" to be offensive when applied to their sexuality.

I agree that there is a neurological difference, plenty of studies have shown the difference in brain symmetry between that of a heterosexual and a homosexual. The mental health field made a mistake in attempting to treat it as a mental disorder at one time, but that's since been rectified. Still, one could argue that those who aren't gay but experiment with homosexuality may be suffering from a mental health issue since they lack the brain symmetry differences of a normal homosexual and are choosing to engage. One could make the case that because the homosexual's brain is different from a heterosexual's brain--and because heterosexuality is the prevailing sexuality--that in itself should be enough grounds to classify homosexuality as a neurological disorder, fitting the criteria of homosexuals having a structural abnormality in the brain. However, pressure from rights organizations has made any such characterizations towards words like "disorder" taboo concerning homosexuality, even if there is a scientific basis for it.

 

Hmmmm. I don't think something has to be obvious to "everyone" for it to qualify as obvious. Thinking about it, it's somewhat oxymoronic because obviousness has a subjective component, being easily understood by one person and not understood by another based on a differing perspective/opinion on what something is/means.

 

Indeed attitudes toward all things LGBTQ have shifted. Shifting attitudes are just that, shifting attitudes. True, it is caused by something, but it in no way suggests that all who have shifted in their attitudes have wholeheartedly embraced all things LGBTQ. Few, if any, like being called a bigot. That alone would keep many from publically denouncing or opposing the LGBTQ issue.

 

America’s moved on—but many still live in a white fantasy land

I thought I would post this as it relates to social change:

http://www.newsweek.com/america-moved-many-still-live-white-fantasy-461223?rx=us


"As a child of the 1960s, I remember the racial segregation of separate bathrooms and drinking fountains in my North Carolina hometown. In the late ’70s, I was a beneficiary of affirmative action programs that provided both educational and occupational opportunities that my parents and grandparents were denied."

"Through the ’80s, ’90s and early part of this century, I witnessed the rise, fall and rebound of our nation’s economy; the decimation of jobs and industries; a growing chasm between the haves and the have-nots; amazing advances in lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender, or LGBT, rights; and a persistently stubborn gap in wages between men and women."

"They learned English. I went to school with the sons and daughters of these folks. And we created a really united country where 97 percent of us spoke English in 1960. Now in half the homes in California, people speak a language other than English in their own homes. Anybody that believes that a country can be maintained that has no ethnic core to it or no linguistic core to it, I believe is naive in the extreme."

"people speak a language other than English in their own homes."

Let's examine this a little closer. There are those that embrace other languages and cultures, and there are those that don't. As a minority, you usually learn to decipher what we call "code" talk during childhood. Those that see speaking Spanish as a bad thing usually will say something predictable like "Oh, you speak Mescan?". This is meant as a put down. An old timey term if you will. That fact of the matter is that I don't speak Mexican, I speak Spanish, a European language. Those that appreciate other languages and cultures are amazed of the fact that I speak Spanish, since I have no detectable accent when I speak in English and I am very light skinned. Those that are ignorant don't seem to realize that Spanish is not the native tongue of Mexico. One of my neighbors has a Pat Buchanan attitude, and probably doesn't like the fact the I speak Spanish to his gardeners (he has made certain comments), but you know what? Tough cookies! :smile: I really don't care if he likes it or not.

Why do I bring this up? There are those that still resent pesky laws that ensure fair hiring practices for all. There are still some out there that wish that things remained as they were during my fathers and grandfathers time. But life isn't like Burger King, you can't always "have it your way".

In my personal life, I do not like to pass judgement on others or their lifestyles. People are free to think that something is a sin or an abomination. I personally disagree, but you are free to believe what you believe. But if you believe that, who is sin free? Who can cast the first stone? I think back to the Bill Clinton Monica Lewinsky scandal. Some who so loudly railed against Clinton and sat in judgement, had their own skeletons in the closet. Some left due to those scandals. One particular guy sticks out in my mind. Denni Hastert, a child molestor. Ironically, he now sits in jail. And he sat in judgment? Was he an example of "family values?"

Just food for thought.

 

To return to the subject at hand, I have a simple proposition.

Do you have a thingey? A doodle? A frank and beans? (I wish I could take credit for such delightful names for the male genitalia, but these terms come from the opening number in Matilda the Musical, currently on both Broadway and the West End.)

If you do, you belong in the men’s room. If you don’t, you belong in the women’s room. And in the male and female locker rooms, respectively.

In short, Caitlyn Jenner, who still has his thingey[/i], is not a woman, he is a dude in a dress. Chaz Bono, who (to my knowledge) does not have a doodle, is simply a butch woman. And not even the New York Times, which uses their preferred pronouns, can’t change their biology.

Davewill, who appears to be in denial about his offspring’s birth gender (insofar as he has never specified it), has also never told us what his “son’s” age is. But let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that his “son” is biologically female (although, in theory, psychologically male). If a high schooler and “he” shows up in the boys’ locker room without a thingey, I’d be concerned about her personal safety.

If a person is gay, I see no problem with his or her self-acceptance. It doesn’t change their intrinsic gender. But this nonsense about transgender bissues defies biology. If I put on a dress, it hardly makes me a woman. I would simply be a dude in a dress. (And, believe me, I am not about to put on a dress. C’est ne pas moi.) And frankly, I have never understood the wisdom of high heels, against which feminists should have rebelled years ago. Reminds me of Ginger Rogers' testimony to feminism, "I do the same thing that Fred [Astaire] does, only backwards and in high heels."

I have always accepted being gay, in part thanks to Joan Rivers, who once said that without gays, there would be no one to staff Bloomingdales. But the transgender nonsense we’re seeing today defies biological reality. And amounts to political bullshit and a lack of self-acceptance. (I’ve also always maintained that the logical conclusion to being transsexual, surgical alteration, amounts to self-mutilation.) Why don’t people simply accept themselves as they are? (That of course, is a rhetorical question.)

Maybe I’ll move to North Carolina. (Hardly, but it’s a fun thought. What’s been missing from this whole discussion is humor. About a subject that I still think is damn funny, whether some people like it or not.)

 

always happy to help . . .
100% all-beef thermometer – ABD – acorn – Alabama black snake – anaconda – anal impaler – baby arm – baby maker – bald-headed yogurt slinger – ball – ball bag – balls – ball sack – baloney pony – BBC – BBD – big Dick and the twins – big Italian salami – bird – blue balls – bobby dangler – bollock – bollocks – bologna pony – bone – boner – boom stick – boys – bratwurst – broner – bud – cack – chap – cherry – choad – chode – chopper – chub – chubbie – chup – chut – cock – cock rocket – coin purse – cojones – cornholer – crown jewels – cut – D – dangler – D&B – deez – deez nutz – dick – dick smalls – ding – ding-a-ling – ding dong – dingis – dinker – dinky – dipstick – disco stick – doder – doinker – domepiece – dong – dork – D, the – D train – e-peen – equipment – family jewels – garbage – gear – general, two colonels – get it up – giggleberry – giggle stick – gonad – grapes – gut wrench – hard-on – head – helmet – hockey cocky – hog – hooded – hotdog – hung – jimmy – johnson – John Thomas – joystick – junk – kielbasa – Kiwi – knackers – knap sack – knob – lady boner – love muscle – love shaft – love stick – lunchbox – main vein – manhood – man muscle – master of ceremonies – meat and two veg – meat popsicle – meat thermometer – member – middle leg – monster – Mr. Happy – Mr. Winky – nads – nard – nards – nuggets – nuts – nut sack – ol' one-eye – one-eyed monster – one-eyed snake – one-eyed trouser snake – P – package – packer – patz – pecker – peen – pee pee – peeper – peeter – Peter – Ph.D – pickle – piece – pink tractor beam – plonker – plum – pocket rocket – polaroid – pole – pop a chub – pork sword – prick – pud – purple-headed soldier – purple headed solider man – purple-headed warrior – putz – rocks – rod – Russell the love muscle – sack – salami – sausage – schlong – schlort – schmeckel – schwantz – schwartz – sconge – shaft – shlittle – shlong – shrinkage – skin flute – steamin' semen roadway – stiffie – stiffy – swamp nuts – tallywacker – tallywhacker – tally whacker – tent pole – thing – third leg – throbber – tonsil tickler – tool – tripod – trouser meat – trouser snake – tube steak – twig – twig and berries – twigs and berries – unit – wang – wanker – wankie – wedding tackle – wee – weenie – wee wee – weiner – whang – whiskey dick – who who dilly – wiener – willie – willy – winky – wood – yam bag – yogurt slinger – yoo-hoo – zubra