HS girls stage a walkout as trans teen uses girls bathroom (1 Viewer)

[Zow]

Henry, go outside.

No.

I think you're bat**** insane but your stamina is unmatched.

Of the two of us, one of us is in agreement with the Department of Justice, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the U.S. Department of Education, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, and the American Psychiatric Association, among others. You're the other one.

That rejoinder really says nothing about bat#### insanity. It merely makes a claim of the political class.

Hell, Stalin had those executive offices still. Citing to authority doesn't settle the argument of what is biologically insane.

oh come on

 

[rockaction]

And really, gender dysphoria is clinically labeled insane, as Henry would point out in other times and for other means.

 

[Henry Ford]

Henry, go outside.

No.

I think you're bat**** insane but your stamina is unmatched.

Of the two of us, one of us is in agreement with the Department of Justice, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the U.S. Department of Education, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, and the American Psychiatric Association, among others. You're the other one.

That rejoinder really says nothing about bat#### insanity. It merely makes a claim of the political class.

Hell, Stalin had those executive offices still. Citing to authority doesn't settle the argument of what is biologically insane.

Stalin had the U.S. Department of Education? I bet that was confusing.

 

[rockaction]

Henry, go outside.

No.

I think you're bat**** insane but your stamina is unmatched.

Of the two of us, one of us is in agreement with the Department of Justice, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the U.S. Department of Education, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, and the American Psychiatric Association, among others. You're the other one.

That rejoinder really says nothing about bat#### insanity. It merely makes a claim of the political class.

Hell, Stalin had those executive offices still. Citing to authority doesn't settle the argument of what is biologically insane.

oh come on

No, when the elites are so twisted that they can't figure out public segregated bathrooms, Stalin and the Woman Question comes immediately to mind.

 

[Henry Ford]

And really, gender dysphoria is clinically labeled insane, as Henry would point out in other times and for other means.

No - clinically labelled as a disorder. Insane means something different.

 

[Henry Ford]

No, when the elites are so twisted that they can't figure out public segregated bathrooms, Stalin and the Woman Question comes immediately to mind.

I think it's figured out. It's a bunch of high school girls and you who can't seem to understand.

 

[rockaction]

Henry, go outside.

No.

I think you're bat**** insane but your stamina is unmatched.

Of the two of us, one of us is in agreement with the Department of Justice, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the U.S. Department of Education, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, and the American Psychiatric Association, among others. You're the other one.

That rejoinder really says nothing about bat#### insanity. It merely makes a claim of the political class.

Hell, Stalin had those executive offices still. Citing to authority doesn't settle the argument of what is biologically insane.

Stalin had the U.S. Department of Education? I bet that was confusing.

Weirdly, I decided not to edit that to see if someone was that exacting and would comment. And you did. Nothing wrong with that, as it didn't make any ####### sense.

Damn, am I a ####er or what?

 

[rockaction]

No, when the elites are so twisted that they can't figure out public segregated bathrooms, Stalin and the Woman Question comes immediately to mind.

I think it's figured out. It's a bunch of high school girls and you who can't seem to understand.

No, it's clearly not been "figured out." It's been figured out by a gay guy who identifies with females and has a #### and his supporters. The rest of us just walk out of the restroom, which is really not a big deal, but goes toward indvidualism rather than majoritarianism. Again, that's fair, but let's recognize swinging ##### in the bathroom for what they are -- swinging ##### in the non-sex identified bathroom.

Nobody has figured it out.

 

[Henry Ford]

No, when the elites are so twisted that they can't figure out public segregated bathrooms, Stalin and the Woman Question comes immediately to mind.

I think it's figured out. It's a bunch of high school girls and you who can't seem to understand.

No, it's clearly not been "figured out." It's been figured out by a gay guy who identifies with females and has a #### and his supporters. The rest of us just walk out of the restroom, which is really not a big deal, but goes toward indvidualism rather than majoritarianism. Again, that's fair, but let's recognize swinging ##### in the bathroom for what they are -- swinging ##### in the non-sex identified bathroom.

Nobody has figured it out.

You take very confusing positions in this thread.

 

[Zow]

Henry, go outside.

No.

I think you're bat**** insane but your stamina is unmatched.

Of the two of us, one of us is in agreement with the Department of Justice, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the U.S. Department of Education, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, and the American Psychiatric Association, among others. You're the other one.

Henry Ford in this thread: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPw-3e_pzqU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn200lvmTZc

He's more like the guy in orange in the above clip.

 

[rockaction]

No, when the elites are so twisted that they can't figure out public segregated bathrooms, Stalin and the Woman Question comes immediately to mind.

I think it's figured out. It's a bunch of high school girls and you who can't seem to understand.

No, it's clearly not been "figured out." It's been figured out by a gay guy who identifies with females and has a #### and his supporters. The rest of us just walk out of the restroom, which is really not a big deal, but goes toward indvidualism rather than majoritarianism. Again, that's fair, but let's recognize swinging ##### in the bathroom for what they are -- swinging ##### in the non-sex identified bathroom.

Nobody has figured it out.

You take very confusing positions in this thread.

I think the sarc meter in the bolded is quite apparent. If you want to make a legal argument, that's fine and that's yours.

I'm merely conversing, and not being exacting about language nor tone.

I think that should be pretty apparent.

If you want my disquisition about extensions of analogy, jurisprudence, and where they fit within our political system and politics writ large, I can probably sum up the courage later tonight or tomorrow.

 

[Fennis]

How do bathrooms work in gay bars? Is the men's room like a free buffet?

I was at one where the urinal was a large round tub in the center of the bathroom. There were individuals loitering at various places around its circumference waiting to check out the packages of those having to urinate. There was no subtlety to their purpose as they would hoot and holler whenever a new package was exposed. It was actually pretty funny.

having to chub up before taking a piss is a lot of pressure

and if you take it too far you're pissing in guy's faces.

now there's a good way to make a living.

 

[rockaction]

Henry, go outside.

No.

I think you're bat**** insane but your stamina is unmatched.

Of the two of us, one of us is in agreement with the Department of Justice, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the U.S. Department of Education, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, and the American Psychiatric Association, among others. You're the other one.

Henry Ford in this thread: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPw-3e_pzqU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn200lvmTZc

He's more like the guy in orange in the above clip.

Yeah, no. If you're a lawyer and you see this form of jurisprudence (extension by analogy and civil libertarian rights law) as the be-all and end-all, then yes.

If you're not, and you view political debate as that which lies outside of Article III, then this fails miserably.

 

[Zow]

Love how almost 20% of board members are too frightened to show their faces on this poll and only view the results... I know you have an opinion, stop being a wuss.

The funny thing too is that I get the other side of the coin on this way. Heck, I thought that way for a majority of my life.

 

[Zow]

Henry, go outside.

No.

I think you're bat**** insane but your stamina is unmatched.

Of the two of us, one of us is in agreement with the Department of Justice, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the U.S. Department of Education, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, and the American Psychiatric Association, among others. You're the other one.

Henry Ford in this thread: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPw-3e_pzqU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn200lvmTZc

He's more like the guy in orange in the above clip.

Yeah, no. If you're a lawyer and you see this form of jurisprudence (extension by analogy and civil libertarian rights law) as the be-all and end-all, then yes.

If you're not, and you view political debate as that which lies outside of Article III, then this fails miserably.

Since you're unsure...

 

[rockaction]

Henry, go outside.

No.

I think you're bat**** insane but your stamina is unmatched.

Of the two of us, one of us is in agreement with the Department of Justice, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the U.S. Department of Education, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, and the American Psychiatric Association, among others. You're the other one.

Henry Ford in this thread: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPw-3e_pzqU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn200lvmTZc

He's more like the guy in orange in the above clip.

Yeah, no. If you're a lawyer and you see this form of jurisprudence (extension by analogy and civil libertarian rights law) as the be-all and end-all, then yes.

If you're not, and you view political debate as that which lies outside of Article III, then this fails miserably.

Since you're unsure...

You missed the emphasis on the "and," methinks. But that's fine. Let's get back to the discussion. At what point does the extension by analogy and logic fail basic political majoritarianism, and if it does not fail, where do we draw the line on any segregated public facility for sex?

 

[Henry Ford]

No, when the elites are so twisted that they can't figure out public segregated bathrooms, Stalin and the Woman Question comes immediately to mind.

I think it's figured out. It's a bunch of high school girls and you who can't seem to understand.

No, it's clearly not been "figured out." It's been figured out by a gay guy who identifies with females and has a #### and his supporters. The rest of us just walk out of the restroom, which is really not a big deal, but goes toward indvidualism rather than majoritarianism. Again, that's fair, but let's recognize swinging ##### in the bathroom for what they are -- swinging ##### in the non-sex identified bathroom.

Nobody has figured it out.

You take very confusing positions in this thread.

I think the sarc meter in the bolded is quite apparent. If you want to make a legal argument, that's fine and that's yours.

I'm merely conversing, and not being exacting about language nor tone.

I think that should be pretty apparent.

If you want my disquisition about extensions of analogy, jurisprudence, and where they fit within our political system and politics writ large, I can probably sum up the courage later tonight or tomorrow.

Can you do it without shortening long words like "sarcasm" and "summon"? I'm having a hard time not lumping you in with a group of high school girls as it is.

We aren't arguing about what's "nice" or "normal" or "the way things would be in a perfect world." We're arguing about whether a transgender high school student should be allowed to use the women's locker room after a bunch of teenage girls threw a tantrum to stop her from using it. And, by the way, a bunch of other teenage girls staged a counter-protest in support of the transgender high school student.

Bound up in that question are a number of legal issues - because we're talking about what a state actor (public school) should allow a student to do. And in making that decision, we need to view the law, the medical evidence, and the social theories bound up with gender and sex. What the law says is often disputed. On my side are several major legal and political bodies whose job it is to interpret the law and the medical professionals charged with determining what is proper for someone who professes to have the disorder this transgender teen has professed to have for several years. I'm comfortable with my position from a scientific, medical, social, and legal perspective.

You have sublimeone. And "ick." And 150 teenage girls.

But I'm really looking forward to your disquisition.

 

[Henry Ford]

You missed the emphasis on the "and," methinks. But that's fine. Let's get back to the discussion. At what point does the extension by analogy and logic fail basic political majoritarianism, and if it does not fail, where do we draw the line on any segregated public facility for sex?

Okay. Make your case. Ready for it. I'm all ears.

 

[ghostguy123]

I guess I should be the bearer of bad tidings - by age 14 these days, I don't think there's a girl in the U.S. public school system who hasn't at least seen many pictures of penises. At the very least in sex ed/health class.

Girls seeing a penis might not even be in the top 10 of reasons why transgenders shouldnt be allowed to use the opposite bathrooms.

 

[Henry Ford]

I guess I should be the bearer of bad tidings - by age 14 these days, I don't think there's a girl in the U.S. public school system who hasn't at least seen many pictures of penises. At the very least in sex ed/health class.

Girls seeing a penis might not even be in the top 10 of reasons why transgenders shouldnt be allowed to use the opposite bathrooms.

Great! What are the top 10? I've been waiting for someone to actually put forth an argument on this other than "PENIS"

 

[ghostguy123]

Also, apparently transgender people can be straight. So it isn't just about 14 year old girls seeing a penis. It's also about 14 year old girls being checked out by a heterosexual 14 year old boy.

This DOES make the top 10.

 

[rockaction]

No, when the elites are so twisted that they can't figure out public segregated bathrooms, Stalin and the Woman Question comes immediately to mind.

I think it's figured out. It's a bunch of high school girls and you who can't seem to understand.

No, it's clearly not been "figured out." It's been figured out by a gay guy who identifies with females and has a #### and his supporters. The rest of us just walk out of the restroom, which is really not a big deal, but goes toward indvidualism rather than majoritarianism. Again, that's fair, but let's recognize swinging ##### in the bathroom for what they are -- swinging ##### in the non-sex identified bathroom.

Nobody has figured it out.

You take very confusing positions in this thread.

I think the sarc meter in the bolded is quite apparent. If you want to make a legal argument, that's fine and that's yours.

I'm merely conversing, and not being exacting about language nor tone.

I think that should be pretty apparent.

If you want my disquisition about extensions of analogy, jurisprudence, and where they fit within our political system and politics writ large, I can probably sum up the courage later tonight or tomorrow.

Can you do it without shortening long words like "sarcasm" and "summon"? I'm having a hard time not lumping you in with a group of high school girls as it is.

We aren't arguing about what's "nice" or "normal" or "the way things would be in a perfect world." We're arguing about whether a transgender high school student should be allowed to use the women's locker room after a bunch of teenage girls threw a tantrum to stop her from using it. And, by the way, a bunch of other teenage girls staged a counter-protest in support of the transgender high school student.

Bound up in that question are a number of legal issues - because we're talking about what a state actor (public school) should allow a student to do. And in making that decision, we need to view the law, the medical evidence, and the social theories bound up with gender and sex. What the law says is often disputed. On my side are several major legal and political bodies whose job it is to interpret the law and the medical professionals charged with determining what is proper for someone who professes to have the disorder this transgender teen has professed to have for several years. I'm comfortable with my position from a scientific, medical, social, and legal perspective.

You have sublimeone. And "ick." And 150 teenage girls.

But I'm really looking forward to your disquisition.

What the hell is this?

Seriously, I was going to write a reasonable response, but you're clearly unhinged about this.

Take it back to Article III and stuff it, Henry.

Here's a hint. There's a first article that respects majoritarianism, and then there's a third. Figure out where the #### you fall on the platform.

 

[ghostguy123]

Also, apparently transgender people can be straight. So it isn't just about 14 year old girls seeing a penis. It's also about 14 year old girls being checked out by a heterosexual 14 year old boy.

What should we do with the lesbian girls? Separate them out, too?

No. Go ask a few 13 year old girls what bothers them more. A lesbian who will catch a glimpse, or a straight boy who will catch a glimpse.

 

[rockaction]

I HAVE RIGHTS I HAVE RIGHTS I HAVE RIGHTS #### ALL YOU OTHER PEOPLE I HAVE RIGHTS

 

[Henry Ford]

No, when the elites are so twisted that they can't figure out public segregated bathrooms, Stalin and the Woman Question comes immediately to mind.

I think it's figured out. It's a bunch of high school girls and you who can't seem to understand.

No, it's clearly not been "figured out." It's been figured out by a gay guy who identifies with females and has a #### and his supporters. The rest of us just walk out of the restroom, which is really not a big deal, but goes toward indvidualism rather than majoritarianism. Again, that's fair, but let's recognize swinging ##### in the bathroom for what they are -- swinging ##### in the non-sex identified bathroom.

Nobody has figured it out.

You take very confusing positions in this thread.

I think the sarc meter in the bolded is quite apparent. If you want to make a legal argument, that's fine and that's yours.

I'm merely conversing, and not being exacting about language nor tone.

I think that should be pretty apparent.

If you want my disquisition about extensions of analogy, jurisprudence, and where they fit within our political system and politics writ large, I can probably sum up the courage later tonight or tomorrow.

Can you do it without shortening long words like "sarcasm" and "summon"? I'm having a hard time not lumping you in with a group of high school girls as it is.

We aren't arguing about what's "nice" or "normal" or "the way things would be in a perfect world." We're arguing about whether a transgender high school student should be allowed to use the women's locker room after a bunch of teenage girls threw a tantrum to stop her from using it. And, by the way, a bunch of other teenage girls staged a counter-protest in support of the transgender high school student.

Bound up in that question are a number of legal issues - because we're talking about what a state actor (public school) should allow a student to do. And in making that decision, we need to view the law, the medical evidence, and the social theories bound up with gender and sex. What the law says is often disputed. On my side are several major legal and political bodies whose job it is to interpret the law and the medical professionals charged with determining what is proper for someone who professes to have the disorder this transgender teen has professed to have for several years. I'm comfortable with my position from a scientific, medical, social, and legal perspective.

You have sublimeone. And "ick." And 150 teenage girls.

But I'm really looking forward to your disquisition.

What the hell is this?

Seriously, I was going to write a reasonable response, but you're clearly unhinged about this.

Take it back to Article III and stuff it, Henry.

Here's a hint. There's a first article that respects majoritarianism, and then there's a third. Figure out where the #### you fall on the platform.

Oh. Okay. No, I get it. There's a reason you won't actually make an argument about your theoretical model of how American politics and law work (or don't) and how/why it applies to this situation, and it's because I'm a jerk.

You make blatantly condescending and offensive comments about transgender people, intentionally, for several pages, and then when someone treats you like the child you're behaving like you cry foul because now you've decided you want to have a conversation, despite the fact that you haven't started having it yet?

 

[Henry Ford]

I think it's time for someone to pull out a Paul McHugh quote again. :fingerscrossed:

 

[rockaction]

No, when the elites are so twisted that they can't figure out public segregated bathrooms, Stalin and the Woman Question comes immediately to mind.

I think it's figured out. It's a bunch of high school girls and you who can't seem to understand.

No, it's clearly not been "figured out." It's been figured out by a gay guy who identifies with females and has a #### and his supporters. The rest of us just walk out of the restroom, which is really not a big deal, but goes toward indvidualism rather than majoritarianism. Again, that's fair, but let's recognize swinging ##### in the bathroom for what they are -- swinging ##### in the non-sex identified bathroom.

Nobody has figured it out.

You take very confusing positions in this thread.

I think the sarc meter in the bolded is quite apparent. If you want to make a legal argument, that's fine and that's yours.

I'm merely conversing, and not being exacting about language nor tone.

I think that should be pretty apparent.

If you want my disquisition about extensions of analogy, jurisprudence, and where they fit within our political system and politics writ large, I can probably sum up the courage later tonight or tomorrow.

Can you do it without shortening long words like "sarcasm" and "summon"? I'm having a hard time not lumping you in with a group of high school girls as it is.

We aren't arguing about what's "nice" or "normal" or "the way things would be in a perfect world." We're arguing about whether a transgender high school student should be allowed to use the women's locker room after a bunch of teenage girls threw a tantrum to stop her from using it. And, by the way, a bunch of other teenage girls staged a counter-protest in support of the transgender high school student.

Bound up in that question are a number of legal issues - because we're talking about what a state actor (public school) should allow a student to do. And in making that decision, we need to view the law, the medical evidence, and the social theories bound up with gender and sex. What the law says is often disputed. On my side are several major legal and political bodies whose job it is to interpret the law and the medical professionals charged with determining what is proper for someone who professes to have the disorder this transgender teen has professed to have for several years. I'm comfortable with my position from a scientific, medical, social, and legal perspective.

You have sublimeone. And "ick." And 150 teenage girls.

But I'm really looking forward to your disquisition.

What the hell is this?

Seriously, I was going to write a reasonable response, but you're clearly unhinged about this.

Take it back to Article III and stuff it, Henry.

Here's a hint. There's a first article that respects majoritarianism, and then there's a third. Figure out where the #### you fall on the platform.

Oh. Okay. No, I get it. There's a reason you won't actually make an argument about your theoretical model of how American politics and law work (or don't) and how/why it applies to this situation, and it's because I'm a jerk.

You make blatantly condescending and offensive comments about transgender people, intentionally, for several pages, and then when someone treats you like the child you're behaving like you cry foul because now you've decided you want to have a conversation, despite the fact that you haven't started having it yet?

No, I think it's clear that you place a particular model of jurisprudence ahead of all things political, and you've gotten bat#### unhappy about it. Saying that I'm immature about a pretty steadfast and wise, millennial-long position just ameliorates your point.

There are three articles in our Constitution:

1) The Legislative

2) The Executive

3) The Judiciary

Solving contentious things by a particular strain of jurisprudence from the third branch of government seems to me to be unwise, childish, and does not take into account basic truths about sex and publicity. You may have the day with the redefinition of identity for politics' sake; you can also be bat#### insane.

 

[RBM]

I gotta give Ford credit for fighting literally all day over such an utterly ridiculous topic but one that he is pretty passionate about. And most important he did so without getting personal with anyone which is pretty rare here.

He literally did nothing today but post in here.

 

[Henry Ford]

No, when the elites are so twisted that they can't figure out public segregated bathrooms, Stalin and the Woman Question comes immediately to mind.

I think it's figured out. It's a bunch of high school girls and you who can't seem to understand.

No, it's clearly not been "figured out." It's been figured out by a gay guy who identifies with females and has a #### and his supporters. The rest of us just walk out of the restroom, which is really not a big deal, but goes toward indvidualism rather than majoritarianism. Again, that's fair, but let's recognize swinging ##### in the bathroom for what they are -- swinging ##### in the non-sex identified bathroom.

Nobody has figured it out.

You take very confusing positions in this thread.

I think the sarc meter in the bolded is quite apparent. If you want to make a legal argument, that's fine and that's yours.

I'm merely conversing, and not being exacting about language nor tone.

I think that should be pretty apparent.

If you want my disquisition about extensions of analogy, jurisprudence, and where they fit within our political system and politics writ large, I can probably sum up the courage later tonight or tomorrow.

Can you do it without shortening long words like "sarcasm" and "summon"? I'm having a hard time not lumping you in with a group of high school girls as it is.We aren't arguing about what's "nice" or "normal" or "the way things would be in a perfect world." We're arguing about whether a transgender high school student should be allowed to use the women's locker room after a bunch of teenage girls threw a tantrum to stop her from using it. And, by the way, a bunch of other teenage girls staged a counter-protest in support of the transgender high school student.

Bound up in that question are a number of legal issues - because we're talking about what a state actor (public school) should allow a student to do. And in making that decision, we need to view the law, the medical evidence, and the social theories bound up with gender and sex. What the law says is often disputed. On my side are several major legal and political bodies whose job it is to interpret the law and the medical professionals charged with determining what is proper for someone who professes to have the disorder this transgender teen has professed to have for several years. I'm comfortable with my position from a scientific, medical, social, and legal perspective.

You have sublimeone. And "ick." And 150 teenage girls.

But I'm really looking forward to your disquisition.

What the hell is this?

Seriously, I was going to write a reasonable response, but you're clearly unhinged about this.

Take it back to Article III and stuff it, Henry.

Here's a hint. There's a first article that respects majoritarianism, and then there's a third. Figure out where the #### you fall on the platform.

Oh. Okay. No, I get it. There's a reason you won't actually make an argument about your theoretical model of how American politics and law work (or don't) and how/why it applies to this situation, and it's because I'm a jerk.You make blatantly condescending and offensive comments about transgender people, intentionally, for several pages, and then when someone treats you like the child you're behaving like you cry foul because now you've decided you want to have a conversation, despite the fact that you haven't started having it yet?

No, I think it's clear that you place a particular model of jurisprudence ahead of all things political, and you've gotten bat#### unhappy about it. Saying that I'm immature about a pretty steadfast and wise, millennial-long position just ameliorates your point.

There are three articles in our Constitution:

1) The Legislative

2) The Executive

3) The Judiciary

Solving contentious things by a particular strain of jurisprudence from the third branch of government seems to me to be unwise, childish, and does not take into account basic truths about sex and publicity. You may have the day with the redefinition of identity for politics' sake; you can also be bat#### insane.

1. "ameliorates" means "makes better."2. Two of the three branches you note above are represented in the group I mentioned agree with me and the third drafted and passed Title IX of the Civil Rights Act, which is what the legal position is based on.

 

[rockaction]

No, when the elites are so twisted that they can't figure out public segregated bathrooms, Stalin and the Woman Question comes immediately to mind.

I think it's figured out. It's a bunch of high school girls and you who can't seem to understand.

No, it's clearly not been "figured out." It's been figured out by a gay guy who identifies with females and has a #### and his supporters. The rest of us just walk out of the restroom, which is really not a big deal, but goes toward indvidualism rather than majoritarianism. Again, that's fair, but let's recognize swinging ##### in the bathroom for what they are -- swinging ##### in the non-sex identified bathroom.

Nobody has figured it out.

You take very confusing positions in this thread.

I think the sarc meter in the bolded is quite apparent. If you want to make a legal argument, that's fine and that's yours.

I'm merely conversing, and not being exacting about language nor tone.

I think that should be pretty apparent.

If you want my disquisition about extensions of analogy, jurisprudence, and where they fit within our political system and politics writ large, I can probably sum up the courage later tonight or tomorrow.

Can you do it without shortening long words like "sarcasm" and "summon"? I'm having a hard time not lumping you in with a group of high school girls as it is.We aren't arguing about what's "nice" or "normal" or "the way things would be in a perfect world." We're arguing about whether a transgender high school student should be allowed to use the women's locker room after a bunch of teenage girls threw a tantrum to stop her from using it. And, by the way, a bunch of other teenage girls staged a counter-protest in support of the transgender high school student.

Bound up in that question are a number of legal issues - because we're talking about what a state actor (public school) should allow a student to do. And in making that decision, we need to view the law, the medical evidence, and the social theories bound up with gender and sex. What the law says is often disputed. On my side are several major legal and political bodies whose job it is to interpret the law and the medical professionals charged with determining what is proper for someone who professes to have the disorder this transgender teen has professed to have for several years. I'm comfortable with my position from a scientific, medical, social, and legal perspective.

You have sublimeone. And "ick." And 150 teenage girls.

But I'm really looking forward to your disquisition.

What the hell is this?

Seriously, I was going to write a reasonable response, but you're clearly unhinged about this.

Take it back to Article III and stuff it, Henry.

Here's a hint. There's a first article that respects majoritarianism, and then there's a third. Figure out where the #### you fall on the platform.

Oh. Okay. No, I get it. There's a reason you won't actually make an argument about your theoretical model of how American politics and law work (or don't) and how/why it applies to this situation, and it's because I'm a jerk.You make blatantly condescending and offensive comments about transgender people, intentionally, for several pages, and then when someone treats you like the child you're behaving like you cry foul because now you've decided you want to have a conversation, despite the fact that you haven't started having it yet?

No, I think it's clear that you place a particular model of jurisprudence ahead of all things political, and you've gotten bat#### unhappy about it. Saying that I'm immature about a pretty steadfast and wise, millennial-long position just ameliorates your point.

There are three articles in our Constitution:

1) The Legislative

2) The Executive

3) The Judiciary

Solving contentious things by a particular strain of jurisprudence from the third branch of government seems to me to be unwise, childish, and does not take into account basic truths about sex and publicity. You may have the day with the redefinition of identity for politics' sake; you can also be bat#### insane.

1. "ameliorates" means "makes better."2. Two of the three branches you note above are represented in the group I mentioned agree with me and the third drafted and passed Title IX of the Civil Rights Act, which is what the legal position is based on.

1) It means to make something unsatisfactory better. Sorry, dude. Check out M-W. I do all the time.

2) And as for your second point, TItle IX has been wildly expanded beyond its original proposition and likely nobody would have ceded this sort of argument to the courts. But you know that.

 

[Henry Ford]

Sorry, your sentence is intended to mean that calling you immature improves my point?

 

[rockaction]

Sorry, your sentence is intended to mean that calling you immature improves my point?

I think the key word was that your point was unsatisfactory to begin with, so you call me immature or hostile or whatever and you're trying to make it better.

Should I link to Merriam-Webster or the OED?

 

[Henry Ford]

Sorry, your sentence is intended to mean that calling you immature improves my point?

I think the key word was that your point was unsatisfactory to begin with, so you call me immature or hostile or whatever and you're trying to make it better.

Should I link to Merriam-Webster or the OED?

No, I understand what it means and how to use it in a sentence. I'm good.

 

[rockaction]

Sorry, your sentence is intended to mean that calling you immature improves my point?

I think the key word was that your point was unsatisfactory to begin with, so you call me immature or hostile or whatever and you're trying to make it better.

Should I link to Merriam-Webster or the OED?

No, I understand what it means and how to use it in a sentence. I'm good.

I'm really not sure about that.

But hey.

:shrugs:

 

[rockaction]

ameliorate implies making more tolerable or acceptable conditions that are hard to endure <tried to ameliorate the lives of people in the tenements>.

M-W

 

[Henry Ford]

ameliorate implies making more tolerable or acceptable conditions that are hard to endure <tried to ameliorate the lives of people in the tenements>.

M-W

Right. Improves my point. Got it.

 

[rockaction]

ameliorate implies making more tolerable or acceptable conditions that are hard to endure <tried to ameliorate the lives of people in the tenements>.

M-W

Right. Improves my point. Got it.

Yes, an ad hominem towards me improved your untenable position.

You do have it.

 

[Henry Ford]

ameliorate implies making more tolerable or acceptable conditions that are hard to endure <tried to ameliorate the lives of people in the tenements>.

M-W

Right. Improves my point. Got it.

Yes, an ad hominem towards me improved your untenable position.

You do have it.

The untenable position based on analogy, medicine, social science, legislation, judicial interpretation, and the executive branch's position. Fortunately it's saved by a perceived ad hominem "argument." Great point.

 

[rockaction]

ameliorate implies making more tolerable or acceptable conditions that are hard to endure <tried to ameliorate the lives of people in the tenements>.

M-W

Right. Improves my point. Got it.

Yes, an ad hominem towards me improved your untenable position.

You do have it.

The untenable position based on analogy, medicine, social science, legislation, judicial interpretation, and the executive branch's position. Fortunately it's saved by a perceived ad hominem "argument." Great point.

The nasty issues of biological science will still have the day, won't they? And that chit trumps any government, everywhere.

Which kind of sucks if you're a Platonic reformer at heart.

I think we should start asking what would Plato's Guardians do every time we talk about gender in the way we ask what Jesus would do if he were around. But that's just me.

WWPGD?

 

[ghostguy123]

 

[Henry Ford]

ameliorate implies making more tolerable or acceptable conditions that are hard to endure <tried to ameliorate the lives of people in the tenements>.

M-W

Right. Improves my point. Got it.

Yes, an ad hominem towards me improved your untenable position.

You do have it.

The untenable position based on analogy, medicine, social science, legislation, judicial interpretation, and the executive branch's position. Fortunately it's saved by a perceived ad hominem "argument." Great point.

The nasty issues of biological science will still have the day, won't they? And that chit trumps any government, everywhere.

Which kind of sucks if you're a Platonic reformer at heart.

I think we should start asking what would Plato's Guardians do every time we talk about gender in the way we ask what Jesus would do if he were around. But that's just me.

WWPGD?

You consider yourself a Platonic, but don't believe in transgenderism? Am I getting that right? Maybe we should ask Axiothea why she had to dress and behave as a man to study under him.

 

[rockaction]

ameliorate implies making more tolerable or acceptable conditions that are hard to endure <tried to ameliorate the lives of people in the tenements>.

M-W

Right. Improves my point. Got it.

Yes, an ad hominem towards me improved your untenable position.

You do have it.

The untenable position based on analogy, medicine, social science, legislation, judicial interpretation, and the executive branch's position. Fortunately it's saved by a perceived ad hominem "argument." Great point.

The nasty issues of biological science will still have the day, won't they? And that chit trumps any government, everywhere.

Which kind of sucks if you're a Platonic reformer at heart.

I think we should start asking what would Plato's Guardians do every time we talk about gender in the way we ask what Jesus would do if he were around. But that's just me.

WWPGD?

You consider yourself a Platonic, but don't believe in transgenderism? Am I getting that right? Maybe we should ask Axiothea why she had to dress and behave as a man to study under him.

I was making fun of Plato, actually. That's why I focused on his Republic Guardians, who have long been considered in philosophy as the uber-neutral biological sex beings, if I'm not mistaken. I think I read the Guardian passage twenty times and still can't quite recall. There's a section about censoring music, too, in there, if I'm not mistaken. That's jus' me. :shrugs:

 

[Henry Ford]

I don't think we have terribly similar ideas about The Republic.

 

[RBM]

This thing has really spiraled out of control.

 

[ghostguy123]

If I believe I am the sexiest man alive, do I have the right to bang any woman I want?

If I believe that your house is really my house, do I have the right to come and go as I please?

 

[Henry Ford]

If I believe I am the sexiest man alive, do I have the right to bang any woman I want?

If I believe that your house is really my house, do I have the right to come and go as I please?

No. I believe that the salient characteristics of a man are that he is a good provider and defends the rights of those who cannot defend themselves. It's the only definition I use. If I use my definition and determine that you're not really a man, do I have the right to bar you from entering a men's public restroom?

 

[Todd Andrews]

No, when the elites are so twisted that they can't figure out public segregated bathrooms, Stalin and the Woman Question comes immediately to mind.

I think it's figured out. It's a bunch of high school girls and you who can't seem to understand.

No, it's clearly not been "figured out." It's been figured out by a gay guy who identifies with females and has a #### and his supporters. The rest of us just walk out of the restroom, which is really not a big deal, but goes toward indvidualism rather than majoritarianism. Again, that's fair, but let's recognize swinging ##### in the bathroom for what they are -- swinging ##### in the non-sex identified bathroom.

Nobody has figured it out.

You take very confusing positions in this thread.

I think the sarc meter in the bolded is quite apparent. If you want to make a legal argument, that's fine and that's yours.

I'm merely conversing, and not being exacting about language nor tone.

I think that should be pretty apparent.

If you want my disquisition about extensions of analogy, jurisprudence, and where they fit within our political system and politics writ large, I can probably sum up the courage later tonight or tomorrow.

Can you do it without shortening long words like "sarcasm" and "summon"? I'm having a hard time not lumping you in with a group of high school girls as it is.

We aren't arguing about what's "nice" or "normal" or "the way things would be in a perfect world." We're arguing about whether a transgender high school student should be allowed to use the women's locker room after a bunch of teenage girls threw a tantrum to stop her from using it. And, by the way, a bunch of other teenage girls staged a counter-protest in support of the transgender high school student.

Bound up in that question are a number of legal issues - because we're talking about what a state actor (public school) should allow a student to do. And in making that decision, we need to view the law, the medical evidence, and the social theories bound up with gender and sex. What the law says is often disputed. On my side are several major legal and political bodies whose job it is to interpret the law and the medical professionals charged with determining what is proper for someone who professes to have the disorder this transgender teen has professed to have for several years. I'm comfortable with my position from a scientific, medical, social, and legal perspective.

You have sublimeone. And "ick." And 150 teenage girls.

But I'm really looking forward to your disquisition.

What the hell is this?

Seriously, I was going to write a reasonable response, but you're clearly unhinged about this.

Take it back to Article III and stuff it, Henry.

Here's a hint. There's a first article that respects majoritarianism, and then there's a third. Figure out where the #### you fall on the platform.

Oh. Okay. No, I get it. There's a reason you won't actually make an argument about your theoretical model of how American politics and law work (or don't) and how/why it applies to this situation, and it's because I'm a jerk.

You make blatantly condescending and offensive comments about transgender people, intentionally, for several pages, and then when someone treats you like the child you're behaving like you cry foul because now you've decided you want to have a conversation, despite the fact that you haven't started having it yet?

No, I think it's clear that you place a particular model of jurisprudence ahead of all things political, and you've gotten bat#### unhappy about it. Saying that I'm immature about a pretty steadfast and wise, millennial-long position just ameliorates your point.

There are three articles in our Constitution:

1) The Legislative

2) The Executive

3) The Judiciary

Solving contentious things by a particular strain of jurisprudence from the third branch of government seems to me to be unwise, childish, and does not take into account basic truths about sex and publicity. You may have the day with the redefinition of identity for politics' sake; you can also be bat#### insane.

What are you babbling about?

 

[rockaction]

What are you babbling about?

This makes me feel wonderful and on top of the world. I'm not kidding nor being sarcastic nor facetious. Thanks, Todd.

 

[Todd Andrews]

What are you babbling about?

This makes me feel wonderful and on top of the world. I'm not kidding nor being sarcastic nor facetious. Thanks, Todd.

No problem. You are quite welcome.

But stop the KooKy babbling, please.

 

[Henry Ford]

This thing has really spiraled out of control.

Agreed. Sorry. Let's get back to arguing about whether social policy and the boundaries of equal rights should be determined by what high school girls think is icky.