Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Revisiting the issue of allowing biological males to use women's bathrooms, and the Loudoun County rape case (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter ekbeats
- Start date
Terminalxylem
Footballguy
I don’t make a habit of using women’s restrooms, but I do notice they frequently have lines.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Yes, It is based off of online survey data so it can and should be considered suspect based on a lack of randomness. So one can assume that the one in four in the last year is overstating the issue. But there are other studies that have the number of transgendered individuals suffering from a sexual assault during the lives that come in at between 45 and 67%. Maybe all of these numbers are overstated, but does it really take much to figure out that those that are different are more likely the victim? And while the raw numbers might be suspect and vary from study to study the simple fact that the transgendered are at the greater risk is a constant.
Grace Under Pressure
Footballguy
I read the article after fatguy posted it and commented on it.
So these weren't examples at all?
Neither was this one?
These types of "culture war" issues are exactly what those with big money and power want the peons to be bickering about. I think @timschochet is correct in that we have more in common than we think, and it seems to me that these culture war issues are specifically hyped in order to further divide people, rile people up, and ultimately get them to donate money.
My concern has been biological males and the liberal bathroom policies facilitating harm to women, whether it be from trans people or cis people. It's the policy I'm against, not transgenders.
Ok - but none of those stories involved "the liberal bathroom policies".
So, still irrelevant to your point?
No. You're moving the goalposts. There's one question to answer here - does allowing biological males to use the lady's room pose more of a threat to women? The answer is clearly yes.
Oh you're such a good person, taking one for the team (er, make that your daughter taking one for the team). Congrats for being on the virtue signaling leader board.
The premise of the thread is simple and clear, and it's hilarious that you can't wrap your legendary intellect around it. Liberals enacted policies about 5 years ago allowing biological males into women's bathrooms. All that was required was men identifying as women. The obvious pitfall of this policy is that it would make it easier for women to be assaulted or violated. That could come in two ways - a transgender doing the assaulted, or the more common incident - a cis male using the policy to get better access for their peeping and other creepy stuff. 5 years ago when this was pointed out, liberals in here lost their minds and said both of those things wouldn't happen, the this concern was ridiculous. 5 years later it is crystal clear that this concern was well founded, and I provided 34 examples. All you've done in here is ask questions and fail to understand this simple argument. Classic example of dismissing valid points because they don't align with you liberal agenda.
Another example of you bias overcoming your intellect. Read the title of the thread. And then read it again. Do you see the word transgender in there?
You think this particular case was hyped? Bad liberal policy facilitated the rape of a 14 year old girl in a public school. And when the poor father tried to speak about it at a BOE meeting he was shut down for not "registering in advance" and then lied to in front of the whole room by the Superintendent who said there wasn't any assault in a bathroom. Then when the police tried to forcibly remove him from this public meeting he resisted, resulting in him being arrested. And then to top it all off the town put the rapist in another school where he committed another rape.
Yeah, nothing to see here. Just a bunch of looney Conservatives launching a culture war.
I've met too many women in my lifetime that have been sexually assaulted. And too many men like you who dismiss it.
squistion
Footballguy
Once again, liberals never said that in here and you are misremembering, at best. Some people might have said that the concern was overblown, but no one would have been naive enough to categorically say sexual assaults would never happen.
And please be so kind as to change the incorrect and misleading thread title, since you can't prove your allegations of what you claim liberals said.
So it turns out the Loudon County Public Schools system has been not only lying, but breaking state law for years:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/exclusive-loudoun-schools-did-not-record-multiple-alleged-sexual-assaults-over-a-period-of-years-despite-state-law-records-show?utm_medium=email&utm_source=housefile
https://www.dailywire.com/news/exclusive-loudoun-schools-did-not-record-multiple-alleged-sexual-assaults-over-a-period-of-years-despite-state-law-records-show?utm_medium=email&utm_source=housefile
Just digging into the facts a little bit here - the subject of the OP, the boy who assaulted the girl in the restroom, that happened in May of this year.
Loudoun County did not pass their bathroom rules until August of this year.
So, the original post, also has nothing to do with "biological men being allowed in women’s bathrooms" - since that rule was not passed until three months later.
Nobody likes, or wants, women to be assaulted, sexually, or otherwise. But, using these non-relevant examples does not support opposition to rules allowing transgender students to use a bathroom that corresponds to their gender.
Loudoun County did not pass their bathroom rules until August of this year.
So, the original post, also has nothing to do with "biological men being allowed in women’s bathrooms" - since that rule was not passed until three months later.
Nobody likes, or wants, women to be assaulted, sexually, or otherwise. But, using these non-relevant examples does not support opposition to rules allowing transgender students to use a bathroom that corresponds to their gender.
Yeah = so we agree that the Loudoun County bathroom policies had nothing to do with that particular case.
Oh so it has to be a written, official, posted policy? The policy existed in practice. He apparently asked to be able to use the girl's bathroom and was granted permission by staff.Yeah = so we agree that the Loudoun County bathroom policies had nothing to do with that particular case.
I have read dozens of accounts of the allegations from Smith, and others. I have yet to come across any allegations that he asked, and was granted permission to use the girl's bathroom. I have not even seen anything to suggest the attacker was, actually, transgender. Smith, in fact, said this:
My wife and I are gay- and lesbian-friendly.
'We're not into this children transgender stuff. The person that attacked our daughter is apparently bisexual and occasionally wears dresses because he likes them.
'So this kid is technically not what the school board was fighting about.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
If we are going with "it goes without saying" to support this then I think you have this backwards. The more likely that men will enter a lady's room the less the opportunity that would present itself to a predator trying to hide and wait for a victim. These weaklings trying to find someone to exert power over are going to want to wait somewhere else. On a tangent, these less than glamourous experiences will "normalize" women more as people and less as objects and thus create healthier perspectives in more men that could go either way. I think that segregating bathrooms at all creates the greater risk and that if this is the primary goal it is counter productive, but I assume that unisex shared rest rooms are going to remain mostly theoretical for the time being in most discussions.
Grace Under Pressure
Footballguy
You changed the title of the thread after flamethrowing me on it.
The thread content was largely a discussion about the transgender bathroom policy, old or new title. Maybe you didn't intend for it to go that way, to be fair you can't control what everyone posts about.I commented on the particular case and agreed with several of those points. What I would demand from the school district is a clear policy with rules, security and enforcement spelled out. This school district needs an investigation into several of their policies. The placement of the attacking kid into another school certainly as one of them. The superintendent should definitely resign if it's shown he knew about the incident and lied about it (I believe he probably knew but would like to see it verified).
I give the Dad a pass for his reaction the day of the incident. I don't give anyone a pass for the school board meeting nonsense. For whatever reason Louden County seems to be somewhat of a magnet for these outrage theatrics about masks and CRT and whatever else, the bathrooms in this case. I don't agree with it, it's disruptive for the students not helpful, and it doesn't appear to be organic in its organization. Some of the "concerned parents" have turned out to have worked in politics, for example. To be consistent, the lady that the Dad got into the argument with is an example of being in the wrong here.
On the culture war thing, it's not the Conservatism or Liberalism I'm for or against, it's the outrage tactics that I'm opposed to. I'm not a fan of the culture war no matter which side. It seems to me to be just the type of tactic to employ to keep the populace divided. Both "sides" included.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10093737/Father-daughter-raped-gender-fluid-bathroom-sues-Loudoun-County-Title-IX.html
“The male student, who was allowed into the bathroom because he told staff he identified as female, was arrested in July, a month after Smith's outburst at the school board meeting.”
All very reasonable points. Thanks.You changed the title of the thread after flamethrowing me on it.
I commented on the particular case and agreed with several of those points. What I would demand from the school district is a clear policy with rules, security and enforcement spelled out. This school district needs an investigation into several of their policies. The placement of the attacking kid into another school certainly as one of them. The superintendent should definitely resign if it's shown he knew about the incident and lied about it (I believe he probably knew but would like to see it verified).
I give the Dad a pass for his reaction the day of the incident. I don't give anyone a pass for the school board meeting nonsense. For whatever reason Louden County seems to be somewhat of a magnet for these outrage theatrics about masks and CRT and whatever else, the bathrooms in this case. I don't agree with it, it's disruptive for the students not helpful, and it doesn't appear to be organic in its organization. Some of the "concerned parents" have turned out to have worked in politics, for example. To be consistent, the lady that the Dad got into the argument with is an example of being in the wrong here.
On the culture war thing, it's not the Conservatism or Liberalism I'm for or against, it's the outrage tactics that I'm opposed to. I'm not a fan of the culture war no matter which side. It seems to me to be just the type of tactic to employ to keep the populace divided. Both "sides" included.
Grace Under Pressure
Footballguy
For sure. To me the school district/county deserves the culpability in this case, and it's their poor execution and follow through with policy that are to blame. The link you just posted where the staff member said it's ok leads me to believe that even further. Their policy is staff members can just decide something like that? No good. That's why I'd demand investigations (I mentioned this upthread), this crew needs to get their act together.
On the bathroom issue itself, I see it as a problem if they can't provide a policy on security/safety around the subject. I freely admit I don't have a solution for what that needs to look like.
Terminalxylem
Footballguy
No, the issue, like most, is far more complex.
And your links haven’t even answered that question, which isn’t the same as that posed by the OP.
The first link is a peeper at Target, which their liberal bathroom policy looks to have facilitated. If you can find evidence that their policy was changed prior to that incident I’d love to see it.
ekbeats said:
Did you by any chance read any of these links before posting them?
Because the first link involves a changing room not a bathroom.
CHICAGO (CBS) — Police in northwest suburban Palatine were searching for a man who tried to use his cell phone to record video of a girl in a Target dressing room.
A girl shopping at the Target store on Dundee Road in Palatine told police she was in the fitting room Sunday afternoon, when she saw a cell phone being pointed under the door. She screamed, and the man who was holding it ran away.
Terminalxylem
Footballguy
It occurred in a dressing room, and has no mention of Target’s bathroom policy. Not sure what that has to do with transgender anything.ekbeats said:
But I applaud you changing the thread title to more clearly frame the point you’re struggling to make.
ETA The video image of the alleged voyeur looks like a typical middle aged dude in a cap. How did Target’s bathroom policy facilitate walking into a unisex dressing room?
Last edited by a moderator:
Boy you guys are unbelievable. "You have no proof." I provide 34 examples. You start picking apart each example, forgetting that the overarching theme to your original objection was that these things don't occur with any regularity, as if going from 34 to 31 somehow negates the 31 examples. But hey, I get it, that's what you do. You are constitutionally incapable of seeing the forest through the trees. I'm actually surprised you didn't challenge the source - that's another popular play in the Liberal handbook.
Here's the deal with these Target examples. Years ago Target came out with very controversial changes to its gender specific restrooms and fitting rooms. They first allowed transgenders to use any of their existing women's and men's bathrooms - whatever they felt comfortable with. They also changed their separate women's and men's fitting rooms into unisex rooms. Both policies were enacted due to the transgender issues. The Target controversy was what originally started the other thread 5 years ago. Conservatives in that thread argued that those changes would make it easier for peeping Tom's to violate women. An example was cited exactly as outlined above where a man took an underskirt photo. That increased risk to women is EXACTLY what I'm talking about.@Terminalxylem - are you prepared to argue that having separate women's and men's facilities has the same degree of exposure to this type of crime? I bet you'll come back asking me to find studies showing data to support the obvious.
Last edited by a moderator:
I read them. Wish you would read the thread and comprehend the points I've been making.
By the way, where in this thread did I ever make this solely about the dangers of transgenders committing the crimes? I said from jump street it was about the increased risk of exposure to women presented by biological males being able to use women's facilities. So sharpen up your reading skills @Terminalxylem. You ASSumed that I was arguing that transgender males were more apt to commit sexual crimes. Yet another example of you thinking you are an unbiased scientist, when in actuality you are just as much guided by your biases as the Conservative extremists you deplore. Will you learn from it? I doubt it. But you will somehow convince yourself that you were right the whole time.
Because people complained it was incendiary. Are you implying that the title was different than what I said? Next time I'll take a picture of it for you and preserve the evidence.
Nowhere in my original title did I mention the word transgender, and I pointed that out in at least one post in this thread.
Nowhere in my original title did I mention the word transgender, and I pointed that out in at least one post in this thread.
ekbeats said:
What is it that you posted here that I missed?
What part of that first link is in any way remotely related to "their liberal bathroom policy"?
The implication of the entire thread has been the impact from the "liberal bathroom policies" that allow transgendered people to use the restroom of their preferred gender.
Exactly. But nowhere, nowhere did I say the policy would be abused solely by transgenders. Whether the Loudoun rapist was trans or not is kind of irrelevant. It is the flawed policy that facilitated a biological male raping a girl.
Last edited by a moderator:
Chaz McNulty
Footballguy
I've read this whole thread and I'm having trouble trying to figure out your points. Can you list your points and then tell us which links support which points. TIA.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Claiming other posters are dismissing sexual assault? There sure have been some gross posts in this thread.
I've explained it several times and it's really quite simple. Allowing biological males access to what were previously women's only facilities increases the risk of sexual assaults and voyeurism. If you can't understand why there's an increased risk then I'm afraid I can't help you.
The dirtbag finally apologized. In the media business this is called the Friday afternoon dump.
Loudoun County superintendent apologizes, board member resigns as backlash grows over alleged sexual assaults
Loudoun County superintendent apologizes, board member resigns as backlash grows over alleged sexual assaults
Last edited by a moderator:
Chaz McNulty
Footballguy
Do you know if there are statistics to back this up. Sexual assaults that occur in gender specific washrooms vs sexual assaults that occur in transgender washrooms?
bigbottom
Footballguy
Calm down. I was simply curious whether you were asked by the mods to change the thread or did it on your own.
bigbottom
Footballguy
In one of my very first posts in this thread, I acknowledged that the debate in the purged thread was largely about perverted cis males using the transgender rules as cover to access female bathrooms.
