• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

HB2 Strikes Again

wakephan09 said:
Knight, ELC, and 2&2 have frequently characterized them as such in as many words.

I'm sorry, but just you saying that this happened is not sufficient. That's why I asked you for examples, because I haven't seen it. You made the claim that people were comparing treansgenders to monsters and abusers. I asked you for proof of that. Simply restating that people are doing it is not proof that it has happened.

You made a specific inflammatory & derogatory charge....and now you have specifically charged three posters. Where is your proof, because I've been following these threads and I haven't read anything where either of those three posters compared transgenders to "monsters or abusers". Can you provide any specific examples to back up that charge? If not, you should retract your statement and apologize to those three posters..
Click to expand...
 
bobknightfan said:
I'm sorry, but just you saying that this happened is not sufficient. That's why I asked you for examples, because I haven't seen it. You made the claim that people were comparing treansgenders to monsters and abusers. I asked you for proof of that. Simply restating that people are doing it is not proof that it has happened.

You made a specific inflammatory & derogatory charge....and now you have specifically charged three posters. Where is your proof, because I've been following these threads and I haven't read anything where either of those three posters compared transgenders to "monsters or abusers". Can you provide any specific examples to back up that charge? If not, you should retract your statement and apologize to those three posters..
Click to expand...

I don't have the time or the inclination, unfortunately, to do the advanced searches here. Like most here, I'm relying on my admittedly imperfect memory to characterize thousands of posts over many years.

If any of those three wants to come on here and categorically state that they think transgender people are in most cases not sexually deviant abusers I will of course offer an internet apology for whatever that is worth.

I'm not exactly the reactionary, party-line, rose-colored glasses poster about which you tend to generalize. And remembering what I can about those three posters, that's what I've come away with. I try to be as fair and realistic as possible. And come on, the vast majority of your posts conclude with a dig at either liberals or millennials or Wake grads. Intentionally inflammatory is kinda your m.o.
 
Last edited:
wakephan09 said:
Knight, ELC, and 2&2 have frequently characterized them as such in as many words. And it's not just this thread or these boards -- it is a rather widespread cultural belief. And what I imagine you're getting at, knowing your M.O., is an opportunity to emphasize your own position, which you've made very clear (that this movement figuratively opens the bathroom door to abusers posing as transgenders).



There are many people out there that do argue that transgender people are abusers. Just like a vocal part of the country argued the very same things about gay people a decade or two ago. It's not so much that the "people supporting this change" don't understand it, in my opinion, it's that framing the bigoted view of a small but vocal number of people (and characterizing them as such publicly) gives the movement a kind of moral imperative that it might not have otherwise.



Stereotyping women? Huh?

By "transitioning culturally" I mean when a transwoman, for instance, presents as a woman in her everyday life. Shouldn't be that difficult to understand.



Bob, it's really disingenuous and hypocritical when you say things like this, because you are enacting the very moral and intellectual superiority which you ascribe to millennials or Wake Forest alumni or liberals or whatever the target of your quotidian ire.
Click to expand...

What does it mean present yourself as a women. If someone identifies as a women do they also have to meet a certain set of standards in order to be womenly? Are there cultural guidelines or stereotypes to being a women? If a girl shows up to the office in jeans and short hair is she somehow not presenting herself as a women? I certainly don't want to live in a world where our young women feel like they have to meet your personal expectations of what presenting yourself as a women.
 
wakephan09 said:
I don't have the time or the inclination, unfortunately, to do the advanced searches here. Like most here, I'm relying on my admittedly imperfect memory to characterize thousands of posts over many years.

If any of those three wants to come on here and categorically state that they think transgender people are in most cases not sexually deviant abusers I will of course offer an internet apology for whatever that is worth.

Well, you had the time to call out three people by name and accuse them of making derogatory statements about transgenders. That's very different from making a general statement about nobody in particular. If you are going to call out people by name for saying something, you should be able to show where they said whatever it was that you were accusing them of saying. And it is not up to them to deny saying something that you evidently cannot even offer any proof that they ever said.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
wakephan09 said:
I don't have the time or the inclination, unfortunately, to do the advanced searches here. Like most here, I'm relying on my admittedly imperfect memory to characterize thousands of posts over many years.

If any of those three wants to come on here and categorically state that they think transgender people are in most cases not sexually deviant abusers I will of course offer an internet apology for whatever that is worth.

I'm not exactly the reactionary, party-line, rose-colored glasses poster about which you tend to generalize. And remembering what I can about those three posters, that's what I've come away with. I try to be as fair and realistic as possible. And come on, the vast majority of your posts conclude with a dig at either liberals or millennials or Wake grads. Intentionally inflammatory is kinda your m.o.
Click to expand...

Nowhere have I ever said, nor do I believe, that most transgenders are sexually deviant abusers. I would not expect their percentages of deviance to be any different than the general population. As with most intellectually challenged liberals, your inability to properly follow legal reasoning leads you to mislabel a line of logic different from yours as discrimination and bigotry. Fuck you, asshole.
 
pourdeac said:
LOL...yeah, because the "haters" who passed the law want "trannies" in dresses to shower, change, and pee in the urinal next to them! That's sooooo Jim Crow!
Click to expand...

2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Wait, now you're talking about the transgendered person getting sexually assaulted? I don't think that is at issue under either side's theories, that doesn't make any sense at all.

As to non-sexual assaults, I'm pretty sure you are thinking some sort of embarrassment, but I would think that most people who get the shit kicked out of them are pretty embarrassed regardless of their clothing. Plus, we're talking about people who are publicly dressed as the opposite sex; if they were embarrassed by an assault "more" than the average assault victim solely because they were dressed in public as the opposite sex, then they wouldn't be dressed in public as the opposite sex.
Click to expand...

2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
No it doesn't say it in that way. It says that the provider cannot discriminate provision of services based on gender identity. Sex is already included as protected for facility provision, so it means that a transgender person can say "I identify as a woman, so I want to use the women's room"; and that same person can also say "I have a dong so I want to use the men's room". So they get a choice to use either based on other factors (line length, perving, etc). Whereas, a person with a dong who identifies as a male doesn't have a choice, they have to use the men's room regardless of line length or desire to perv.

If the Charlotte ordinance was really meant to be right-affirming and inclusive, it would have simply said "anyone can use any bathroom they want, regardless of the sign on the door". But they didn't do that, because (even though the libs on here deny it) they recognize the normal man/woman right to privacy. And that is where the hypocrisy and overreaching comes in.
Click to expand...

jhmd2000 said:
Arguendo response: So the difference is the degree of the impact on others, and how much they need protecting? The 22 year old D-1 athlete needs protecting from not finishing second in the 400M, but a six year old girl doesn't need protecting from the registered sex offender who feels like a lady today?

I don't defend this law, FTR, but I find the response predictable and cliché. It's so "Look at meeeee!' it makes Franklin Graham sound thoughtful and reasonable (see link). We can all do better.

https://billygraham.org/story/franklin-graham-respond-to-acc-tournament-move-out-of-north-carolina/
Click to expand...

bobknightfan said:
Allowing male transgenders to use women's bathrooms may be the worst idea I have ever heard of in my life. According to this article, only 0.3% of Americans are transgender:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States

0.3%...and because of this, liberals are advocating scrapping a system for the other 99.7% of the population that has been in existence for more than 200 years. There must have been reasons that Americans felt were valid for having separate restrooms for men & women during all this time, or we would all have just been going to the same restroom for the last 200 years.

In effect, those who support this insanity are advocating that we provide a new "right"...which isn't even necessary...for 0.3% of the people by infringing upon the rights of 99.7% of the people. I don't doubt that the true transgender feels like a female.....but anatomically, especially to underage girls.....he is still a male. These children should not be forced to be exposed to male genitals at these ages just because a transgender wants to choose to go to the girls' restroom. You say that those girls wouldn't be exposed to that if the transgender used a closed stall. Well, if that's the case, why couldn't that transgender use a similar closed stall in the men's restroom? There is simply no reason...urgent or otherwise...for making a change in the law like this to accommodate 0.3% of the people by infringing upon the right to sexual privacy for 99.7% of the people.

And the inevitability of future negative consequences from something like this is that once it is established that transgender males can use women's restrooms, there will be no way to monitor the situation to prevent abuses by voyeurs or, worse, pedophiles, who are motivated by prurient reasons. Women and children will be at risk....not from transgenders but from men posing as transgenders, because that will be an easy thing to do....and even aside from potential physical risk they will be subjected to loss of privacy. All because some liberals want to change laws & customs that have been in place thruout the entire history of this country....just so that 0.3% of the people can use a closed stall in the girls' bathroom instead of a closed stall in the men's bathroom.

I think that I am more enraged by this complete lack of common sense & reason than by any other thing that the Democratic Party has advocated in my lifetime.....which is why I have changed my registration and don't know when or if I will ever vote for another Democrat. The idea that liberals are willing to abrogate rights for 99.7% of the people in order to create an accommodation that isn't even necessary for 0.3% of the people astounds me. They piously claim to have such compassion (liberals are always the caring, compassionate people, you know) for this 0.3% of the population....but they have no concern whatsoever for that other 99.7% of the population.

If something like this was necessary it might be different (though it would still be hard to justify giving a right to 0.3% of the people that required taking away a right from 99.7% of the people).....but it's not necessary. It's just something that hypocritical liberals are wanting to do so that they can make themselves feel that they are morally superior to others.
Click to expand...

Transgender males are born females who identify as males, unless I am mistaken. Again, more insight into the topic would greatly clear up confusion.

2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
It can also be pretty uncomfortable for a real woman to walk into the women's room with someone who is clearly a dude dressed up like a chick. Again, so why does only the transgender's comfort matter? Why is the transgender's discomfort with being in the men's room a sympathetic cause, but the woman's discomfort with a transgender in the ladies' room backwards and bigoted? Why isn't the law designed so that doesn't have to happen either?
Click to expand...

bobknightfan said:
If you have two men who have the same body and are dressed the same....but one of them is a true transgender and the other is a voyeur (or predator) posing as a transgender....how can you tell the difference?

The answer is that you can't tell the difference. And that is the problem with allowing transgender males to use the girls' bathroom. If a person who is physically a male is allowed to use the girls' bathroom....and you cannot differentiate between a true transgender and a voyeur pretending to be a transgender by looking at them (and there is not going to be any monitoring going on after this change is allowed anyway)....there is no way to prevent voyeurs and/or predators from going into the girls' bathrooms.

The danger isn't from the true transgenders but from others who are taking advantage of a situation where any male can now go into the girls' bathroom pretending to be a transgender. And if people cannot see the potential problems with this situation they are blind. They far outweigh the small inconvenience of letting the true transgenders continue to use either a single occupancy bathroom or an enclosed stall in the men's bathroom.
Click to expand...

Trans male = born female, identify as male. Trans male using the female restroom would be an outwardly appearing female entering the female restroom, which would be more inconspicuous.

bobknightfan said:
You can't...but the situations are not comparable. You cannot keep men from going into the men's bathroom...but you can prevent pedophiles posing as transgenders to go into the girls' bathrooms. You are changing a law to make it possible.
Click to expand...

bobknightfan said:
Strawman argument. Doesn't have anything to do with the fact that you are changing a law that will make it easier for pedophiles to prey upon children.....and serves no other really important purpose when relative plusses & minuses of such a law are compared. You can't stop a pedophile from being a pedophile....but you can stop a law that will let him walk freely into a girls' bathroom. Again, 0.3% of the population is transgender. There are plenty of single occupant bathrooms and enclosed stalls in men's bathrooms. You are creating a law that results in far more potential problems than any existing problems that it solves.
Click to expand...

bobknightfan said:
No, what solves the problem is continuing to have physical males use the men's bathrooms and physical females continuing to use the women's bathrooms.....just like we have done for the last 200 years. You are changing the entire situation that has worked for 200 years so that 0.3% of the people won't have the "problem" of using a single occupant bathroom or an enclosed stall in the men's bathroom.....both of which are universally available and pose virtually no inconvenience to them.
Click to expand...

You guys apparently don't realize that you don't immediately walk straight into a stall when you enter a restroom. There is generally a walk to and from the stall to the sinks, hand dryers, etc, not to mention occasional lines. IMO transgender females being forced to use the bathroom of their birth sex are more worried about getting in and out safely, because as we've seen in multiple Trump/Southern rallies, some men don't take to kindly to those different than them...even at political rallies where someone is wearing a different shirt. If they can enact violence on someone for wearing a different shirt, how do you think they will react waiting in line behind a "dude dressed as a chick" as you put it. This would be far more dangerous than a trans woman entering the female restroom and using a stall. Even if there are lines or interactions from the door to the stall, odds are females aren't going to get violent and it would take more than a cursory glance to determine the person's assigned sex.

It's not like you go in, go in a stall, and immediately walk out. Bathroom trips typically involve a slightly more extended time in there, which increases the likelihood of violence or harrassment.

As per the quoted posts above, you think it's obvious who is whom, so this definitely would play a part in HB2 forcing those not aligned with their birth-certificate sex, at least outwardly/visually aligned, using the safest bathrooms.
 
Last edited:
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Nowhere have I ever said, nor do I believe, that most transgenders are sexually deviant abusers. I would not expect their percentages of deviance to be any different than the general population. As with most intellectually challenged liberals, your inability to properly follow legal reasoning leads you to mislabel a line of logic different from yours as discrimination and bigotry. Fuck you, asshole.
Click to expand...

2&2 Slider To Leyritz, I apologize for accusing you of thinking of transgender people are sexually deviant abusers.
 
Last edited:
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
As with most intellectually challenged liberals, your inability to properly follow legal reasoning leads you to mislabel a line of logic different from yours as discrimination and bigotry. Fuck you, asshole.
Click to expand...

Also, I'm curious about the following:

1. Why does anything I've said suggest I'm "liberal"? Or also, I guess intellectually-challenged?

2. What makes you think I care about legal reasoning?

3. I'm not really into mislabeling logic. Nor am I into calling people bigots for no reason. If you read my posts I am very careful to clarify.

4. Cool, I guess.
 
I regret starting this thread because it was meant to be about sports and specifically the ACC at the time. The amount of small-minded crap makes me sad because most of us are WF alums who I usually give a passable degree of intelligence and tolerance without question. Also, we won a big fucking game today. Go post on that thread.
 
Given your post above, I am surprised you didn't title it:
NCAA moves events due to HB2

then later update it to include ACC Championship moving because of HB2.
 
Will the NCAA or the ACC make Belk move the Belk Bowl because they are rioting in Charlotte over a justified shooting?

"Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Chief Kerr Putney said Thursday that video he has seen from the fatal shooting of a black man this week in University City indicates the officer was justified in his actions.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article103528872.html#storylink=cpy
 
TheReff said:
Will the NCAA or the ACC make Belk move the Belk Bowl because they are rioting in Charlotte over a justified shooting?

"Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Chief Kerr Putney said Thursday that video he has seen from the fatal shooting of a black man this week in University City indicates the officer was justified in his actions.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article103528872.html#storylink=cpy
Click to expand...

Laughable. We could just back up a 100 yards off this man who has committed no crime, or we could just kill him. The shit that WASPS will accept is amazing. And don't kneel during that anthem, cuz it's America where no mother fucker has the right to protest shit.
 
macktheknife said:
Laughable. We could just back up a 100 yards off this man who has committed no crime, or we could just kill him. The shit that WASPS will accept is amazing. And don't kneel during that anthem, cuz it's America where no mother fucker has the right to protest shit.
Click to expand...

Well, actually, he was in possession of marijuana and he was also a convicted felon in possession of what turned out to be a stolen gun that he bought from a breaking and entering suspect. Still your point is taken.
 
deacdixieboy said:
I regret starting this thread because it was meant to be about sports and specifically the ACC at the time. The amount of small-minded crap makes me sad because most of us are WF alums who I usually give a passable degree of intelligence and tolerance without question. Also, we won a big fucking game today. Go post on that thread.
Click to expand...

Phony apology aside, I also regret that you started this thread, at least here. This thread is exhibit A for raison d'etre of the other forum.
 
BiffTannen said:
Well, actually, he was in possession of marijuana and he was also a convicted felon in possession of what turned out to be a stolen gun that he bought from a breaking and entering suspect. Still your point is taken.
Click to expand...

Yeah but still.
 
simosfrostyone said:
Phony apology aside, I also regret that you started this thread, at least here. This thread is exhibit A for raison d'etre of the other forum.
Click to expand...

The apology wasn't phony at all. You don't know me. I started the thread immediately after it was announced that sporting events would be moved. I can't control the way the conversation went after that. Get off your high horse. I'm more liberal than anyone I know but I didn't make this political in any way
 
BiffTannen said:
Well, actually, he was in possession of marijuana and he was also a convicted felon in possession of what turned out to be a stolen gun that he bought from a breaking and entering suspect. Still your point is taken.
Click to expand...

These are also things found out after the fact, which none of the police officers knew at the time.

Also, to the best of my knowledge, while those above are jail sentences, they are not death sentences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top