• 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!

Ongoing NC GOP debacle thread

Newenglanddeac said:
This is the road we're headed down if we continue with our partisan ways.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...orth-carolina-is-no-longer-a-democracy-report

North Carolina can no longer be considered a democracy, according to a new report from the Electoral Integrity Project (EIP), which rated the state's overall electoral integrity at the same levels of those in authoritarian states and "pseudo-democracies" such as Cuba, Indonesia and Sierra Leone.
Click to expand...

I can now relate to Cuba under Castro or China under Mao.

We are the oppressed people. Time to rally the masses for an armed uprising. Ready the guillotines.
 
knowell said:
That's not nice. You shouldn't try to make people say mean things about transgenders.

Shame on you, Child. Trans people are people to.
Click to expand...

I'd rather people's bigotry be out in the open rather than dressed up by assaults on facts, logic, and reason. It's easier to combat that way.

I'd love it if I were wrong about 2&2 and he is simply a unisex bathroom advocate who just hasn't made his position very clear.

Or an LGBT advocate in general who thinks that the Charlotte ordinance was not a politically savvy way to advance LGBT rights.

I'll settle for open and honest discussion though.
 
RChildress107 said:
I majored in basic reasoning and logic.

I asked you two pretty simple questions to try and see what exactly you think your logic is, you didn't answer, and have never addressed those questions elsewhere on this thread. Here's my full logical argument laid out:

1. Women have legitimate reasons for not wanting to use multi occupant restroom facilities with people of the opposite sex.
2. Women have those exact same reasons for not wanting to use multi occupant restrooms with people of the opposite gender.
3. Pre-transition transgender women are women, at least as that term is used in #2.

Thus:
4. Pre-transition transgender women have legitimate reasons for not wanting to use the restroom with people of the opposite sex (men).

To reject that conclusion requires you to:

Reject premise 3, which would be scientifically inaccurate
Reject premises 1&2, which means you favor unisex bathrooms
Or Reject premise 2, which would require some explanation.
Click to expand...

RChildress107 said:
4. Transgender women have legitimate reasons to not want to use restrooms with those of male gender.
5. Responding to legitimate concerns of constituents by enacting laws is a legitimate use of government.

6. The Charlotte ordinance was a legitimate use of government.
Click to expand...

RChildress107 said:
1. All of the reasons for women not wanting to use the restroom with those of male sex are also reasons why women don't want to use the bathroom with people of male gender.

Thus:
2. If there is no legitimate reason why women wouldn't want to use the restroom with members of their own sex, then there is no legitimate reason why women wouldn't want to use the restroom with members of their own gender.

3. There is no legitimate reason why women wouldn't want to use the restroom with members of their own sex.

This:
4. There is no legitimate reason why women wouldn't want to use the restroom with members of their own gender.

5. There are legitimate reasons why women wouldn't want to use the restroom with members of the opposite sex.

Thus:
6. Any legitimate reasons for wanting to not use the bathroom with members of the opposite sex and opposite gender, do not apply to people of opposite sex but same gender.

Thus:

7. There are no legitimate reasons for women not wanting to use the restroom with transgender women.
Click to expand...

RChildress107 said:
Your view boxes you in to accepting that

1. There are no legitimate reasons to separate bathrooms based on sex or gender OR

2. There are legitimate reasons for cisgender women to not want to use the restroom with transgender women.

I don't think you want to commit to #1 which leaves you option 2, which I think is a pretty tough position to defend.
Click to expand...

How is your bolded final #2 a tough position to defend? It was your own very first premise in your first bolded #1. Which is why your logic fails. You can't make the argument that transgender women have a legitimate reason to want out of the men's room without also accepting the argument that cisgender women have a legitimate reason for keeping transgender women out of the women's room. So in effect, the CLT Ordinance valued gender over sex, which is on its face discriminatory. Your own "logic" just proved my point. Thanks for playing.
 
Think you are going to want to go back through that argument and try again.

If you accept my original #1 and my original #2, then the conclusion is that whatever legitimate reasons women have for not wanting to use the bathroom with members of the opposite sex do not apply to the subset of the opposite sex that is not the opposite gender.
 
If A, B, and C are the only legitimate reasons for women not wanting to use the restroom with people of the opposite sex, and

A, B, and C are also reasons for women not wanting to use the restroom with persons of the opposite gender, and

women have no legitimate reasons to not want to use the restroom with their own sex or gender (otherwise we are in single use territory), then

A, B, and C cannot logically apply to transgender women.

You need to find a legitimate reason for not wanting to use the bathroom with a member of the opposite sex that does not also apply to not wanting to use the bathroom with a member of the opposite gender.
 
Can't really set up truth tables on my phone but,

X = reasons for not wanting to use restroom with opposite sex
Y = reasons for not wanting to use restroom with opposite gender
A= some additional reason
B= some other additional reason

If X=Y, then women would only have a problem using restroom with cisgender males.

If X= Y + A, then women would have a problem using restroom with cisgender males and transgender women (specifically because of A).

If Y= X + B, then women would have a problem using the red with cisgender and transgender men (specifically because of B).
 
For your argument to make sense you need to identify the A above. What reason is there that applies to sex and not gender?


What's ironic is that the main argument behind HB2 (we don't want sexual predators to have cover to go into the women's room) is actually an example of B above. It's an argument that applies to gender and not sex.
 
What a bunch of babbling bullshit.

Your entire argument is based upon the false assumption that transgender women are really women. When that misstatement is removed your entire argument collapses.
 
RChildress107 said:
By definition their gender is woman.

If you want to deny the existence of gender, go ahead.
Click to expand...

That is just your opinion & your definition. You are trying to play God. These people may have feminine tendencies and feel that they should have been born as a female...but they were not. For whatever reasons, there are plenty of effeminate males....but that does not make them women. Only God determines sex.....and He does it at birth. Simply put: women do not have dicks. Liberals trying to play God. That's all people who are pushing this are doing.
 
Last edited:
So you want people who were born a man who think they should have been born a woman and dress and act like a woman to use bathrooms with you.

Got it.
 
PhDeac said:
So you want people who were born a man who think they should have been born a woman and dress and act like a woman to use bathrooms with you.

Got it.
Click to expand...

No. Bob just gets off looking at dudes in dresses while he pees.

Merry Christmas!
 
bobknightfan said:
That is just your opinion & your definition. You are trying to play God. These people may have feminine tendencies and feel that they should have been born as a female...but they were not. For whatever reasons, there are plenty of effeminate males....but that does not make them women. Only God determines sex.....and He does it at birth. Simply put: women do not have dicks. Liberals trying to play God. That's all people who are pushing this are doing.
Click to expand...

Good perspective to see the charlotte ordinance as a move toward playing God.
 
bobknightfan said:
Only God determines sex.....and He does it at birth.
Click to expand...

For people who don't know what Bob is talking about, this is the magical time during life when the baby is moving through the birth canal and God points to its blank genital region, snaps His fingers and either a dick or vagina appears in a flash of light.
 
I didn't know bob even believed in God. I thought he was an atheist.
 
I am completely supportive of trans-rights, but it's very annoying seeing liberals dance around this issue. You're trying so hard to play chess with checker pieces. You aren't going to convince 2&2 or BKF that they are being hypocritical. A person who doesn't believe in the legitimacy of transgenderism is not going to believe that transgendered deserve for their "chosen" gender to be respected. Yes, women (sex) deserve the right for bathroom privacy- yes, trans people want those same privacy rights in accordance with their gender. Those two situations are only comparable to a person who believes in the legitimacy of transgenderism.
 
Last edited:
I don't think you have to "believe" in transgenderism to prefer that bathrooms stay the way they've been instead of forcing trans people to use the bathroom of their sex.

I don't think you have to believe in transgenderism to not be in favor of requiring P and V checks to use the bathroom.

I don't recall ever being in a bathroom with a trans woman. I assume that's because they go to the women's bathroom.
 
PhDeac said:
I didn't know bob even believed in God. I thought he was an atheist.
Click to expand...

I don't know which "Bob" you are talking about, but I am not an atheist. I have not attended any church services in many, many years and while I guess I am still listed as a member of the Methodist church across the street from where I live, I really feel no connection to any organized religion....but I am definitely not an atheist.
 
PhDeac said:
I don't think you have to "believe" in transgenderism to prefer that bathrooms stay the way they've been instead of forcing trans people to use the bathroom of their sex.

I don't think you have to believe in transgenderism to not be in favor of requiring P and V checks to use the bathroom.

I don't recall ever being in a bathroom with a trans woman. I assume that's because they go to the women's bathroom.
Click to expand...

Under the Charlotte ordinance, public restrooms aren't staying the way they've been, because private businesses have previously reserved the right to segregate their public restrooms by sex. It is the most obvious transgendered people who are most vulnerable to segregation and abuse. It's a strawman argument to refer to that as a "p or v check", because many transgendered people are quite obvious. By framing the issue in such a way, you de-legitimize all transgendered people who can't pass.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top