how do you label "transgender bathroom" in the first place? A silly semantics maybe, but still, as this can be a volatile issue, I'd figure just agreeing on symbol/initial while trying not to offend anyone could be a pain. Or maybe not, maybe I'm overthinking this.
Also, I don't see this thread sticking around too long.Might I ask why you think that?
Also, I don't see this thread sticking around too long.Might I ask why you think that?
is there a reason they cant just use whichever bathroom corresponds with their pluming as it were?
In addition to the social consequences, sometimes there are legal ones. Florida, Texas, and Kentucky are all considering bills right now that would require transgender people to use only the bathroom of their biological sex.Wait what why? Who the hell benefits from that? Why do people keep trying to make laws like this?
Why not just go with unisex bathrooms? Of course though, if it's a private place or someplace small, then you could easily do unisex because it can just be one person in there at a time, but for public unisex with capacity larger than one (not counting moms with babies), you run into the problem of privacy. Of course though, people could just use the bathroom stall instead of the urinal.
Also, I don't see this thread sticking around too long.
In addition to the social consequences, sometimes there are legal ones. Florida, Texas, and Kentucky are all considering bills right now that would require transgender people to use only the bathroom of their biological sex.Wait what why? Who the hell benefits from that? Why do people keep trying to make laws like this?
What if they made gender cards that transgendered people could have that basically works as a instant ID?Best. Idea. Ever.
No just an additional plastic card you can have... that you can get changed at anytime.I can't see this backfiring at all!
Ok... because I don't know a lot about this topic... I am going to ask something and I ask BEG you not to take offense to it.And of course, they should always wear it on their sleeve. An Absolutely fAntastic ideA!
Ok.... here it is, possibly the most offensive thing you heard today.
What if they made gender cards that transgendered people could have that basically works as a instant ID?
Ok... because I don't know a lot about this topic... I am going to ask something and I ask BEG you not to take offense to it.
Ok.... here it is, possibly the most offensive thing you heard today.
What if they made gender cards that transgendered people could have that basically works as a instant ID?
Neonivek: What does this solve that isn't solved by making it easier to change the gender marker on your ID?
is there a reason they cant just use whichever bathroom corresponds with their pluming as it were?
In addition to the social consequences, sometimes there are legal ones. Florida, Texas, and Kentucky are all considering bills right now that would require transgender people to use only the bathroom of their biological sex.
Lots of good stuff. (https://www.google.ca/search?q=transgender+bathroom+sign&rlz=1C1CHWA_enCA627CA627&espv=2&biw=1280&bih=923&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=vqkAVZaDAoS5ogTU6IA4&ved=0CCcQ7Ak) :)Fair enough. Still, I think I'm generally pretty not bothered by this question mainly because...
Is this something Americans care more about than Europeans, or does the same attitude exist in both places? I don't really see how anyone knows what your sexual identity is when you're using a stall, nor why it should matter other than people's perception of impropriety.This.
Come on you lot, get your shitz together. Trying to fine somebody for not using the "right" bathroom? Cray cray, yo
The nastiest part of the bill is, to quote the article: "The legislation does not define how a student's "biological sex" would be determined or verified." The schools would therefore have two alternatives: make the students wear a badge while going to the bathroom, or subject them to an "examination." I know which one is worse, but neither of them should ever happen.
The nastiest part of the bill is, to quote the article: "The legislation does not define how a student's "biological sex" would be determined or verified." The schools would therefore have two alternatives: make the students wear a badge while going to the bathroom, or subject them to an "examination." I know which one is worse, but neither of them should ever happen.
Well no that isn't true.
The US legislation basically all but says that someone can refuse an examination and nothing outside a warrant can force someone to provide such.
Also just have a student ID... lets not add more crazy to the bill then it already has.
The nastiest part of the bill is, to quote the article: "The legislation does not define how a student's "biological sex" would be determined or verified." The schools would therefore have two alternatives: make the students wear a badge while going to the bathroom, or subject them to an "examination." I know which one is worse, but neither of them should ever happen.
Well no that isn't true.
The US legislation basically all but says that someone can refuse an examination and nothing outside a warrant can force someone to provide such.
Also just have a student ID... lets not add more crazy to the bill then it already has.
The badge thing has echos of Nazis and the Jews, know what I mean.
The nastiest part of the bill is, to quote the article: "The legislation does not define how a student's "biological sex" would be determined or verified." The schools would therefore have two alternatives: make the students wear a badge while going to the bathroom, or subject them to an "examination." I know which one is worse, but neither of them should ever happen.
Well no that isn't true.
The US legislation basically all but says that someone can refuse an examination and nothing outside a warrant can force someone to provide such.
Also just have a student ID... lets not add more crazy to the bill then it already has.
The badge thing has echos of Nazis and the Jews, know what I mean.
No, closer to Australia and their treatment of the Native Australians.
I was referring specifically to the Nazis making Jews wear a Star of David armband. Point is that making a minority subgroup of a population (transgender in this case) have to wear a badge just to go to the bathroom is going nowhere good.
EDIT: I just realized something, wouldn't laws like those in Texas, Florida, and Kansas violate the federal (and perhaps state) anti-discrimination laws? Because I can see a collision between those happening.
I do wonder how you could resolve it though.
I do wonder how you could resolve it though.
I have an idea, how about a transgender bathroom?
I do wonder how you could resolve it though.
I have an idea, how about a transgender bathroom? :P
I do wonder how you could resolve it though.
I have an idea, how about a transgender bathroom?
It doesn't work mostly because it doesn't appease transgendered people.
Because well... a "Transgendered person" in many ways isn't "Gender of Transgendered" they are "Male" or "Female" or "Both" or "Something".
Might as well make it the freak bathroom for how they will take it.
Ah, but how do you define transgender?
You can't have unisex because men and women cannot be together in the bathroom (From Texas perspective)
You can't have unisex because men and women cannot be together in the bathroom (From Texas perspective)
Texans will just have to learn to get over it. I mean, come on the toilets always have the little stall dividers don't they? What is the big deal about washing your hands next to the opposite sex.
You can't have unisex because men and women cannot be together in the bathroom (From Texas perspective)QuoteAh, but how do you define transgender?
I am honestly not trying to troll.
I am trying to think of a realistic solution to a pretty hopeless problem.
You can't have unisex because men and women cannot be together in the bathroom (From Texas perspective)
Texans will just have to learn to get over it. I mean, come on the toilets always have the little stall dividers don't they? What is the big deal about washing your hands next to the opposite sex.
Ok so we are just going to wait for a shift in public opinion? what about the mean time?
Transgender
When your sex and gender are not the same.
How many toilet threads do we have?I made one. It's sunk to the depths of the archives now, thank heavens.
Should there be additional transgender facilities
Any additional thoughts?
I think one of the main problems is that a non-insignificant number of people don't see transgendered people as being a "true" representation of their gender, so you get people who become all territorial when they see a "man" (trans women) in the women bathroom, or vice versa, and they don't think they belong in their room.
IMO the best solution is unisex bathrooms, because it stops bathrooms from becoming rooms "for only us (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other)", and just becomes "a bathroom".
Or to tell them to grow up and stop being ridiculous?
Or to tell them to grow up and stop being ridiculous?
Do you actually think this is a more effective way of allowing trans people to become more accepted and use the bathroom in peace that unisex bathrooms?
Because I don't know about you, but in my experience, telling someone to "grow up" generally doesn't change peoples opinion, and in fact may even reinforce them.
I will try and chime in with a few points:
a) In Europe, we have all those laws about sexual violence, mobbing, and various other sex crimes. I'm pretty sure a (sex) man in a women's bathroom would be in for, like, a major fee and a few months in jail... Since law is the law, and common sense has no implication in the court. Also, really, if we are going to use common sense instead of billions of laws, I'm in for it, but we really need to get rid of, like, 85% of the laws already established.
The actual solution is to let transgender people use the appropriate bathrooms without freaking out over it for no reason. Trying to appease bigots with bizarre middle ground suggestions is a fruitless endeavor.I like you.
we're talking about transgender because you've got someone who looks male, but has female bodyparts/functionality going into a womans bathroom.
The actual solution is to let transgender people use the appropriate bathrooms without freaking out over it for no reason. Trying to appease bigots with bizarre middle ground suggestions is a fruitless endeavor.I like you.
I will try and chime in with a few points:I'm pretty sure this is more of an exception than the rule though. Haven't heard of many places in Europe where someone would be doing time for JUST going into wrong bathroom. But there are such places in, I guess.
a) In Europe, we have all those laws about sexual violence, mobbing, and various other sex crimes. I'm pretty sure a (sex) man in a women's bathroom would be in for, like, a major fee and a few months in jail...
I will try and chime in with a few points:I'm pretty sure this is more of an exception than the rule though. Haven't heard of many places in Europe where someone would be doing time for JUST going into wrong bathroom. But there are such places in, I guess.
a) In Europe, we have all those laws about sexual violence, mobbing, and various other sex crimes. I'm pretty sure a (sex) man in a women's bathroom would be in for, like, a major fee and a few months in jail...
I will try and chime in with a few points:
a) In Europe, we have all those laws about sexual violence, mobbing, and various other sex crimes. I'm pretty sure a (sex) man in a women's bathroom would be in for, like, a major fee and a few months in jail... Since law is the law, and common sense has no implication in the court. Also, really, if we are going to use common sense instead of billions of laws, I'm in for it, but we really need to get rid of, like, 85% of the laws already established.
-snip-Don't quote Truean.
Wait, why do we need separate rooms? What's wrong with cubicles?I mean today I realized that one of the toilets at my university is exactly like this and nobody cares (I didn't even notice until this discussion prompted me to think about it) so I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea. However, you are kindof fighting a much larger case there and also not necessarily helping transgender people as much, since you are no longer supporting their gender identity.
As far as I can tell, in most places you could just remove the wall and the gender signs to get a unisex bathroom.
Truean: I'd say pack your things and go to Europe, at first opportunity. But that's just me being Euro-lover.Bad decade to go to Europe
Other than that, what mainiac and Neonivek said.
Truman means that part of the problem is that people don't see transgender as an actual thing, so a male-to-female transgendered person is just seen as a male CIS guy.
Alternative Solution: If you look female, go to the woman's bathroom. If you look male, go to the men's bathroom.Favorite solution really. Just begs the question of how butch until you look male, how androgynous until you look female? Still leads to people being uncomfortable thinking there is the wrong gender/sex/wtfhell is in the room but it is probably best we learn to get over that as people anyway.
If you don't really look particularly male or female, then just pick one and try not to make eye contact.Alternative Solution: If you look female, go to the woman's bathroom. If you look male, go to the men's bathroom.Favorite solution really. Just begs the question of how butch until you look male, how androgynous until you look female? Still leads to people being uncomfortable thinking there is the wrong gender/sex/wtfhell is in the room but it is probably best we learn to get over that as people anyway.
I don't think that's how the average person sees it. Granted, this isn't a conversation I've had with a lot of people, but I think if you were to pick a bunch of people at random and ask "Joe was born a man, then took hormones until he grew boobs, had surgery to remove his penis, changed his name to Joann and now acts like a woman, dresses like a woman and lives like a woman. Is it ok for Joann to call herself a girl and use the girl's bathroom?"
Spoiler: not the best time to go to Syrupland (click to show/hide)
Alternative Solution: If you look female, go to the woman's bathroom. If you look male, go to the men's bathroom.
This isn't about you. It's about common courtesy and not making other people uncomfortable.
you're totally missing the pointWhat is the point? Because right now all you really appear to be doing is saying "but I'm discriminated against, therefore you're wrong".
What is the point? Because right now all you really appear to be doing is saying "but I'm discriminated against, therefore you're wrong".Quote from: Truean
The rights to what, not being uncomfortable? I'm at a loss here.His blindingly obvious point is that one person claiming to be uncomfortable does not invalidate the rights of other people.What is the point? Because right now all you really appear to be doing is saying "but I'm discriminated against, therefore you're wrong".Quote from: Truean
I think separate toilets for transgender people is an actively awful idea since it fuels misconceptions (people thinking "transgender" means "neither male nor female") and would be incredibly hard to implement. It isn't happening and wouldn't be good even if it did.
If no, then that leads to everything I said the opposition thinks. If you answer no then you think transgender is a fraud of some sort perpetuated to do bad things that make others uncomfortable. You're going against decades of medical science, etc, but if that's what you believe, then this is ultimately the source of why you oppose letting transgender people use restrooms you don't believe they are "changing into...." Saying no, essentially means that transgender people are a fraud and that no matter what they do, they can NEVER become the other gender.
I dunno... I don't believe one can truly change their sex and I don't believe anything the opposition says.==> "I don't believe one can truly change their sex and therefore I
I really don't understand why people don't just let people use whatever bathroom they want to use.
So basically it is that Family Guy episode where they tried to censor real life.
Though on a more serious note... the same thinking as the laws that prevent you from drinking in public.
... we do have laws against drunk and disorderly conduct, though, in the US. As well as DUI et al, which in the states drinking in public is only a half-step from openly admitting you're about to do so. There's also various ones that restrict drinking in certain areas. It is fairly rare that there's actual no-drinking-in-public laws, here in the states, but it's fairly common that there's a suite of them that functionally equates to it.
Why not "apparent sex" which make imho much more sense, especially since there is no legal interdiction for peoples to use any bathroom?
Do you want the argument the other side would try to ply? See, this is what I mean about argument structure and keeping emotion out of it. If you do it right, then you can do devil's advocate and argue the side you DON'T support.
Sometimes it seems like laws that politicians make get no scruitiny or the lowest level of it.
Sometimes it seems like laws that politicians make get no scruitiny or the lowest level of it.
Transgender men and women should be allowed to use their respective bathrooms because they are men and women. Having them use the bathroom for their assigned birth sex would be forcing them to publicly say "I'm not actually a man/woman". Deeply humiliating, and sometimes dangerous.
Though unisex bathrooms would also be a good thing for people who don't fit in either, and, hey - they can be used by anyone.
A big aspect of how bad the law system can often be is laws being snuck through bigger laws. (I cannot remember the term for this)
A big aspect of how bad the law system can often be is laws being snuck through bigger laws. (I cannot remember the term for this)
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/15RS/SB76.htm That one? I love how even they had to delete the "EMERGENCY" provision.
Actually, I think I misread and the sex offender thing is separate, but the one about pregnant women makes no sense without more context.
Actually, I think I misread and the sex offender thing is separate, but the one about pregnant women makes no sense without more context.
I read it as committing any crime while pregnant is also a crime in and of itself. So a pregnant woman who steals would be charged with theft and with committing a criminal offence while pregnant.
Which is moronic.
In all fairness resisting arrest with no just cause is a pretty valid thing to be charged for.Wait, do you mean...
But reading the article further I can see why that law can be a lot more harmful then helpful.
I am done apologizing for being born how I was.... I hide how I am, because the terrible people of the world, will ruin me for it (if they haven't already), not because something's wrong with me. I'm amazed with all that's wrong in the world that people want to play bathroom police.
You're not hearing me.... You're on the wrong side of history. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y77f0wd-32U) The unshown ending is that the people who have a problem with it are forced to use the other 3rd bathroom. Good. I'm getting a little sick of being out in the cold from tired old hat arguments. You do realize your arguments are finally losing ground as we gain acceptance, right?
at least in the context of bathroom use, there should be no need to differentiate between male and FtM or between female and MtF.
What LordBucket means (please correct me if I'm wrong, LB), at least partially, by "this isn't about you", is that the majority of people don't feel strongly about honest people such as you, Truean, using the women's facilities; they feel strongly about men who may take advantage of the protections afforded you to harm other honest folks.
The real question that dispels or confirms everything I've said, about the opposition's views, about everything, comes down to one question:
Do you believe a person can legitimately change their sex? <--- This what everything spawns from right here.
If yes,
If no,
Wait, do you mean...
1. the arrest has no just cause
2. resisting with no just cause
Wait, do you mean...
1. the arrest has no just cause
2. resisting with no just cause
There's a legal requirement to comply whenever a duly appointed police officer declares you to be under arrest. Failure to comply is resisting arrest. Even if the officer has no legal cause to arrest you, resisting arrest is illegal. The same is true of police instructions in general - "failure to obey a police order" is also a crime in most US states. And in the United States, police officers have qualified immunity from being sued for false arrest in cases where there is generally no legal recourse beyond filing a complaint.
Isn't resisting arrest also illegal in other countries? I doubt the U.S. has a monopoly on that.
Well, I don't think gendered bathrooms really exist because of fear that men will take advantage of women.
And that's in Canada
The problem is the people opposed to this DO NOT RECOGNIZE TRANSGENDER as a real medical condition and label us all perverts.
However... I think you missed an important part of that poster.
But it is still "Moral outrage," and giving it weight of law is insane. That way leads to madness, and guarantees the creation of an oppressed demographic.
The alternative is lots of "inconvenienced" or "Offended" demographics, who don't get 100% their way, having to tough it out together.
I think the latter is the better solution to employ, since this is a system-wide problem.
This is, again, "Things that make me feel squicky" VS "Things that should be illegal."
Explaining to little suzy why the woman with the beard is in the stall next to her? Squicky.
Forbidding the early stage transgender person from using their mentally gender appropriate bathroom, and trying some bullshit segregation? Should be illegal. (It directly harms people)
The "It would confuse my poor impressionable child, who I want to pretend will never, ever be exposed to the moral horrors of this perverted modern life, shattering the wholesome, godly worldview illusion I have worked so hard to conjure up!" is NOT justification for segregation, which is EXACTLY what a "third bathroom" would be.
This no quoting thing you have going is actually a good metaphor for this entire conversation. There's a standard thing that everybody else does and everybody else is comfortable with, but for reasons that are unclear you demand special treatment that is inconvenient. A few posts ago somebody pointed it out so I tried to accommodate you, but because I, accustomed to treating you like everybody else treats everybody else...neglected to accommodate your special needs, so you're getting angry at me for it.
I will simply remember it as a tone-setter for the next conversation I have with a member of your particular minority group.
I really wish she's make the "Please don't quote me" a hyperlink to one of the times she's explained it. I'm a bit sore over getting ganged up on after I complied and also asked why. It's a bit of a derail magnet, and making the demand without offering any explanation doesn't look so good.I get the feeling this would solve a lot of problems.
Now, Mr. Bucket, I think you're being pretty unfair - the behavior you treat everybody equally with is "Respect their quoting preferences", not "Quote at will". It's like you've got something against allowing context into your rules for behavior.This. If you're saying that everyone should be treated the exact same I have a problem with it, LB, because people are very, very different from each other, and by refusing to acknowledge differences you not only risk offending the person but refuse to acknowledge part of who they are.
Now, Mr. Bucket, I think you're being pretty unfair - the behavior you treat everybody equally with is "Respect their quoting preferences", not "Quote at will". It's like you've got something against allowing context into your rules for behavior.
That... is entirely not why Truean doesn't want to be quoted, I'm not sure how you got that, and no.Now, Mr. Bucket, I think you're being pretty unfair - the behavior you treat everybody equally with is "Respect their quoting preferences", not "Quote at will". It's like you've got something against allowing context into your rules for behavior.
Isn’t the entire argument about not quoting Truean all about Truean maintaining copyright over what Truean has typed? Truean wants to be the only one to be able to reproduce Truean’s work and disallow anyone else from reproducing it in any post that they make controlling context of the discussion. If Truean goes back and edits a post that someone has blank responded to it allows Truean the ability to control the discussion and direct the narrative.
I'm betting it's (2) and (3). (1) is actually vaguely reasonable.Except that 2 and 3 are both true, I'm male and seen other guys doing those things outside of a restroom context. Granted, not all guys do that, but enough of them do that it is a definite problem. It's somewhat disturbing when people deny that some guys act like that or say "well, get over it, guys are guys" because harrassing people because of their gender isn't cool any which way. I'm not entirely sure how you haven't seen guys acting like that, because the guys at my high school treat women as objects and act perverted all of the time. There's a reason I have exactly five male friends, all of whom don't act that way.
Truean: While I appreciate your perspective as a lawyer who has seen this happen, I'm not hugely worried for a few reasons:
1. Bay12 is a fairly small, isolated community, and unless that changes I doubt anyone trying to mess with me will come here. I mean, I suppose they could follow my username, since I've connected it with myself, but that's where the other points come in.
2. I do not plan on being in any profession where people will actually find it worthwhile to try to ruin my reputation.
3. If I am fired because of my social values, then I probably shouldn't be working for those people. My values are to treat people with respect, and if people fire me because of that I don't want to work for them.
4. When I applied to college, I gave the college admissions people my username and the name of the forum in my Common Application essay. They chose to admit me despite what I said here (assuming they gave my account a cursory scan), so unless something drastically changes in how/what I post (which would indicate a drastic shift in me) I should be good on that front.
5. If people are really going to go out of their way to misconstrue something I said on this forum in a real-life situation, then that will simply confirm my worst fears about human beings and I'll have nothing else to lose.
Edit: Oh man, we just derailed this to high heaven.
Okay, so, back on the topic of the thread. In a perfect world, we could have unisex bathrooms and nobody would try and be stupid about it, but that's not the case, so frankly I have no idea what the best answer is in this regard.
'cause if they don't turn up anything bad then they won't think you're doing shady internet shit.As stated above, my essay was about Demongate and Steelhold and I was giving them the evidence to back up my claims of what I did.
*shrugs*
if you scrub what you say, I guess you can. It makes sense from your position, as a lawyer and whatnot. But my odds of someone twisting my posts to somehow provide evidence that I committed a crime or something are astronomically low, and without any presence as a public figure nobody should feel the need to try to "discredit" me, so there isn't actually anything to gain and quite a lot to lose by scrubbing my posts from existance.
GLBTActual derail: Is there any difference between LGBT and GLBT, or do you just prefer using the acronym that is slightly harder to say?
Well because walking on egg shells is exhausting and you often would rather have some sort of outlet that you don't need to cover your tracks for.(slated to be scrubbed)
I certainly have that for my deep dark secret :P
I linked that one because it stuck out in my memory and I could find it easily with a search, but you've got others too that I've seen.
something something most of us genuinely want the best for you something
Sometimes you guys have a hard time showing it then.
In this particular discussion, the worst *Continues to rag on people*
S'just... I'unno. These last few pages have been painful to watch.
help people realize that this isn't even a big deal at all+one hundred factorial trillion
How about everybody stop wailing on truean?
What is wrong with the current system of male/female restrooms? If you are trans you most likely look like man or like a woman so go where you wouldn't look out of place. Problem solved.
I think it goes back to Truean not wanting to be quoted, and nobody being able to see eye-to-eye as to why or if it even matters. Then it started spiraling out of control and got messy.
Do people with different gender identities have the right to go to all-girls or all-boys schools? What about boarding? Say what you like, but there would be a whole truckload of calls from parents if it was ever discovered that there was a girl with a penis living in the dorms- and at that inquisitive age too.
I completely understand that specific one, honestly. I say a lot of crap which is difficult to take back in the best of times.
When I get quoted, my stupidity is set in stone for eternity. Not so great- so I don't enjoy being quoted.
Then again, many forum members enjoy quoting me simply to call me on above said shit, so C'est la vie.
But Tru has a far better basis for it in truth.
In any case- not yet addressed:Do people with different gender identities have the right to go to all-girls or all-boys schools? What about boarding? Say what you like, but there would be a whole truckload of calls from parents if it was ever discovered that there was a girl with a penis living in the dorms- and at that inquisitive age too.
What is wrong with the current system of male/female restrooms? If you are trans you most likely look like man or like a woman so go where you wouldn't look out of place. Problem solved.
Men are predators.... what.
Eh, at the end of the day, Men are predators.
I'd be far more worried about the trans student themselves if it were an all-boys boarding house.
Eh, at the end of the day, Men are predators.Okay, so we implement some sort of curfew system?
Eh, at the end of the day, Men are predators.Okay, so we implement some sort of curfew system?
Not sure if they're serious or not...Eh, at the end of the day, Men are predators.Okay, so we implement some sort of curfew system?
What!? Are you just agreeing with that? Most men are NOT predators people! Seriously.
Listen, all I'm saying is that the literal interpretation of what he said suggests that men are only a problem at sundown.Not sure if they're serious or not...Eh, at the end of the day, Men are predators.Okay, so we implement some sort of curfew system?
What!? Are you just agreeing with that? Most men are NOT predators people! Seriously.
God, no, they aren't. Jesus, that was supposed to be a joke! See, he said "at the end of the day", which idiomatically means "As the inevitable conclusion", but literally means "at sundown". And since that's a particular time of day, a curfew would be the way to solve the problem. It's a form of humor based on equivocation.
My jokes are bad, and I should feel bad!
God, no, they aren't. Jesus, that was supposed to be a joke! See, he said "at the end of the day", which idiomatically means "As the inevitable conclusion", but literally means "at sundown". And since that's a particular time of day, a curfew would be the way to solve the problem. It's a form of humor based on equivocation.I probably would have phrased it as "If they're all predators at the end of the day, we ought to implement a curfew!", which makes the (rather obscure) joke a little more obvious, but I digress.
My jokes are bad, and I should feel bad!
Hah, Bauglir? More like BOGGLER. Get it, because HIS jokes are bad?I read that as BOOGER and thought we were devolving. I wasn't wrong.
aaaaaaah.
Hah, Bauglir? More like BOGGLER. Get it, because HIS jokes are bad?I read that as BOOGER and thought we were devolving. I wasn't wrong.
aaaaaaah.
Urist, if you're mad that I was joking in the first place, keep in mind that the point of the joke whose mechanics I've outlined wasn't just to be funny, or to trivialize a bullshit stereotype, it was to underscore how ludicrous Tack's statement was by implying that the obvious misinterpretation was still more reasonable than what he actually meant. I'm not entirely clear where the conversation is, at this point, so I apologize if I'm just beating a dead horse.
EDIT: And I also apologize for being a jackass otherwise, so one way or the other I have clearly made a mistake.
Trans people are predators.In terms of evolution, men are actually the predators.
1. An animal that naturally preys on others.
2. Person who ruthlessly exploits others.
1. A large, ugly, and frightening imaginary creature.I personally don't like the assertion that all men are monsters.
2. An inhumanly cruel or wicked person.
Actually those statistics you're talking about usual involve them being raped by other men.
I think the major difference is our respective definitions of predator and monster. I believe that to term a human a monster, you must believe them incorrigible, inhuman and unrepentant. Serial-crimes are perpetuated by monsters.
When I think 'predator', I think 'wolf', and wolves are awesome- just not a good thing for modern society. In a similar sense, human predators with the 'alpha male' mindset and pack mentality had their place, but they don't anymore. In that way there's still some useful places for those old-world souls, but they're few and niche.
If we were ever thrown in a Lord of the Flies type situation, I would be thankful for (albeit wary of) those same predators. I would not want to be stuck with a monster.
2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, for which the Centers for Disease Control invented a category of sexual violence called “being made to penetrate.” This definition includes victims who were forced to penetrate someone else with their own body parts, either by physical force or coercion, or when the victim was drunk or high or otherwise unable to consent. When those cases were taken into account, the rates of nonconsensual sexual contact basically equalized, with 1.270 million women and 1.267 million men claiming to be victims of sexual violence.