Article: https://www.foxnews.com/media/lia-t...oom-after-meet-riley-gaines-dropped-pants.amp I’d like to hear the opposing view defending Thomas’s inclusion, but I sympathize with young women who are uncomfortable sharing a locker room or competing against someone who retains male characteristics to that extent.
All these people ranting about how people should use the restroom that coordinates with their genitalia until a person with a vagina and a full beard goes into a women's restroom.
How would it ever be an issue that that person just uses the men's. Nobody would see anything, person goes to the stall, done.
My answer to that: Because I don't want to pretend that someone is something that they aren't. I don't to pretend you're a cat, or a dog, or a toaster, or a dragon... ..and if you have XX chromosomes, I don't want to pretend you're a woman. You are free to think of yourself as a woman if you want. But I don't think you should expect the world around you to change for you. .. and I don't think people should be forced or shamed into catering to you. If you have XX chromosomes, you're male. And none of the makeup, none of dresses, none of tuckers, none of puberty blockers, none of surgeries, NOTHING can change the fact that you're male. Now - that doesn't mean that you deserve to have people beat you up, sling profanity at you, curse you, or berate you. ...and my preference to not call you by your pronouns is not insult, offense, prejudice, or disrespect. Your preference is about how you want the people of the world to change how they address you. My preference is about how I want to address you. You have your preference, I have mine. It's that simple.
But using someone's preferred pronouns when they are a transgender woman isn't pretending that they have a vagina or XX chromosomes when they don't. It's accepting that they sincerely have chosen (for strongly felt personal reasons) to adopt the gender role of a female despite contrary biological indicators that we use to assign gender to new-borns, that they would like to be addressed as such, and being gracious enough to do so. That's it. Words that reflect biological attributes or relationships can have other meanings in a wider social context. Would you refuse to address an adoptive parent as a "parent" because they aren't a true biological parent of their child? I assume not.
How would it be an issue if a person with a penis just uses the women's? They would just go into a stall and no one would see anything.
Of course it is. Some of them even pour ketchup on themselves and pretend they're having a period. Some invoke pain on themselves and pretend they're having menstrual cramps (from the uterus that they don't have). I don't care. And I don't have to care. Any my lack of care is not an insult. I don't know. But it would be by my choice, not theirs.
It really isn't, and it's weird that you don't understand this. No one who supports transgender women and uses their preferred pronouns is under the delusion that they have an invisible vagina or XX chromosomes. OK? People can choose to be assholes, yes. Fully agree.
[shhhh... I know you don't REALLY have a vagina, but let's pretend you do. I'll call you "her" and "she"]. No thanks. ...and a person's preference to use biologically-accurate pronouns doesn't make them an a$$hole. Now if someone physically attacks, berates, or uses profanity against a trans person simply because they're trans...THAT would make them an a$$hole.
What about if someone is in front of a trans person and talks about them in front of them and references their wrong pronoun and specifically using language that makes use of pronouns more to emphasize you disagree with their existence?
Do the women's not have stalls? Not thinking it's just a long trough like Wrigley Field. Why is it any different?
Because women might feel threatened by someone with male genitals in their bathroom. Not the same the other way around. Common sense.
And, really, dude, I had respect for you right up to this point... People who disagree with you are a$$holes? First of all "disagree with their existence" is putting words in others' mouths, and is poor communication. I suspect you're referring to the tone in which it's said.... kinda like "Yes, SIR!" in a taunting way? That's uncalled for. No need for that. That tone would be antagonistic if it was said to anyone.
Not at all. I fully tolerate other people's right to be assholes. Toleration doesn't mean suspension of judgment against uncivil behavior.
No, people who are inconsiderate to others are assholes. That's the usual definition, isn't it? Don't expect others to think your choice to be inconsiderate to others is just fine, even if they understand you every right to make that choice.
You think if someone doesn't cater to the subjective demands of someone else to address them as something they objectively are not, that makes them "assholes"? Incredibly intolerant and closed-minded of you. You and @Deckard - embarrassing. Deckard called people who don't comply with the forced gender language "human toilets", you call them "assholes". Let's keep in mind, this comes from those who think they are morally superior and more virtuous.
