THIS is what we are warning you all about!!

[seer]

Tass, first this has nothing to do with where human rights are sourced. And that is in God, the God of scripture. You can ignore it all you want but that is what Locke believed and wrote. That is historical fact. Second, no he, like the Founders, did not the State to force worship - and I completely agree. But since you quoted Wiki, I will do the same:

Locke derived the fundamental concepts of his political theory from biblical texts, in particular from Genesis 1 and 2 (creation), the Decalogue (Exodus 20), the Golden Rule (Matthew 7:12), the teachings of Jesus (e.g. his doctrine of charity, Matthew 19:19), and the letters of Paul the Apostle.[62] The Decalogue (Ten Commandments) puts a person's life, his or her honourable reputation (i.e. honour and dignity), and property under God's protection. [63] To Locke, one of the consequences of the principle of equality was that all humans were created equally free and therefore governments needed the consent of the governed.[64] Only when Locke had derived the fundamental aspects of his concept of man and ethics from the biblical texts Following Locke, the American Declaration of Independence founded human rights on the biblical belief in creation: "All men are created equal, (...) they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, (...) life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Locke's doctrine that governments need the consent of the governed is also central to the Declaration of Independence.[65]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_L...igious_beliefs

So Locke's whole theory of government and rights was based in the BIBLE! Get over it Tass.

His essays on religious tolerance provided an early model for the separation of church and state, later adopted by Jefferson as the "wall of separation between Church and State" as per the First Amendment.



But that is still not allthe Founders, and Adams himself made it clear that Independence was based in Christian principles. Which clearly follows Locke's reasoning.

[RumTumTugger]

It's the mental health associations worldwide that have determined that transgenderism is not a mental illness. So who is this "we" to which you're referring?

Bill and I and all others how understand feelings do not TRUMP Realty unlike you and those so called mental health associations who let politics get in the way of good Science and medicine.

[The Thinker]

So she has taken artificial hormones to make herself look male with facial hair and mutilated her breasts to make them look like male pectorals. Big deal. She is still a woman and even still visits a gynecologist.

The question is should the law force Buck to use the woman's bathroom, which is the inevitable result of what some people on this thread are suggesting. That's the whole discussion. I don't care about your opinion on whether or not you think its mutilation.

[The Thinker]

Are you being purposely dense here Thinker or are you a nonthinking idiot. This incident happened in a place that has policies that allow those who refuse to face reality to use the wrong facilities for their biological and physical gender. a man walked into the woman bathroom and attack a young girl no one questioned him about what gender he felt he was they just let him walk in because they did not want to embarrass him, were afraid they would be deemed intolerant etc.. This is the Consequence of allowing feelings to trump Realty and science.

So which is it NON Thinker are you an idiot are purposely being Dense because this goes against the false narrative you want to believe. Until you state differently I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and not think you are being intellectually dishonest here and are just an Non thinking idiot.

A man can walk into a woman's restroom regardless of what the law says and kill someone. This incident as far as I can tell was not the result of a trans-bathroom incident, and whether or not there was a law for or against that would not have made a difference. If you disagree, prove it by citing the case. I didn't see that there. All I read was a report on a man assaulting a girl in a bathroom.

The trans-law will not just allow men into woman's bathrooms. You have to dress a certain way. And the bottom line is this. Do you want trans-men like Buck Angel to be using the woman's bathroom or the men's bathroom?

[Bill the Cat]

Health professionals worldwide do not categorise transgenderism as a "mental illness". On what basis do you claim to know better, the bible?

Source: http://www.animalsandsociety.org/human-animal-studies/society-and-animals-journal/articles-on-the-relationship-between-animal-issues-and-gender/furries-limits-species-identity-disorder-response-gerbasi-et-al/

Gender identity disorder has been included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) by the American Psychiatric Association since 1980. The DSM is updated and revised and republished every seven years because new disorders come into play, and older ones expire or are constructed into different typologies. Homosexuality was dropped from the DSM in 1973, but as it was dropped gender identity disorder was made official in the 1980 edition. As a result, many scholars argued that although differently worded, gender identity disorder represented the past disorders, thus enabling the continued treatment of homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder.

© Copyright Original Source

So, this response, that is pro-trans, explains that it was removed from being a "disorder" because of the link to treating homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder. It also says in the article that "transgenderism" is too difficult to identify consistent symptoms to classify. Some people who are diagnosed merely have an aversion to the societal norms of "rough and tumble boys" and "pigtails and lace girls" while others actually desire to change their physical appearance to appear as the opposite sex.

Source: above

In addition, a team of psychologists have argued that the validity of the diagnosis of gender identity disorder is not clear in that the set of criteria used by the American Psychiatric Association emphasizes the requirement for children and adolescents, especially boys, to conform to traditional gender and heterosexual norms.

© Copyright Original Source

[Bill the Cat]

The question is should the law force Buck to use the woman's bathroom, which is the inevitable result of what some people on this thread are suggesting. That's the whole discussion. I don't care about your opinion on whether or not you think its mutilation.

Yes. Buck is a female, regardless of the looks she has given herself. Therefore she should use the women's room.

[Bill the Cat]

A man can walk into a woman's restroom regardless of what the law says and kill someone.

But if people actually stop and ask why they are going into the woman's room, it can potentially stop some.

This incident as far as I can tell was not the result of a trans-bathroom incident,

That's never been the point. It was a result of a man being able to walk into a woman's room unhindered, which will be much more easy if these transgender bathroom laws are enacted. People will be afraid to even confront a man for fear of being sued for discrimination.

and whether or not there was a law for or against that would not have made a difference.

Possibly not in this instance, but again, that's not the point.

The trans-law will not just allow men into woman's bathrooms. You have to dress a certain way.

No you do not.

And the bottom line is this. Do you want trans-men like Buck Angel to be using the woman's bathroom or the men's bathroom?

The woman's bathroom since she has a vagina. My Aunt Ruth has a beard too, but that doesn't make her a man.

[The Thinker]

Yes. Buck is a female, regardless of the looks she has given herself. Therefore she should use the women's room.

And you don't think this will cause a problem with women thinking Buck is a man and will call the police on him?

[The Thinker]

But if people actually stop and ask why they are going into the woman's room, it can potentially stop some.

This incident was not affected by the trans bathroom issue, as far as I can tell. It seems to be a red herring to me.

That's never been the point. It was a result of a man being able to walk into a woman's room unhindered, which will be much more easy if these transgender bathroom laws are enacted. People will be afraid to even confront a man for fear of being sued for discrimination.

That was the point it seems for some people here. If the trans bathroom laws are not enacted, people like Buck Angel who look like men will be going into women's bathrooms and that can actually provide cover for biological men to go into women's bathrooms, so preventing trans people from using the bathroom of their identity can actually hurt your view. It will actually make it harder for people to even confront a biological man for fear of being sued for discrimination.

Possibly not in this instance, but again, that's not the point.

That is indeed the point, since without this case you have literally no argument. The trans-laws solve a problem. Preventing them will actually make it easier for biological men to enter a women's bathroom under the pretense that he's a trans-male.

No you do not.

I'm not sure about this.

The woman's bathroom since she has a vagina. My Aunt Ruth has a beard too, but that doesn't make her a man.

OK, so since trans men like Buck are indistinguishable from men, having trans-men routinely use the women's bathroom will actually allow cover for biological men to use the women's bathroom.

[Bill the Cat]

And you don't think this will cause a problem with women thinking Buck is a man and will call the police on him?

That's on her. SHE chose to do that to herself. She should suffer the consequences of her decision to force her appearance into that of a man.

[Bill the Cat]

This incident was not affected by the trans bathroom issue, as far as I can tell. It seems to be a red herring to me.

And it seems to me to be indicative of the risks that are being opened up by shaming people into keeping their mouth shut.

That was the point it seems for some people here. If the trans bathroom laws are not enacted, people like Buck Angel who look like men will be going into women's bathrooms and that can actually provide cover for biological men to go into women's bathrooms,

So, questioning people who look like men entering the woman's room will somehow make it easier for men to cover their tracks?

so preventing trans people from using the bathroom of their identity can actually hurt your view.

No it can't. If it looks like a man, question them. If they are a woman who has made themselves up to look like a man, then they are ok. If they are a man who is really a man, then they are in trouble. That doesn't hurt my view in the least. It makes it easier to identify potential assailants. Enacting the trans-friendly laws will scare people from asking due to fear of being called a bigot.

It will actually make it harder for people to even confront a biological man for fear of being sued for discrimination.

That was my point.

That is indeed the point, since without this case you have literally no argument.

No, it's not the point. The point has always been that men will now find it easier to sneak into the woman's room because they can scream discrimination. This story simply evidences that men already sneak into the woman's room, and the trans-friendly laws will make it easier.

The trans-laws solve a problem.

No they don't. They create tons of problems.

Preventing them will actually make it easier for biological men to enter a women's bathroom under the pretense that he's a trans-male.

No they won't. Actually questioning people and blanket forbidding biological males from entering the woman's room will make it much harder for them to enter.

I'm not sure about this.

I am.

OK, so since trans men like Buck are indistinguishable from men,

Only by looks. Genetically she is female. That's completely distinguishable from men. Plus, she has a vagina. Unless you haven't been paying attention in Family Life, I am sure you can distinguish between male parts and female parts.

having trans-men routinely use the women's bathroom will actually allow cover for biological men to use the women's bathroom.

No it won't. Unless the biological man is capable of producing some documentation or genetics that show they are female...

[Tassman]

Bill and I and all others how understand feelings do not TRUMP Realty unlike you and those so called mental health associations who let politics get in the way of good Science and medicine.

"Good Science and medicine" is what we get from mental health professionals and their respective associations. And they have NOT categorised transgenderism as a mental illness. So who are you to sit in judgement?

[Tassman]

Tass, first this has nothing to do with where human rights are sourced. And that is in God, the God of scripture. You can ignore it all you want but that is what Locke believed and wrote. That is historical fact. Second, no he, like the Founders, did not the State to force worship - and I completely agree. But since you quoted Wiki, I will do the same:

This is the view of SOME scholars (presumably Christians), not all...as stated in the same link.

So Locke's whole theory of government and rights was based in the BIBLE! Get over it Tass.

and the total separation of church and state.

But that is still not allthe Founders, and Adams himself made it clear that Independence was based in Christian principles.

Nevertheless president Adams' signed the Treaty. Official records show that after President John Adams sent the treaty to the Senate for ratification in May 1797, the entire treaty was read aloud on the Senate floor, and copies were printed for every Senator. A committee considered the treaty and recommended ratification. Twenty-three of the thirty-two sitting Senators were present for the June 7 vote which unanimously approved the ratification recommendation, including clause 11:

Which clearly follows Locke's reasoning.

[Bill the Cat]

"Good Science and medicine" is what we get from mental health professionals and their respective associations.

The mental health profession is the joke of the medical community. That's why it is called a "soft science"

And they have NOT categorised transgenderism as a mental illness.

They HAD classified it until DSM-5, but removed it for PC reasons.

So who are you to sit in judgment?

Someone who can see the writing on the wall. It's a liberal power play.

[Cow Poke]

The mental health profession is the joke of the medical community. That's why it is called a "soft science"

I had a Psych Professor in seminary who seemed to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to justify psychology as a "real science" "just like math or physics".