THIS is what we are warning you all about!!

[Sparko]

No this is Bill's thread. I'm only going to do one more response to Tass, then I will end it. He is becoming completely dishonest.

it is his typical MO, to derail a thread.

[The Thinker]

I am. It's on her Facebook page linked to her "transition story" on Youtube.

OK could be true.

That's called stupid B.S. She is a woman whose brain is wrongly telling her that she is a man. She is a woman in every way that biologically matters.

So we should force her into a woman's bathroom so that women think a man is in and will call the police and Buck and trans-men like her will have to deal with harassment and creating many more unnecessary police incidents? And we will have to get used to people who look like men going into the women's restroom, making it easier for actual men to do so?

That's stupid. People can change their looks quite easily. Genetics... not so much.

It should be based on looks plus gender identity.

[Bill the Cat]

So we should force her into a woman's bathroom so that women think a man is in and will call the police and Buck and trans-men like her will have to deal with harassment and creating many more unnecessary police incidents? And we will have to get used to people who look like men going into the women's restroom, making it easier for actual men to do so?

Many stores have private security already, so they could be leveraged in cases where doubt is in play. It's not like there are millions of transgenders in the country...

It should be based on looks plus gender identity.

No it should not. It should be based on biology - something that can't be faked. Looks can be altered and "gender identity" can be feigned. Genetics can't.

[The Thinker]

Many stores have private security already, so they could be leveraged in cases where doubt is in play. It's not like there are millions of transgenders in the country...

And how do you deal with doubt? Will there be a security guard in front of every bathroom? What if a trans-person sues the company for harassment if they don't believe them?

No it should not. It should be based on biology - something that can't be faked. Looks can be altered and "gender identity" can be feigned. Genetics can't.

How are you going to check that? Are you going to have a genital inspection for certain people before they enter the bathroom? What if trans-people are assaulted in the bathroom if they are forced to use their birth sex? Wouldn't that be a factor into what we do?

[Bill the Cat]

And how do you deal with doubt?

A government issued Identification card, whether a driver's license, military ID, or other form.

Will there be a security guard in front of every bathroom?

Of course not. Just like there isn't a guard at every exit searching people for stolen merchandise. It's a matter of availability. Just have them there to answer the call if it comes in.

What if a trans-person sues the company for harassment if they don't believe them?

It should not be legal to change your gender on official documentation, so that objection would go out the window.

How are you going to check that? Are you going to have a genital inspection for certain people before they enter the bathroom?

If a call came complaining, security comes and asks for ID. Simple as pie.

What if trans-people are assaulted in the bathroom if they are forced to use their birth sex?

SOMEONE is always going to have that "what if".

Wouldn't that be a factor into what we do?

Of course it is. We consider all of the factors when making decisions like this.

[Tassman]

it is his typical MO, to derail a thread.

It's you Sparko, not I, who has a history of aborting threads (pun intended) when they don't go your way.

[Tassman]

Tassman once again reveals his lack of knowledge of U. S. religious history. He knows nothing of Roger Williams and Baptists. Nor Quakers!
AS for pure politics, TAssman knows nothing either, as the fundamental government structure until the Civli War was the states, several of which had established churches, both North and South.
I'm tired of you, T. Read a history book and start over. (I have a Master's in History.)

Yes Adam, we all know that many of the states ignored the the provisos of the Constitution and First Amendment, and many still attempt to do so today, but virtually every-time these blatant attempts to bypass the Constitution are hauled before the Supreme Court they are ruled to be unconstitutional. It's no good bleating about "liberal Courts". The demonstrable fact is that the Constitution allows for no other possible interpretation.

Once again, U.S. Supreme Court Decisions on Separation of Church and State

http://infidels.org/library/modern/c...decisions.html

[Tassman]

To the rest of the medical community, yes. Especially when it comes to judgment calls, like what is "normal" for a human being.

Nope.

worldwide

So, not on scientific reasons then? Are you saying the mental health organizations of the world used an OPINION to classify something?

Homosexuality was regarded by the culture of the day to be abnormal behaviour and this was reflected in psychology. But decades of subsequent research and clinical experience has proved otherwise.

But "Normal" is not a scientific term. It is a value judgment. If "normal" means that it occurs with a reasonable frequency, the Down's Syndrome and Kleinfelter's Syndrome are "normal forms of human experience", as is schizophrenia, manic-depressive disorders, and any other thing that occurs more than ultra-rare. So, I'll give you a shot... what makes something scientifically "normal" for human beings?

For cultural reasons. Nothing more, nothing less.

This is a good thing. Social attitudes evolve and must be taken into account, e.g. blacks now have civil rights, women are emancipated and homosexuality is no longer criminalised.

It's been shown more than I can count. In 1963, Greg Swank wrote "The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals, and #39 is fitting here:

39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

The entire article is rather prophetic. I marvel at his foresight and how we have checked off over 1/2 of them as a country.

[Bill the Cat]

worldwide

I never painted "EVERY" one as a joke. I said the soft science ITSELF is the joke of the rest of the medical profession. And it's the majority opinion of those not in psychology/psychiatry.

Source: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/13/news/la-ol-blowback-pscyhology-science-20120713

Psychologist Timothy D. Wilson, a professor at the University of Virginia, expressed resentment in his Times Op-Ed article on Thursday over the fact that most scientists don't consider his field a real science. He casts scientists as condescending bullies:

"Once, during a meeting at my university, a biologist mentioned that he was the only faculty member present from a science department. When I corrected him, noting that I was from the Department of Psychology, he waved his hand dismissively, as if I were a Little Leaguer telling a member of the New York Yankees that I too played baseball.

"There has long been snobbery in the sciences, with the 'hard' ones (physics, chemistry, biology) considering themselves to be more legitimate than the 'soft' ones (psychology, sociology)."

© Copyright Original Source

Homosexuality was regarded by the culture of the day to be abnormal behaviour and this was reflected in psychology. But decades of subsequent research and clinical experience has proved otherwise.

Source: above

Why can we definitively say that? Because psychology often does not meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability.

© Copyright Original Source

It was removed for purely cultural reasons. The word "normal" was redefined to include aberrant expressions of sexuality.


They redefined what "normal" means. With a very specific agenda, as seen here:

Source: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rethinking-psychology/201111/what-do-we-mean-normal

The matter of what is normal can't be and must not be a mere statistical nicety. It can't be and must not be "normal" to be a Christian just because 95% of your community is Christian. It can't be and must not be "normal" to be attracted to someone of the opposite sex just because 90% of the general population is heterosexual. It can't be and must not be "normal" to own slaves just because all the landowners in your state own slaves. "Normal" can't mean and must not mean "what we see all the time" or "what we see the most of." It must have a different meaning from that for it to mean anything of value to right-thinking people.

© Copyright Original Source

The decoupling of what is normal behavior in a certain circumstance or environment can not be done because the majority of practitioners of soft sciences don't like the unintentional societal implications that "abnormal = bad". As Maisel tries to state:

Source: above

It is past time that we rethink what we mean by the words "normal" and "abnormal" as those words apply to the mental and emotional states and behaviors of human beings. Indeed, it is a real question as to whether those words can be sensibly used at all, given their tremendous baggage and built-in biases and the general confusion they create.

© Copyright Original Source

So, as he admits, things become "normal" because of how society is biased and the "confusion" that bias creates.

It's unwise to disagree with the experts in the field without good reason.

The experts even admit they have no "universal standard" for what is abnormal. So, how can I disagree with them when they have no real standard by which to disagree with me?

This is a good thing.

But it is unscientific. As I said earlier in this thread.

Social attitudes evolve and must be taken into account, e.g. blacks now have civil rights, women are emancipated and homosexuality is no longer criminalised.

We are not talking about criminal behavior. We are talking about mental deviances.


And over half have come to pass.

And, in case you haven't noticed, Communism is no longer a threat...the Cold War has ended

But it's ugly inbred sister, Socialism, is alive and kicking.

[Adam]

Yes Adam, we all know that many of the states ignored the the provisos of the Constitution and First Amendment, and many still attempt to do so today, but virtually every-time these blatant attempts to bypass the Constitution are hauled before the Supreme Court they are ruled to be unconstitutional. It's no good bleating about "liberal Courts". The demonstrable fact is that the Constitution allows for no other possible interpretation.

Once again, you refuse to acknowledge that the U. S. has a FEDERAL system, under which until the 14h Amendment (and LATER SCOTUS rulings interpreting same) the Constitution did not apply to the States, each of which was perfectly entitled to (and some did so) established churches. By Liberal rulings the States can no longer do that (and none wanted to, so I guess the matter is still inconclusive).

[The Thinker]

A government issued Identification card, whether a driver's license, military ID, or other form.

Not everyone has one.

Of course not. Just like there isn't a guard at every exit searching people for stolen merchandise. It's a matter of availability. Just have them there to answer the call if it comes in.


It should not be legal to change your gender on official documentation, so that objection would go out the window.

What if someone does have ID or refuses to show it?

SOMEONE is always going to have that "what if".

But you're OK with that, it seems. It has happened, many times.

Of course it is. We consider all of the factors when making decisions like this.

OK, good. I'm considering that factor of trans-people being assaulted in their birth gender bathroom and the inconvenience they will have to suffer if forced to use that bathroom which could involve proving their gender or dealing with police harassment.

[Bill the Cat]

Not everyone has one.

They are readily available at several places. And often you can get one for free. It'd also solve another problem of proving who you are when voting.

What if someone does have ID or refuses to show it?

Same thing as if someone is being detained for shoplifting and refuses to produce an ID. The real police get called.

But you're OK with that, it seems. It has happened, many times.

Someone must accept this risk. In a valid risk assessment, you go for the lowest acceptable risk. In this case, the least risk situation is forcing people to use the facilities of their biology.

OK, good. I'm considering that factor of trans-people being assaulted in their birth gender bathroom

Versus the risk of the other ~90% who are normal getting assaulted in their gender's bathroom by evil people playing a bad law. There is a much higher risk of that than what you are considering.

and the inconvenience they will have to suffer if forced to use that bathroom which could involve proving their gender or dealing with police harassment.

Inconvenience? What about the inconvenience of having a man in a women's room taking pictures over the stall? I think that's much more detrimental than the "incredulity" of simply admitting you aren't what you look like.

[Tassman]

Once again, you refuse to acknowledge that the U. S. has a FEDERAL system, under which until the 14h Amendment (and LATER SCOTUS rulings interpreting same) the Constitution did not apply to the States, each of which was perfectly entitled to (and some did so) established churches. By Liberal rulings the States can no longer do that (and none wanted to, so I guess the matter is still inconclusive).

No, it's quite conclusive other than among those who refuse to accept the Constitution and First Amendment, because of their own religious agenda.

[Adam]

That's so bad a post that it should be rescinded.
Maybe other than Starlight, we should not allow any foreigners to post about U. S. politics.

[Tassman]

bolt their food from being legitimate puppies.

<snipped>

Source: above

Why can we definitively say that? Because psychology often does not meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability.

© Copyright Original Source

It was removed for purely cultural reasons. The word "normal" was redefined to include aberrant expressions of sexuality.

Psychology changed its classification based upon decades of research and clinical experience. On what basis do you

They redefined what "normal" means. With a very specific agenda, as seen here: <snipped>

Sexual orientation was defined a variation of normalcy on the basis that it was innate behaviour which didn't impact negatively on daily life...nor was it a treatable condition.

So, as he admits, things become "normal" because of how society is biased and the "confusion" that bias creates.

The experts even admit they have no "universal standard" for what is abnormal. So, how can I disagree with them when they have no real standard by which to disagree with me?

But it is unscientific. As I said earlier in this thread.

Social norms are not scientifically based, they're culturally based.

We are not talking about criminal behavior. We are talking about mental deviances.

And over half have come to pass.

Some say the same about Nostradamus and Jeane Dixon.

But it's ugly inbred sister, Socialism, is alive and kicking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...y-adjusted_HDI