High school locker rooms and transgender

[djs7685]

(09-09-2015, 02:29 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: It's been countless threads on this matter.    

Besides you have made it clear your never going to discuss anything with me so why would I ever bother going into any detail with you?

You said it yourself.... 2+2=5 in your world.   So I will leave you to it

Okay Ms. Lucie, just entertain me this once then.

Where are all of the people that have even remotely insinuated what you're claiming that they've flat out said?

I'll be eagerly awaiting your response, madam.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(09-09-2015, 02:20 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I will have to look later when I have time but I believe pat mentioned that he/she would be in danger in the boys room and should be in the girls.   And that it wouldn't be a big deal because he/she said they were a girl.     Others chimed in as well, making it sound like it wasn't a big deal.  

If they didn't then no one would have disagreed with me on the thread because that's my whole point on all of this stuff.

I recalled that everyone was in agreement male parts go in the male locker room and female parts go in the female locker room.  And that if their is a gender identity issue, a gender neutral room should be provided.  However I do like the idea that someone suggested (forget who it was), both locker rooms should just private changing stalls...boom problem solved.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-09-2015, 02:32 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Okay Ms. Lucie, just entertain me this once then.

Where are all of the people that have even remotely insinuated what you're claiming that they've flat out said?

I'll be eagerly awaiting your response, madam.

(09-09-2015, 01:56 PM)djs7685 Wrote: If you say that 2+2=4 then I'll say it's 5 just so I don't have to agree with you.

I'm willing to consider other points that aren't mine, just not yours.

[djs7685]

Okay, so is that your way of admitting that you're just making shit up?

[StLucieBengal]

(09-09-2015, 02:40 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: I recalled that everyone was in agreement male parts go in the male locker room and female parts go in the female locker room.  And that if their is a gender identity issue, a gender neutral room should be provided.  However I do like the idea that someone suggested (forget who it was), both locker rooms should just private changing stalls...boom problem solved.

Well then no one would haven disagreed with me on any of this then. Because this has been my exact point. You go where your hardware tells you to go.

Private changing stalls in a public school is really expensive. plus you have to make them handicapp accessible. Some PE classes have 60 kids. That's a lot of stalls. When I was teaching it was with another and we both had at least 30 kids in PE. The cost to retro fit schools would be massive. Given all the new building codes that would need updating in addition to just the stalls.

[djs7685]

(09-09-2015, 02:46 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Well then no one would haven disagreed with me on any of this then.   Because this has been my exact point.   You go where your hardware tells you to go.    

I think the issue is that you have a tough time getting your point across without saying something extremely racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. and that rubs people the wrong way.

Me thinks someone does that very intentionally.

[*bfine32*]

(09-09-2015, 02:22 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Could be wrong about that one, but I definitely didn't see numerous others deflecting from anything. Care to share? I'm not being a dick, seriously interested in where you think any of us have even slightly insinuated that someone with a penis should be taking a shower with a bunch of girls.


Who? Where are the several? I went back a few pages and didn't see that.

Well someone said schools should show gay porn, another posted a brokelink meme, and another posted a picture of a grown up taking a selfie in a bathroom; these are just off the top of my head. Maybe we just have different definitions of deflecting.

But your stance is noted and appreciated. No sharing of the common facilities.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(09-09-2015, 02:46 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Well then no one would haven disagreed with me on any of this then.   Because this has been my exact point.   You go where your hardware tells you to go.    

Private changing stalls in a public school is really expensive.  plus you have to make them handicapp accessible.    Some PE classes have 60 kids.    That's a lot of stalls.    When I was teaching it was with another and we both had at least 30 kids in PE.    The cost to retro fit schools would be massive.   Given all the new building codes that would need updating in addition to just the stalls.

I'm fine with providing a gender neutral changing room.  Seems like that would be less expensive.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-09-2015, 02:49 PM)djs7685 Wrote: I think the issue is that you have a tough time getting your point across without saying something extremely racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. and that rubs people the wrong way.

Me thinks someone does that very intentionally.

Or maybe some people are just overly sensitive to pronoun usage.    How you perceive a word is on you.   really no one should be insulted unless they are being addressed directly.   Especially when it's within the scope of a debate.    

I just have the mindset here that being politically correct is a waste in a PnR forum.   I don't directly insult anyone here, and I do that out of respect for them to feel free to post their beliefs and positions.

[Rotobeast]

(09-09-2015, 02:40 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: I recalled that everyone was in agreement male parts go in the male locker room and female parts go in the female locker room.  And that if their is a gender identity issue, a gender neutral room should be provided.  However I do like the idea that someone suggested (forget who it was), both locker rooms should just private changing stalls...boom problem solved.

Me

(09-09-2015, 02:46 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Well then no one would haven disagreed with me on any of this then.   Because this has been my exact point.   You go where your hardware tells you to go.    

Private changing stalls in a public school is really expensive.  plus you have to make them handicapp accessible.    Some PE classes have 60 kids.    That's a lot of stalls.    When I was teaching it was with another and we both had at least 30 kids in PE.    The cost to retro fit schools would be massive.   Given all the new building codes that would need updating in addition to just the stalls.

You only install one stall for every four kids and allow ample time for use.
Everyone does not have to change at the same time and it's likely that only half of the kids would use them.

[djs7685]

(09-09-2015, 02:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well someone said schools should show gay porn, another posted a brokelink meme, and another posted a picture of a grown up taking a selfie in a bathroom; these are just off the top of my head. Maybe we just have different definitions of deflecting.

But your stance is noted and appreciated. No sharing of the common facilities.

Fred was trolling Lucie, Dino already made plenty of points and expressed his opinion earlier in the thread, and Patrick was proving a point which was relevant to Lucie's statement. I guess we do have different definitions of deflecting. I don't agree with everything those guys said, but I honestly don't believe they were deflecting from anything.

Yes, my stance is as long as you have a penis, you still need to use the men's facilities. I have seen very little (serious) disagreement with that. I do believe that a new standard going forward for future renovations and new structures could be individual stalls as someone else mentioned. Not just for the transgender folks, but I believe most people are more comfortable in a setting such as that. It's a good idea, but obviously it would be an extremely costly and messy situation to try and put into effect for every single existing facility in the entire country right now.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-09-2015, 03:00 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Fred was trolling Lucie, Dino already made plenty of points and expressed his opinion earlier in the thread, and Patrick was proving a point which was relevant to Lucie's statement. I guess we do have different definitions of deflecting. I don't agree with everything those guys said, but I honestly don't believe they were deflecting from anything.

Yes, my stance is as long as you have a penis, you still need to use the men's facilities. I have seen very little (serious) disagreement with that. I do believe that a new standard going forward for future renovations and new structures could be individual stalls as someone else mentioned. Not just for the transgender folks, but I believe most people are more comfortable in a setting such as that. It's a good idea, but obviously it would be an extremely costly and messy situation to try and put into effect for every single existing facility in the entire country right now.

Then we agree. The real question is does that blow your mind haha

[djs7685]

(09-09-2015, 02:59 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Or maybe some people are just overly sensitive to pronoun usage.    How you perceive a word is on you.   really no one should be insulted unless they are being addressed directly.   Especially when it's within the scope of a debate.    

I just have the mindset here that being politically correct is a waste in a PnR forum.   I don't directly insult anyone here, and I do that out of respect for them to feel free to post their beliefs and positions.

Do you honestly believe that 100% of people on here are heterosexual, white males?

If not, then you are absolutely insulting some people on here directly with some of the things you're saying. Just some food for thought.

[BmorePat87]

(09-09-2015, 02:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well someone said schools should show gay porn, another posted a brokelink meme, and another posted a picture of a grown up taking a selfie in a bathroom; these are just off the top of my head. Maybe we just have different definitions of deflecting.

But your stance is noted and appreciated. No sharing of the common facilities.

The photo was a trans man taking a photo of himself in the women's restroom since the law required him to.

Since Lucie said she would not want trans women in the women's room unless they had sex reassignment surgery, I asked her what her opinion was of this man being required to use the women's room because he still had female genitalia. 

If that is "deflecting", you do not know the meaning of the word. 

[StLucieBengal]

(09-09-2015, 03:02 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Do you honestly believe that 100% of people on here are heterosexual, white males?

If not, then you are absolutely insulting some people on here directly with some of the things you're saying. Just some food for thought.

Why would I care if anyone here is gay or straight? Or white or "non White" that has no bearing on anything on this board.

I don't make any personal attacks and yet I take repeated personal insults. I realize that there are those here who can't keep things above board and on topic.

I understand what your saying about some may sit in the shadows and cower at comments. But in all honesty those people don't need coddled they need to message me directly. I have never made fun of anyone here for anything. So they can't be afraid of me taking their business on the board because I have no history whatsoever of doing anything like that ...

We are all supposed to be adults. And I get you and some others are uber sensitive. But I don't conduct my life tip toeing around, and I'm sorry if that rubs some the wrong way. But I will always tell you what's on my mind and I will always stay to my principles. I always try and look at reasonable compromises. But i don't see how it helps anyone for me to play into this pc nonsense.

Reminds me of the movie PCU. Not sure how old you are or if you remember.

[djs7685]

(09-10-2015, 07:16 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Why would I care if anyone here is gay or straight?  Or white or "non White"   that has no bearing on anything on this board.    

I don't make any personal attacks and yet I take repeated personal insults.   I realize that there are those here who can't keep things above board and on topic.      

I understand what your saying about some may sit in the shadows and cower at comments.   But in all honesty those people don't need coddled they need to message me directly.   I have never made fun of anyone here for anything.   So they can't be afraid of me taking their business on the board because I have no history whatsoever of doing anything like that ...  

We are all supposed to be adults.  And I get you and some others are uber sensitive.   But I don't conduct my life tip toeing around, and I'm sorry if that rubs some the wrong way.   But I will always tell you what's on my mind and I will always stay to my principles.   I always try and look at reasonable compromises.   But i don't see how it helps anyone for me to play into this pc nonsense.  

Reminds me of the movie PCU.  Not sure how old you are or if you remember.

Here is a really, really, really simple example that you can hopefully understand. You keep dancing around the point and claiming that you don't insult people, yet you do. You don't even understand what a "personal attack" is. You seem to think the only way something can be considered a personal attack is if someone straight up says something like "you're an idiot!". That's not the ONLY type of attack, I really can't understand how you don't get that.

You are quoted saying that you "don't want anyone from the Middle East or Africa in our country" because they're "savages".

Now, if anyone on this board is from the Middle East or Africa, do you not realize that it means that you ARE personally insulting them?

Making broad, ridiculous, offensive generalizations can be considered a "personal attack". You said that you don't want anyone from those countries in the U.S. and that they're "savages". Hence, anyone that posts here from the Middle East has just been insulted by being called a "savage" by you. Comprehend? Or not?

[Rotobeast]

(09-10-2015, 09:33 AM)djs7685 Wrote: Here is a really, really, really simple example that you can hopefully understand. You keep dancing around the point and claiming that you don't insult people, yet you do. You don't even understand what a "personal attack" is. You seem to think the only way something can be considered a personal attack is if someone straight up says something like "you're an idiot!". That's not the ONLY type of attack, I really can't understand how you don't get that.

You are quoted saying that you "don't want anyone from the Middle East or Africa in our country" because they're "savages".

Now, if anyone on this board is from the Middle East or Africa, do you not realize that it means that you ARE personally insulting them?

Making broad, ridiculous, offensive generalizations can be considered a "personal attack". You said that you don't want anyone from those countries in the U.S. and that they're "savages". Hence, anyone that posts here from the Middle East has just been insulted by being called a "savage" by you. Comprehend? Or not?

I've poked fun at Lucie for his poor choice of words.
I agree that the opinion was over the top.
The thing is that I also think, given the context of his other discussions, that he believes that there are higher percentage of extremists in those areas and considers it far more dangerous to accept immigrants from those areas.
Having said that, I don't think he understands what a small percentage of those populations are extremists.
The shock value of the atrocities in the areas put blinders on many.
However... the common people in those areas, who have next to nothing, would gladly offer it all to any guest.
So, we have a perception and fear issue here.
While the above is a fair effort to illustrate the issue, I don't believe the perception will change until the he has a positive personal experience with people from those regions.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-10-2015, 12:29 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I've poked fun at Lucie for his poor choice of words.
I agree that the opinion was over the top.
The thing is that I also think, given the context of his other discussions, that he believes that there are higher percentage of extremists in those areas and considers it far more dangerous to accept immigrants from those areas.  
Having said that, I don't think he understands what a small percentage of those populations are extremists.
The shock value of the atrocities in the areas put blinders on many.
However... the common people in those areas, who have next to nothing, would gladly offer it all to any guest.
So, we have a perception and fear issue here.
While the above is a fair effort to illustrate the issue, I don't believe the perception will change until the he has a positive personal experience with people from those regions.

I have had loads of positive expierences with people from these places.

But none of this changes how I think our national immigration policy should be implemented.

What's sad is these guys jump on the word savages instead of the meat of my statement and miss the point.

I dont want open borders, I want to limit access to our country to only the best. It's bad enough we have sift through the illegals now.

[StLucieBengal]

And yes I know that my choice of words can be called into question sometimes. I'm not oblivious to that, but in the same point you all should realize by now that I have no problem throwing out controversial language. Not sure why you all are still surprised.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-10-2015, 09:33 AM)djs7685 Wrote: Here is a really, really, really simple example that you can hopefully understand. You keep dancing around the point and claiming that you don't insult people, yet you do. You don't even understand what a "personal attack" is. You seem to think the only way something can be considered a personal attack is if someone straight up says something like "you're an idiot!". That's not the ONLY type of attack, I really can't understand how you don't get that.

You are quoted saying that you "don't want anyone from the Middle East or Africa in our country" because they're "savages".

Now, if anyone on this board is from the Middle East or Africa, do you not realize that it means that you ARE personally insulting them?

Making broad, ridiculous, offensive generalizations can be considered a "personal attack". You said that you don't want anyone from those countries in the U.S. and that they're "savages". Hence, anyone that posts here from the Middle East has just been insulted by being called a "savage" by you. Comprehend? Or not?

So it's an issue if we have a middle easterner posting here? If we do then they can feel free to PM me anytime.

If we had one you would would think they would have Said something by now. And if they don't say anythjng then they have no issue with anythjng that I have said.

Look. I understand why your upset at my choice of words. I acknowledge that your uncomfortable with my word choice. I appreciate you mentioning that your unhappy.

Now I don't what else can be done here, if your offended then I'm sorry but your clearly not offended because your from one of these areas mentioned.

Now we should be able to drop this and move forward. I have acknowledged and understood your issue.