Salon.com once again promoting pedos.

[*bfine32*]

(05-23-2016, 09:36 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: yeah.  who cares about the living breathing woman, right?

Living you say? Of course I care about her. 

[GMDino]

(05-23-2016, 01:47 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I always look at it as it takes all types. I think people with open relationships or those that handle things more casually or whatever, more power to them. As long as everyone is okay with the situation and understands how things are going down then it's all groovy. I also know it ain't for me. Well, with the exception of one woman where it was uncharacteristically unattached sex for me.

Yep.

My college roommate had been dating his gf since he was senior in college and she was a sophomore.  They were having sex while they dated and they got married and are STILL married to this day.

I didn't have sex until I got married...but that doesn't mean they weren't other options.  

It takes all kinds....

[BmorePat87]

(05-23-2016, 04:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What if they identify as promiscuous and/or an adult? Who are you to object? 

adult in this sense is a legal classification based solely on your age. Anyone can object to a 12 year old saying they're an adult.

Why would I object to someone's wishes to be promiscuous? 

What do either of these have to do with me saying that someone's sexuality is innate? 

[BigPapaKain]

(05-23-2016, 08:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: WHAT!?!?!?! You mean we are forcing these young girls into back alleys to have piercing done by someone who isn't a trained professional and uses dirty needles; if their parent doesn't consent to them getting their ears pierced. Something must be done. 

So you're saying telling people what they can and can't do with their bodies leads to back alley procedures that result in a ridiculously high infection/mortality rate?

Good thing women can have safe abortions in a clean and sterile environment. For now.

But this is a discussion for a different topic.

My point remains and your hyperbole is still ridiculous.

[GMDino]

(05-23-2016, 11:41 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: adult in this sense is a legal classification based solely on your age. Anyone can object to a 12 year old saying they're an adult.

Why would I object to someone's wishes to be promiscuous? 

What do either of these have to do with me saying that someone's sexuality is innate? 

That would be like objecting to someone washing their *********** in a public bathroom sink. 

[Griever]

(05-24-2016, 09:34 AM)GMDino Wrote: That would be like objecting to someone washing their *********** in a public bathroom sink. 

if only there was someone who knew all about that, and where it happened at

[Rotobeast]

(05-24-2016, 09:34 AM)GMDino Wrote: That would be like objecting to someone washing their jabberwocky in a public bathroom sink. 

[GMDino]

(05-24-2016, 10:03 AM)Griever Wrote: if only there was someone who knew all about that, and where it happened at

(05-24-2016, 10:57 AM)Rotobeast Wrote:

As an aside, I had the opportunity to be in DC Sunday and Monday.  Several times I had to use a public restroom and did not see anyone washing anything int he sink except their hands.

Also I did not see any transgender people.  At least i don't think I saw any as I wasn't staring down everyone going in and out of the bathrooms.

Fun trip though.  First time my son had been there and I hadn't been there in 30 years.  Need to plan a full weekend there to see the stuff we missed.  

[Griever]

(05-24-2016, 11:05 AM)GMDino Wrote: As an aside, I had the opportunity to be in DC Sunday and Monday.  Several times I had to use a public restroom and did not see anyone washing anything int he sink except their hands.

Also I did not see any transgender people.  At least i don't think I saw any as I wasn't staring down everyone going in and out of the bathrooms.

Fun trip though.  First time my son had been there and I hadn't been there in 30 years.  Need to plan a full weekend there to see the stuff we missed.  

obviously you werent looking hard enough

[Rotobeast]

(05-24-2016, 11:05 AM)GMDino Wrote: As an aside, I had the opportunity to be in DC Sunday and Monday.  Several times I had to use a public restroom and did not see anyone washing anything int he sink except their hands.

Also I did not see any transgender people.  At least i don't think I saw any as I wasn't staring down everyone going in and out of the bathrooms.

Fun trip though.  First time my son had been there and I hadn't been there in 30 years.  Need to plan a full weekend there to see the stuff we missed.  

You didn't go to DuPont Circle, did you ?

[*bfine32*]

(05-23-2016, 11:41 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: adult in this sense is a legal classification based solely on your age. Anyone can object to a 12 year old saying they're an adult.

Why would I object to someone's wishes to be promiscuous? 

What do either of these have to do with me saying that someone's sexuality is innate? 

So we should make laws based on the Birth Date on the Birth certificate, but not so much the Birth Sex?

[BmorePat87]

(05-24-2016, 02:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So we should make laws based on the Birth Date on the Birth certificate, but not so much the Birth Sex?

You're comparing having a legal adult age to ending sex based discrimination? LOL...

The answer to your question is "yes" as the government has the responsibility of ensuring the well being of all children, even at the cost of those minors' full access to rights and their parents' interests. When the government does do this, however, it should not be done lightly. 

[*bfine32*]

(05-24-2016, 06:16 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You're comparing having a legal adult age to ending sex based discrimination? LOL...

Nope, I'm just trying to get a glimpse inside of liberal logic. 

So we shouldn't consider the sex on a birth certificate when making laws because "discrimination"; however, we should consider the age on a birth certificate because "laws and protection"? If they feel they don't match the sex on their birth certificate,  we should allow them to be whatever they feel, but if they don't feel the age on their birth certificate, we should not all them to be whatever age they feel even though in both cases we are talking about the physical make up disagreeing with the emotional make up?

Makes sense I suppose. 

[BmorePat87]

(05-24-2016, 07:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nope, I'm just trying to get a glimpse inside of liberal logic. 

So we shouldn't consider the sex on a birth certificate when making laws because "discrimination"; however, we should consider the age on a birth certificate because "laws and protection"? If they feel they don't match the sex on their birth certificate,  we should allow them to be whatever they feel, but if they don't feel the age on their birth certificate, we should not all them to be whatever age they feel even though in both cases we are talking about the physical make up disagreeing with the emotional make up?

Makes sense I suppose. 

Yes, we should make laws that protect children while simultaneously striving to end discrimination against people.

12 year olds shouldn't be allowed to have sex with 40 year olds. 12 year olds shouldn't be allowed to live on their own. Trans people should be allowed to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with. Trans people shouldn't be denied employment, housing, or public accommodations because they're trans.

I understand that you reached a great deal in an effort to link these ("don't feel the age on their birth certificate", this is beyond pathetically stupid), but there really isn't a commonality between them.

[BmorePat87]

Out of curiosity, is anyone else conflicted in concurrently supporting laws that protect children and laws that end discrimination?

[BigPapaKain]

(05-24-2016, 08:09 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Out of curiosity, is anyone else conflicted in concurrently supporting laws that protect children and laws that end discrimination?

Conservatives, apparently.

[*bfine32*]

(05-24-2016, 08:08 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Yes, we should make laws that protect children while simultaneously striving to end discrimination against people.

12 year olds shouldn't be allowed to have sex with 40 year olds. 12 year olds shouldn't be allowed to live on their own. Trans people should be allowed to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with. Trans people shouldn't be denied employment, housing, or public accommodations because they're trans.

I understand that you reached a great deal in an effort to link these ("don't feel the age on their birth certificate", this is beyond pathetically stupid), but there really isn't a commonality between them.

This is why I pointed to the minor in both cases. You wish to extend it to adulthood to try to solidify your point and quickly turn to the buzz words discrimination and protection. There is an element that feels we are protecting our youth by mandating that they shower and use the public facilities that is line with their biological sex. Some further feel that they are protecting the child by not allowing an adult of the opposite sex to use the same public facilities as them. Sort of like they feel 12 year old females shouldn't share showers, locker rooms and toilets with 40 year old males.  

You see their sense of protection as discrimination. Some would consider it a reach to say they don't feel the sex on their birth certificate. Hell they might even call it "beyond pathetically stupid". 

We can address what adults can do in an exchange when we are talking about adults, but as it stands right now only one of us is trying to bring adult's rights into the conversation. 

You really have not addressed the base issue besides trying to turn it into how adults should be given equal rights and considering other's thoughts on the matter to be "beyond stupid".

Answer one question and we'll call it square: Why should a minor be allowed to disagree with the biological sex on their birth certificate,  but not their biological age? I'm pretty consistent, as I say they should not be able to disagree with either until they achieve the biological age of consent; regardless how they feel. 

[*bfine32*]

(05-24-2016, 08:09 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Out of curiosity, is anyone else conflicted in concurrently supporting laws that protect children and laws that end discrimination?

Out of curiosity, is anyone else conflicted in concurrently allowing a minor to not feel their birth sex, but mandating them to feel their birth age? 

[BmorePat87]

(05-24-2016, 08:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This is why I pointed to the minor in both cases. You wish to extend it to adulthood to try to solidify your point and quickly turn to the buzz words discrimination and protection. There is an element that feels we are protecting our youth by mandating that they shower and use the public facilities that is line with their biological sex. Some further feel that they are protecting the child by not allowing an adult of the opposite sex to use the same public facilities as them. Sort of like they feel 12 year old females shouldn't share showers, locker rooms and toilets with 40 year old males.  

You see their sense of protection as discrimination. Some would consider it a reach to say they don't feel the sex on their birth certificate. Hell they might even call it "beyond pathetically stupid". 

We can address what adults can do in an exchange when we are talking about adults, but as it stands right now only one of us is trying to bring adult's rights into the conversation. 

You really have not addressed the base issue besides trying to turn it into how adults should be given equal rights and considering other's thoughts on the matter to be "beyond stupid".

Answer one question and we'll call it square: Why should a minor be allowed to disagree with the biological sex on their birth certificate,  but not their biological age? I'm pretty consistent, as I say they should not be able to disagree with either until they achieve the biological age of consent; regardless how they feel. 

You jump around a lot to try and find a point that can stick. First this was me explaining that no one dictate's another person's sexuality, it's innate. Then it turned to you suggesting that a child should be able to be legally seen as an adult simply because they feel mature and also because we allow people to identify as a gender that does not match their birth sex. Now we're discussing protecting children from predators posing as trans people as a reason why trans bathroom laws aren't good. That's fine, but it's a totally different topic from discussing the fact that no one gives a kid the right to choose their sexuality, their sexuality is innate. 

However, if you're then going to compare anti trans bathroom laws to laws regulating child safety, I'm going to call shenanigans on it or at least ask to to consider other laws that will use the same warped logic. When we make laws regarding sexual consent or laws regarding mandatory schooling or laws regarding child welfare and parenting, we are making laws directly about the child. That's not the case with a trans bathroom law. If we use that logic, I am going to suggest you support banning all guns because a kid could be shot by one if someone abused gun ownership...

I also didn't call your opinion on trans bathroom laws "stupid". I said your little "don't identify with their birth age", which was an attempt to connect laws regulating the age of consent or adulthood to trans laws, was stupid. It is. It's really ***** stupid. 


As to this question

Quote: Why should a minor be allowed to disagree with the biological sex on their birth certificate,  but not their biological age? 

A child can neither change their sex nor change their age. They can identify as the gender that is associated with the sex opposite of their birth sex, but they will always possess either 2 X chromosomes or an X and a Y. Can they disagree with their sex and age? Sure, but they'll be wrong. 

You may want to ask "why should a minor be allowed to disagree with the gender associated with their birth sex, but not their biological age?"

The answer? Because our gender is our choice. Gender is a social construct ingrained in us through our socialization process. They are the only person who can know whether or not they identify with it. While time may be a construct, our age is something that cannot be changed. It is what it is. Our maturity is a different thing...

[*bfine32*]

(05-24-2016, 09:49 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You jump around a lot to try and find a point that can stick. First this was me explaining that no one dictate's another person's sexuality, it's innate. Then it turned to you suggesting that a child should be able to be legally seen as an adult simply because they feel mature and also because we allow people to identify as a gender that does not match their birth sex. Now we're discussing protecting children from predators posing as trans people as a reason why trans bathroom laws aren't good. That's fine, but it's a totally different topic from discussing the fact that no one gives a kid the right to choose their sexuality, their sexuality is innate. 

However, if you're then going to compare anti trans bathroom laws to laws regulating child safety, I'm going to call shenanigans on it or at least ask to to consider other laws that will use the same warped logic. When we make laws regarding sexual consent or laws regarding mandatory schooling or laws regarding child welfare and parenting, we are making laws directly about the child. That's not the case with a trans bathroom law. If we use that logic, I am going to suggest you support banning all guns because a kid could be shot by one if someone abused gun ownership...

I also didn't call your opinion on trans bathroom laws "stupid". I said your little "don't identify with their birth age", which was an attempt to connect laws regulating the age of consent or adulthood to trans laws, was stupid. It is. It's really ***** stupid. 


As to this question

A child can neither change their sex nor change their age. They can identify as the gender that is associated with the sex opposite of their birth sex, but they will always possess either 2 X chromosomes or an X and a Y. Can they disagree with their sex and age? Sure, but they'll be wrong. 

You may want to ask "why should a minor be allowed to disagree with the gender associated with their birth sex, but not their biological age?"

The answer? Because our gender is our choice. Gender is a social construct ingrained in us through our socialization process. They are the only person who can know whether or not they identify with it. While time may be a construct, our age is something that cannot be changed. It is what it is. Our maturity is a different thing...

So by your words: a Trans is being discriminated of because of their Gender, not because of their sex. But a child is not being discriminated against because we shouldn't consider maturity because "protection". 

Lots of talking in circles; we'll just leave it as I cannot comprehend to logic of the liberal.  I'm more of a black and white type; especially when it comes to children.