(04-30-2016, 09:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If you interpret it as him saying there was no need for any law; then I agree with it. If you are saying he is saying there is no need to counter a law that "means nothing" then I disagree with his logic

(05-01-2016, 12:06 PM)GMDino Wrote: In other words:

"If you agree with me I agree with it...if not then it is not logical".

(05-01-2016, 12:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As to the translation of your thoughts: Are you saying transwomen get attacked in women's facilities more, because they go in thier less out of fear of criminal prosection? Because if that is the case then that logic ranks right up their with your "proof" that they get attacked more by going into the (as you call it ) "wrong" facility, but posting examples of them getting attacked in the "right" facility.

(05-01-2016, 12:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: uuhhmmm, I didn't say it wasn't logical, that's just something you made up to try to obtain a "gotcha", Fred. I simply said I don't agree with the logic.

(04-30-2016, 09:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If you interpret it as him saying there was no need for any law; then I agree with it.

(05-01-2016, 12:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But somehow you find it "hilarious" that someone would agree with someone that agrees with them and disagree with someone who does not.

You're trying too hard Fred and you're slipping.

(05-01-2016, 01:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am saying that transwomen rarely get attacked in the mens room because they rarely use the mens room.

And I am saying that they should not be subject to criminal prosecution for trying to decrease their chances of getting attacked.

Transgenders are going to get attacked by people based on their gender identification no matter which restroom they use.  A transgender woman is subject to being attacked in the mens room for being a "hommo" or a "fagggott", and  transgender woman is subject to getting attacked in the ladies room for having a dick.  But by allowing her to use the ladies room it will greatly reduce the chance of an attack because it will be much harder to identify her as a transgender in the ladies room.  Right now most transgender women use the ladies room.  That is why there are not a lot of examples of them being attacked in mens restrooms.  But they should not have to risk criminal charges for trying to protect themselves from violence.

(05-01-2016, 01:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am saying that transwomen rarely get attacked in the mens room because they rarely use the mens room.

And I am saying that they should not be subject to criminal prosecution for trying to decrease their chances of getting attacked.

Transgenders are going to get attacked by people based on their gender identification no matter which restroom they use.  A transgender woman is subject to being attacked in the mens room for being a "hommo" or a "fagggott", and  transgender woman is subject to getting attacked in the ladies room for having a dick.  But by allowing her to use the ladies room it will greatly reduce the chance of an attack because it will be much harder to identify her as a transgender in the ladies room.  Right now most transgender women use the ladies room.  That is why there are not a lot of examples of them being attacked in mens restrooms.  But they should not have to risk criminal charges for trying to protect themselves from violence.

(05-01-2016, 01:36 PM)GMDino Wrote: I didn't say you said it was logical. I sain in your "logic" it is correct if it means it agrees with your logic.





I find is that you agree it is logical if we can interpret it to agree with you only.

And I'm not Fred. You should probably stop throwing accusations around without any proof. Or, as you say, STFU.

(05-01-2016, 01:44 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I thought transwomen used the ladies room because they thought they were women not because they were afraid of getting assaulted in the men's room.

(04-30-2016, 09:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If you interpret it as him saying there was no need for any law; then I agree with it. If you are saying he is saying there is no need to counter a law that "means nothing" then I disagree with his logic

(05-01-2016, 01:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yep, still trying too hard Fred; as this made zero sense.

(05-01-2016, 02:10 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: What's up with the monkey avatars?

(05-01-2016, 02:05 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It's pretty clear he is saying that there is no need for anti trans bathroom laws because the problems they seek to solve do not exist. 

(05-01-2016, 01:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So now we are at: Most transwomen already use and are assaulted in the "correct" facility; so we need a law allowing them to use the facility?

(05-01-2016, 02:23 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Most transwomen do use the ladies room, but they are subject to criminal charges for it.

If they followed the law they would be subject to more attacks.

I'll keep repeating it over and over until you get it.  They should not have to face criminal charges for using the restroom where they are the safest.

(05-01-2016, 03:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Now for a point apparently overlokked earlier: Do you think mental state trumps physical state?

(05-01-2016, 03:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: That is too broad of a generality to either agree or disagree with.

I am not even sure I understand exactly what it means.  "Does happiness trump being a liquid?"

(05-01-2016, 03:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Has to do with your constant use of "right" and "wrong" facilities:

If a person is physically a male; yet feels like a woman, which is the correct facilities for that person to use male or female?

If you say female then you are suggesting the mental states trumps the physical. I really didn't think the question was that complicated.

(05-01-2016, 02:10 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: What's up with the monkey avatars?

(05-02-2016, 10:29 PM)Tiger Teeth Wrote: Yeah, I've been following this thread, and WTF is up with all the armed chimps?