Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

Ad hominem attacks rather than presenting a reasonable argument. Very interesting way to have a discussion.

Making a bunch of claims without backing any of them up. Very interesting way to have a discussion.
Painting an entire gender as being helpless and needing protection. Very interesting way to have a discussion.
Painting all transgender men as being a potential thread to women. Very interesting way to have a discussion.
Pointing out over and over again that men with penises can overpower women, but then claiming it has nothing to do with the discussion and that it's all about privacy. Very interesting way to have a discussion.

We could go on of course, but that wouldn't be a very interesting way to have a discussion.

 Ustrello wrote:


Seeing how fervently you and DM are trying to defend said positions it is pretty easy to say that those are your positions

I am presenting a different point of view. If you've ever been on a debate team you will know that you don't always get to argue the side you favor. You still argue none the less.

Instead of making it personal, as some already have here, just take the point at face value.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I am slowly beginning to think that Mdlbuildr believes all men are animals and cannot/should not be trusted around women and children without supervision.

Thank you for attacking me and not reading what I wrote initially. I am presenting an argument. Whether these are my opinions are irrelevant to this discussion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheMeanDM wrote:

However....it also reeks to me of a perv taking advantage of the law.

Which is exactly the point. The argument isn't that Transgender will rape or will do harm. It is that it will give license to those that will who aren't Transgenders.

That has been the whole point all along.

No, it hasn't No matter what law is passed, those people can still find ways to do those things. They are criminals with problems. You don't understand that punishing transgenders for something non-transgenders did is wrong.

 d-usa wrote:

Mdlbuildr wrote:

Ad hominem attacks rather than presenting a reasonable argument. Very interesting way to have a discussion.

Making a bunch of claims without backing any of them up. Very interesting way to have a discussion.
Painting an entire gender as being helpless and needing protection. Very interesting way to have a discussion.
Painting all transgender men as being a potential thread to women. Very interesting way to have a discussion.
Pointing out over and over again that men with penises can overpower women, but then claiming it has nothing to do with the discussion and that it's all about privacy. Very interesting way to have a discussion.

We could go on of course, but that wouldn't be a very interesting way to have a discussion.

The difference is I've not attacked you personally. Now you are being argumentative because that's how you roll.

Typical Ad Hominem tactic.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:


Seeing how fervently you and DM are trying to defend said positions it is pretty easy to say that those are your positions

I am presenting a different point of view. If you've ever been on a debate team you will know that you don't always get to argue the side you favor. You still argue none the less.

Instead of making it personal, as some already have here, just take the point at face value.

Except this isn't a debate team and you are free to post your own opinion instead of hiding behind the devils advocate role.

Mdlbuildr wrote:
[
Which is exactly the point. The argument isn't that Transgender will rape or will do harm. It is that it will give license to those that will who aren't Transgenders.

Well, then the solution is simple.

If we can all agree that this sign has been the main reason why women don't have erect penises shoved in their faces:



Then we just post a new plastic sign on all the doors saying "don't be a pervert & don't be a rapist".

The power of plastic sings when it comes to stopping crime is amazing. What's next, no gun signs?

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Mdlbuildr wrote:

Ad hominem attacks rather than presenting a reasonable argument. Very interesting way to have a discussion.

Making a bunch of claims without backing any of them up. Very interesting way to have a discussion.
Painting an entire gender as being helpless and needing protection. Very interesting way to have a discussion.
Painting all transgender men as being a potential thread to women. Very interesting way to have a discussion.
Pointing out over and over again that men with penises can overpower women, but then claiming it has nothing to do with the discussion and that it's all about privacy. Very interesting way to have a discussion.

We could go on of course, but that wouldn't be a very interesting way to have a discussion.

The difference is I've not attacked you personally. Now you are being argumentative because that's how you roll.

Typical Ad Hominem tactic.

Except that isn't an ad hominem attack.

 Ustrello wrote:
Except this isn't a debate team and you are free to post your own opinion instead of hiding behind the devils advocate role.

Especially the number of times I've seen users on these fora play the role of devil's advocate.... Generally speaking, when those users go into devil's advocate mode, they begin their post with something like "Just to play Devil's Advocate....."

 Dreadwinter wrote:


No, it hasn't No matter what law is passed, those people can still find ways to do those things. They are criminals with problems. You don't understand that punishing transgenders for something non-transgenders did is wrong.

That is your opinion and for you it is valid. That does not invalidate my argument.

That being said, that is the way of the world. The actions of a few dictate the laws for the rest of us.

Yes, it is already against the law for men or women to film, harass, assault, etc other people in a bathroom or locker room.

But what I think Md is trying to get at, is that by allowing transgender individuals full access to bathrooms and locker rooms, you are actually making it easier for pervs to get into those areas for nefarious purposes.

Right now, if a dude that looks like a lady goes into such areas, and women feel uncomfortable with him entering, they have the ability to say and do something about it.

But if the laws are changed to make access easier for anyone....there is a distinct possibility that pervs will be able to carry out their activities easier because hey....they can no longer be questioned about being in said area because today they "identify" as a woman (or man).

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Mdlbuildr wrote:

Ad hominem attacks rather than presenting a reasonable argument. Very interesting way to have a discussion.

Making a bunch of claims without backing any of them up. Very interesting way to have a discussion.
Painting an entire gender as being helpless and needing protection. Very interesting way to have a discussion.
Painting all transgender men as being a potential thread to women. Very interesting way to have a discussion.
Pointing out over and over again that men with penises can overpower women, but then claiming it has nothing to do with the discussion and that it's all about privacy. Very interesting way to have a discussion.

We could go on of course, but that wouldn't be a very interesting way to have a discussion.

The difference is I've not attacked you personally. Now you are being argumentative because that's how you roll.

Typical Ad Hominem tactic.

"I didn't call you a potential rapist, only thousands of other people."

D-USA,

In one of your previous posts, I believe you said that maybe I'm a rapist.

Ad Hominem attack incarnate.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Yes, it is already against the law for men or women to film, harass, assault, etc other people in a bathroom or locker room.

But what I think Md is trying to get at, is that by allowing transgender individuals full access to bathrooms and locker rooms, you are actually making it easier for pervs to get into those areas for nefarious purposes.

Right now, if a dude that looks like a lady goes into such areas, and women feel uncomfortable with him entering, they have the ability to say and do something about it.

But if the laws are changed to make access easier for anyone....there is a possibility that pervs will be able to carry out their activities easier because hey....they can no longer be questioned about being in said area.

So if a guy sports an erection while staring at my junk as I am toweling off in the locker room, I don't the ability to say and do something about it?

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Yes, it is already against the law for men or women to film, harass, assault, etc other people in a bathroom or locker room.

But what I think Md is trying to get at, is that by allowing transgender individuals full access to bathrooms and locker rooms, you are actually making it easier for pervs to get into those areas for nefarious purposes.

Right now, if a dude that looks like a lady goes into such areas, and women feel uncomfortable with him entering, they have the ability to say and do something about it.

But if the laws are changed to make access easier for anyone....there is a distinct possibility that pervs will be able to carry out their activities easier because hey....they can no longer be questioned about being in said area because today they "identify" as a woman (or man).

Thank you for that very concise and logical statement.

Mdlbuildr wrote:
D-USA,

In one of your previous posts, I believe you said that maybe I'm a rapist.

Ad Hominem attack incarnate.

Are you a male capable of having an erection who is physically able to overpower women?

Doesn't that fit your own definition of the type of person that is a potential threat to women?

Mdlbuildr wrote:
The actions of a few dictate the laws for the rest of us.

See, in some instances this makes sense.... People committing suicide, or attempting to by jumping off an overpass into oncoming freeway traffic: let's put a fence up. People throwing large trash items, or large rocks off an overpass, causing wrecks and breaking windshields, etc: let's put an angle on the fence so as to make it more difficult to throw things. a small group of people owning the lion-share of a business sector, pushing out competition, so we legislate against that. People get drunk, get in their car and drive, get into a wreck... so we legislate against drunk driving.


Tell me, what "crime" have trans people committed that we need to legislate against them going to the bathroom?

 d-usa wrote:

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Yes, it is already against the law for men or women to film, harass, assault, etc other people in a bathroom or locker room.

But what I think Md is trying to get at, is that by allowing transgender individuals full access to bathrooms and locker rooms, you are actually making it easier for pervs to get into those areas for nefarious purposes.

Right now, if a dude that looks like a lady goes into such areas, and women feel uncomfortable with him entering, they have the ability to say and do something about it.

But if the laws are changed to make access easier for anyone....there is a possibility that pervs will be able to carry out their activities easier because hey....they can no longer be questioned about being in said area.

So if a guy sports an erection while staring at my junk as I am toweling off in the locker room, I don't the ability to say and do something about it?

Yes, that is exactly what can happen. Right now they can be charged with lewd behavior.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


Tell me, what "crime" have trans people committed that we need to legislate against them going to the bathroom?

Other Non-Transgenders have committed crimes claiming they are Transgender. That has spoiled the outcome.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

Mdlbuildr wrote:
D-USA,

In one of your previous posts, I believe you said that maybe I'm a rapist.

Ad Hominem attack incarnate.

Are you a male capable of having an erection who is physically able to overpower women?

Doesn't that fit your own definition of the type of person that is a potential threat to women?

Sir, you called me a potential rapist. I have nothing further to discuss with you.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Yes, it is already against the law for men or women to film, harass, assault, etc other people in a bathroom or locker room.

But what I think Md is trying to get at, is that by allowing transgender individuals full access to bathrooms and locker rooms, you are actually making it easier for pervs to get into those areas for nefarious purposes.

Right now, if a dude that looks like a lady goes into such areas, and women feel uncomfortable with him entering, they have the ability to say and do something about it.

But if the laws are changed to make access easier for anyone....there is a distinct possibility that pervs will be able to carry out their activities easier because hey....they can no longer be questioned about being in said area because today they "identify" as a woman (or man).

Okay, you do not get to kick somebody out because they make you feel uncomfortable. Maybe you are just misinterpreting them or maybe you are just a prejudice crazy person. You can have somebody kicked out if they are harrassing people in the bathroom, like filming, assaulting, and taking photos. But you don't get to kick somebody out just because they make you uncomfortable. Just leave.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Yes, it is already against the law for men or women to film, harass, assault, etc other people in a bathroom or locker room.

But what I think Md is trying to get at, is that by allowing transgender individuals full access to bathrooms and locker rooms, you are actually making it easier for pervs to get into those areas for nefarious purposes.

Right now, if a dude that looks like a lady goes into such areas, and women feel uncomfortable with him entering, they have the ability to say and do something about it.

But if the laws are changed to make access easier for anyone....there is a possibility that pervs will be able to carry out their activities easier because hey....they can no longer be questioned about being in said area.

So if a guy sports an erection while staring at my junk as I am toweling off in the locker room, I don't the ability to say and do something about it?

Yes, that is exactly what can happen. Right now they can be charged with lewd behavior.

And what part of unisex bathrooms suddenly takes away the ability to charge them with lewd behavior?

 Dreadwinter wrote:


Okay, you do not get to kick somebody out because they make you feel uncomfortable. Maybe you are just misinterpreting them or maybe you are just a prejudice crazy person. You can have somebody kicked out if they are harrassing people in the bathroom, like filming, assaulting, and taking photos. But you don't get to kick somebody out just because they make you uncomfortable. Just leave.

A transgender female gets an erection in the women's locker room and all the women are supposed to leave?

Mdlbuildr wrote:

Sir, you called me a potential rapist. I have nothing further to discuss with you.

Mighty thin skin from someone that throws around the fact that people are potential rapists quite a few times during the past hour.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:


Okay, you do not get to kick somebody out because they make you feel uncomfortable. Maybe you are just misinterpreting them or maybe you are just a prejudice crazy person. You can have somebody kicked out if they are harrassing people in the bathroom, like filming, assaulting, and taking photos. But you don't get to kick somebody out just because they make you uncomfortable. Just leave.

A transgender female gets an erection in the women's locker room and all the women are supposed to leave?

What do you do when another man gets an erection in the locker room with you?

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Can you find any reports of women in change rooms being assaulted by Transgender people before
before now?

http://www.dailywire.com/news/5190/5-times-transgender-men-abused-women-and-children-amanda-prestigiacomo

I would recommend actually reading an article before presenting it as evidence...

How so?

I asked you if you had any examples of trans people assaulting women in change rooms.

You linked an article that listed 5 examples of people claiming to be trans in order to assault women.

Not actually the same thing.

Mdlbuildr wrote:
Which is exactly the point. The argument isn't that Transgender will rape or will do harm. It is that it will give license to those that will who aren't Transgenders.

That has been the whole point all along.

Then you've been making that point fairly badly, as you've been specifically talking about trans people in changing rooms getting aroused and being incapable of not assaulting people as a result...

Mdlbuildr wrote:

By saying "what are complaining about?", you aren't giving validity to the argument. It is not a complaint. It is point of discussion. You are passive aggressively trying to "win" an argument by minimizing an opinion.

No, by asking 'what are you complaining about' I am asking you to clarify what you are complaining about, because at that point in the discussion it wasn't entirely clear.

It still isn't.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:


Okay, you do not get to kick somebody out because they make you feel uncomfortable. Maybe you are just misinterpreting them or maybe you are just a prejudice crazy person. You can have somebody kicked out if they are harrassing people in the bathroom, like filming, assaulting, and taking photos. But you don't get to kick somebody out just because they make you uncomfortable. Just leave.

A transgender female gets an erection in the women's locker room and all the women are supposed to leave?

No, you do the same thing when a man gets an erection in front of you. Have them removed from the facilities for indecently exposing their erect penis to you.

Mdlbuildr wrote:


Sir, you called me a potential rapist. I have nothing further to discuss with you.

Sir, you called me a potential rapist because I was once 16 years old. However, I see how ridiculous that statement is and I have gotten on with it to continue the discussion.

I assume you can muster enough to do so as well.

 d-usa wrote:

What do you do when another man gets an erection in the locker room with you?

I believe at that point you're supposed to overpower them.


Which seems like it's kind of playing into their hands, frankly...

 d-usa wrote:

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Yes, it is already against the law for men or women to film, harass, assault, etc other people in a bathroom or locker room.

But what I think Md is trying to get at, is that by allowing transgender individuals full access to bathrooms and locker rooms, you are actually making it easier for pervs to get into those areas for nefarious purposes.

Right now, if a dude that looks like a lady goes into such areas, and women feel uncomfortable with him entering, they have the ability to say and do something about it.

But if the laws are changed to make access easier for anyone....there is a possibility that pervs will be able to carry out their activities easier because hey....they can no longer be questioned about being in said area.

So if a guy sports an erection while staring at my junk as I am toweling off in the locker room, I don't the ability to say and do something about it?

The question is: what do you *think* you can do about it that will get him to stop?

A guy in a guy's locker room is a-ok by the law...just so we are all on the same page.

He happens to be looking at you and he gets an erection.

You ask him to not look at you. Does that mean he has to stop? Nope. He is just looking.

Are you going to threaten him if he doesn't stop looking? Go ahead and do that and he has a case against you in a court of law (it is illegal to threaten bodily harm).

So all you can do is report him to the manager/whatever...but you need to prove he was harassing you or whatever...because while sporting wood in a guys locker room is against the bro code and general manners of locker rooms...there isnt anything illegal about it.

So beyond that...take and cover up your uncomfortable self, or leave the locker room.

Now....if he were leering, jeering, choking the bishop, or otherwise making it obvious he was doing the viewing on purpose...that is a different situation.

 insaniak wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

What do you do when another man gets an erection in the locker room with you?

I believe at that point you're supposed to overpower them.


Which seems like it's kind of playing into their hands, frankly...

I suppose in that case that you had better hope it was leg day for Mr. Erection

 insaniak wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

What do you do when another man gets an erection in the locker room with you?

I believe at that point you're supposed to overpower them.


Which seems like it's kind of playing into their hands, frankly...

I will be honest, I never had to wrestle anybody in a locker room with an erect penis. At what point does the baby oil come in?

Asking for a friend.

 insaniak wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

What do you do when another man gets an erection in the locker room with you?

I believe at that point you're supposed to overpower them.


Which seems like it's kind of playing into their hands, frankly...

You are supposed to yell think of the children and demand their immediate removal.

 TheMeanDM wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Yes, it is already against the law for men or women to film, harass, assault, etc other people in a bathroom or locker room.

But what I think Md is trying to get at, is that by allowing transgender individuals full access to bathrooms and locker rooms, you are actually making it easier for pervs to get into those areas for nefarious purposes.

Right now, if a dude that looks like a lady goes into such areas, and women feel uncomfortable with him entering, they have the ability to say and do something about it.

But if the laws are changed to make access easier for anyone....there is a possibility that pervs will be able to carry out their activities easier because hey....they can no longer be questioned about being in said area.

So if a guy sports an erection while staring at my junk as I am toweling off in the locker room, I don't the ability to say and do something about it?

The question is: what do you *think* you can do about it that will get him to stop?

A guy in a guy's locker room is a-ok by the law...just so we are all on the same page.

He happens to be looking at you and he gets an erection.

You ask him to not look at you. Does that mean he has to stop? Nope. He is just looking.

Are you going to threaten him if he doesn't stop looking? Go ahead and do that and he has a case against you in a court of law (it is illegal to threaten bodily harm).

So all you can do is report him to the manager/whatever...but you need to prove he was harassing you or whatever...because while sporting wood in a guys locker room is against the bro code and general manners of locker rooms...there isnt anything illegal about it.

So beyond that...take and cover up your uncomfortable self, or leave the locker room.

Now....if he were leering, jeering, choking the bishop, or otherwise making it obvious he was doing the viewing on purpose...that is a different situation.

So nothing changes with any of the proposed laws.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

What do you do when another man gets an erection in the locker room with you?

I believe at that point you're supposed to overpower them.


Which seems like it's kind of playing into their hands, frankly...

Well, sport is sport...

As far as "majority" goes:

Presidents have been elected with *less* than a 50% majority popular vote.

Majority does not necessarily equal 50%. Yes, a simple majority does...but its not always that simple.
(Bush v Gore, Clinton v Dole, Clinton v Bush, Nixon v Humphrey....as examples)