Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders Signs Law Prohibiting Transgender Restrooms in Schools

WRONG. A guard, could prevent a potential rapist from entering a girls' bathroom. If you believed that a mere sign, or rule, could do this, you would not have said that laws cannot "stop criminals from being criminals." Or do words only have this magical power of protection, when applied to girls' lavatory facilities?

Again, I am not asserting that rules are pointless: I am saying that an individual's arguments, should view rules, in a consistent manner, from one situation, to the next (or specify what factors change their calculus).

 

A guard standing outside of each girls restrooms in all schools. Why didn't I think of that? ****ing genius.

 

Meanwhile of course it is OKAY to use kids as slave labor

https://www.npr.org/2023/03/10/1162...law-under-16-years-old-sarah-huckabee-sanders

 

Why not just have individual restrooms that are “unisex” like the disability toilets are?

 

I'm not against that

 

Nope

Not allowing boys in girls restrooms gives them a way to preemptively protect themselves as they can say something as soon as one walks in.....before an assault begins.

Allowing boys in girls restrooms doesn't give them any way to act until the assault happens.

If you truly are 'not taking sides' then you'll easily be able to admit how one is clearly a safer practice than the other. My guess is you are very much taking sides and will not be able to admit something so obvious.

Also, comparing this situation to gun free zones is absurd and not comparable. It's not the topic but if you'd like me to very quickly and easily explain why it's not comparable I'd be glad to.

 

Apparently, you must have played a lot of football, in the days of leather helmets, to think that I was recommending this. I had only offered guards, as an example, to try to clarify for you, the problem with your other impotent argument, that a mere rule, would be sufficient to stop, a potential rapist. Even though, you have no trouble understanding, it would not stop someone, carrying a gun, from going someplace, in violation of "the rules."

You make the most pathetic arguments imaginable-- though, granted, there are several others, with whom you tie, for that "honorific."

 

LOL, you reds believe a ****ing wall is going to stop all illegal activities from ever happening at our borders.

 

Let's make all the natural born girls wear chastity belts and then they can't be raped.

 

Yeah sure, the open border situation is working out just fine.

Make a new thread if you want to change the topic.

 

Why don't you explain how a wall that expands across the entire border will solve all the issues at the border, but a guard outside one restroom will solve nothing and laughable to you?

 

Yea, I thought that's what we did in the US.

 

Why don't you make a new thread on the topic instead of taking over someone's thread with your bullshit?

 

again, 2 things not related at all to THIS thread. Please feel free to make your own thread of these completely different topics and I'll gladly come in and show my support.

 

Then maybe a better solution would be to allocate some funds to schools to upgrade the toilets to include more individual unisex toilets. We had a horrific case here of a child that was raped and killed by a predator in a toilet in a shopping mall.

 

I beg to differ. Kids, especially immigrant kids can be in a VERY vulnerable position when it comes to employment. I can foresee massive opportunities for predation by paedophiles

 

Don’t even have to do that lols

 

Where do you get an idea like that?

 

Middle Ages lols!

 

The better question, is: why did you not quote the rest of my post, in which I say:

Clearly, I had not been advocating "guards." I had been giving you the credit, for being able to recognize the strength of the defense, you had been claiming, this rule would provide, relatively speaking. Though I'd not thought of it this way, it seems I had also been crediting you, with the mental acumen, to recall that the idea that girls needed protection, from trans "girls" raping them, was yours, not mine!


Here was an earlier clue, addressed to you, which you'd failed to grasp, meant that I was not advocating guards, at girls' bathrooms:

Since it feels like I am trying to explain their argument's logical errors, to a swine, I will dispense with this other post of yours, directed to me, in this same post, to be done with your swill:

It is you and your comrades, in this argument, who are contending that females need this protection, which you here mock.
DUH!

 

OMG!!!! So we are doing what we did 5 years ago!? The horror!

 

So why is a guard outside a single restroom laughable to you?

 

Since 1) this thread, according to the thread's creator, is about preventing the raping of girls, by penis-owning "trans girls," in Arkansas schools, through Governor Huckabee-Sanders' brave leadership; and since 2) the idea that this is a problem, is ludicrous fantasy, and is even *unrelated to the one case in which a normal-- not trans-- male student, raped a female student, in the girls' shower room;
I will take you up on your offer, to explain why this is an eminently more effective tool, in this circumstance, than it would be against guns.

Presumably, boys were always "prohibited" from going in the girls' showers. And yet, somehow the early-warning alert system, you had so confidently explained to us all, didn't have the prophylactic effect, you had depicted as a given, common sense expectation. Apparently, it is possible, when one intends to break rules, to do so when there are not witnesses present, to observe the behavior-- who could have ever predicted such a thing!?

So, tell me, now, how this rule is going to lead to fewer rapes of schoolgirls, by schoolboys calling themselves trans girls, when there are currently none of these, occurring? I eagerly await more of your brilliant analysis.

 

Sarcasm

 

While I cannot speak to the origins of Darth's personal fantasies, he has misled us all, as to the content of the story. Based on the thread title, the article is only about not having bathrooms, specifically dedicated to trans students, so it is hard to see how that accomplishes much of anything. It means these students would have to continue to use either the restrooms of the girls-- which some are contending puts those girls at risk-- or else, those for the boys. As I think it is more than a fantasy, that boys, presenting as girls, have suffered violence at the hands of other boys, it would seem that Governor Sanders is only promising not to remove the potential for violence, and the real or imagined causes for concern, among parents, revolving around restrooms.

While some might see this as a way for her to continue to stoke culture war controversy, and disproportionally emphasize a trivial issue, rather than to focus, as the state's political leader, on any matter of significance, we should give her the benefit of the doubt, that it might simply be a matter of her being too cheap, to want to invest in any new, school bathrooms.