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

What???

People with penises can't use the girls bathroom?

Don't you all see this as a slippery slope? The next thing you know, Sanders will sign a bill that says people with penises can't shower after P.E. in the girls shower room!!

OOOOOH! HORRORS OF HORRORS!!!

 

I already explained why it's better and, as I predicted, you couldn't admit the obvious.

By not allowing them in at all, they can act before an attack occurs as opposed to allowing them in and then they can't do anything until an attack occurs. It really is that simple.

Now, the 'no gun zones' thing is VERY simple. It has NOTHING to do with preventing a criminal from being a criminal. It has EVERYTHING to do with allowing people to protect themselves. Why make a production of the fact that nobody here can defend themselves? That doesn't seem smart.

So in this regard those arguments are VERY consistent with each other which many a lefty in this thread has actually tried to claim the right is inconsistent here when actually, the opposite is true, we're being very consistent. In both scenarios we want the intended victims to better be able to protect/defend themselves. That seems pretty straightforward to me and yet here we have lefties against it because of a political agenda. That is unfortunate.

BTW....I love the personal attacks....it was a nice touch....not indicative of a strong argument but a nice touch regardless

 

Video of of Obama. MSNBC video.

Elections Have Consequences

https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/elections-have-consequences-44119619889

 

I wanted to start with your incidental ending, as it is so indicative of a particular, familiar mindset, on the Right: both in your discerning a "personal" attack, where none existed, and in alleging this, of me-- which could be taken, itself, as an attack on my character-- without specifying (surprise! surprise!) what that personal attack had been. Looking at my post, I can only think you are referring to my concluding line: "I eagerly await more of your brilliant analysis." Not only is yours, a snowflake-skinned reaction, to term my little bit of sarcasm, "personal attacks," plural; but as my argument had already concluded, it doesn't say much for your own point, that my inclusion of it, in any way indicated a weakness, in my argument.

Now to the main event:

I just have to interrupt, to clarify what you are saying. You are talking about making a rule, that "they" meaning anatomical males, not be allowed into restrooms designated for girls. Considering the arguments you are making, our language should not be so loose: the setting of a rule against entrance, on its own, does not deny anyone entrance; it only means that it will be known, that any of the prohibited who do enter, are doing so, in violation of the rule.

If I may be permitted my own, incidental aside, this reminds me of a recent thread on pronouns, in which @Adfundum had commented on how much more confusing, he felt the new pronoun use, would make things. And here, Ad, is a good example of the negligently less than clear use of pronouns, I had said that we all must contend with, already; that it really comes down to the speaker, as to how much attention they give, to being understandable. Here, for example, the two words "them," refer to anatomically male students, while the two "they" pronouns, refer to the males' potential, female victims.


Back to your argument. I already explained that there had already been an attack, perpetrated by a normal-looking boy, on a girl, in a girls' locker room, so that your speculated ability to act in advance, did not come into play. I had suggested that any potential attacker, would understand this ability of his potential victims, to see him coming, and therefore be forewarned, if only by a moment. So, it seems logical, to me, anyway, that since there are not always eyes on the entrance to all girls' facilities, anyone who truly intended to carry out such an attack-- and I will reiterate, I think this is a ridiculous supposition, particularly as limited to just trans girls-- would merely enter when they could do so, discretely. So much for your argument.

To my mind, it has everything to do with your not presenting a consistent argument. Since the guns of most concern, because they are the guns most often used in attacks on crowds of people, are AR rifles, which are not easily concealed, the exact same dynamic you present as being an aid to girls, facing a prospective rapist-- a pre-warning-- would be in effect at, say, an outdoor gathering, at which guns were prohibited. In fact, the amount of warning it would give-- if people in an outdoor setting, had a clear view of an assailant, approaching with a gun-- would be much more, than the warning which a girl, inside of a restroom would get, from the time that a boy entered through that restroom door.

So your poorly made argument, seems to rest on false presumptions. The first, is that the only defense against a person with a gun, is another gun. Not only does this discredit the arguments one often hears, that an assault rifle is no different from any other gun, and that any gun is no more dangerous than a kitchen knife, or any other weapon, from a baseball bat, to a motor vehicle-- despite that, given a choice, all would choose the assault rifle, in a duel-- but it has been proven manifestly false. Just recently, there have been two attacks, by people with guns, which were foiled by unarmed defenders. The first was by an army veteran, with friends at a gay club in Colorado, called Club Q.

https://www.npr.org/2022/11/22/1138...unman-at-gay-club-says-he-followed-his-instin

The second, was by an Asian man, in Monterey, CA, who disarmed a gunman who had already attacked one Asian dance club, when he entered a second one, to do the same.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna67061

Therefore, the case can be made that a gun-free zone does provide just as good, and usually better, warning than you had touted, in the case of girls' restrooms. Barring the gun ban, sure others could have guns, but there would be absolutely zero warning, before the shooter started killing people, because there would be no reason to see his carrying of a gun, as a threat.


That you would try to disregard this argument, to just declare yourself the victor, in our debate, does not speak well of your confidence in the strength of your own argument.


Lastly, as you try to make your case that, more important than having an early warning, when it is a gun attack, is the necessity that those under attack, have their own firearms: keep in mind, what that does to your other argument, about the benefit of girls' bathrooms being "off-limits" to trans females (which brings up your second, unwarranted assumption). Specifically, if the trans girl gets too upset with the bathroom situation, what would stop her (or him, under the theory that this is a ruse, which some guy might use, in order to rape a girl) from bringing a gun to the restroom, for their own attack?

 

Seem to be a trend with him

 

I’ll never understand why the two major parties are going toe to toe in the battle over bathrooms. That’s something that doesn’t affect 99% plus of us. Now things like inflation, crime, rising prices in all sectors, heath care, and many more do. Why should I vote or support any party that puts bathrooms above issues that affect us all?

 

Of course your asking others to participate when they are forced to use public facilities.

Equating separation of genders and voting is silly.

You didn't answer my question. Why have we historically had separate bathrooms and why do we were clothes?

 

Pedophilia exists too. In the name of equality and acceptance, should we allow them in the locker room with young children? Even if they don't rape a child?

Sorry, but the concept of inclusiveness does not trump everybody else's rights.i understand in the woke crowd, equality is prioritized above all other because it's perceived this is progressive superiority and anybody not on board is a bigot. This logical fallacy must completely ignore everybody else's rights.

Your rights end at the tip of somebody else's nose. Nobody has to give up their rights to preserve yours, and certainly not I'm the name of some self perception issue and feelings.

 

Does abortion affect you or "us all"? Based upon your statement, I take it you don't vote for anyone that makes it an issue during elections.

 

As a society we DON'T accept pedos for obvious reasons. Horrifically bad analogy.

 

Emotional based illogical solution.

I'm in the industry of construction, it would cost trillions of dollars to convert all public facilities to cater to a tiny fraction of society.

Is that wokeness? The feelings drive "solutions" that simply don't make sense?

 

This reminds me of my company being forced to install handicapped (wheel chair) bathrooms on the second floor of one of its production buildings. Didn't matter that there was no way, other than the steps, to get to the second floor. The other odd thing was the Braille placards on the outside of the bathrooms indicating whether it was male or female. How would a blind person see the signs? The person requiring these silly accommodations must have been a "woke" supporter.

 

Abortion, although I call myself pro-choice as I believe it should be left up to the woman. Abortion isn’t high on my priority list. I’ve voted for pro-choice candidates and pro-life candidates. I vote for the candidate that I think will do the best job for whatever office he’s running for. I’m a swing voter and swing back and forth between major parties with an occasional vote for third party candidates when I detest both major party candidates. I also usually ticket split. Just like I did this last midterm. Voted for a Republican for Governor, voted for the libertarian candidate for the senate as I didn’t like either major party’s candidates, so I voted against both and voted democratic for my congressman. I’m the type of voter both major parties hate as they can’t control me through their propaganda rhetoric. Free thinkers aren’t allowed in either major party, both want mindless robots who pass their litmus tests with a 100% result. Anything less, both major parties try to get rid of them. No wonder independents have grown from 30% in 2006 to 42% today as both major parties shrink. Perhaps there are more free thinkers out there than the two major parties want and probably abhor.

 

I don’t know Aus has more than a few unisex toilets

 

Give the left a little more time....

 

My point was, that politicians campaign on social issues that don't directly affect us, but which we hold a personal position on. You may not be influenced by social issues in choosing who to vote for, but most do. It's the reason why candidates campaign on certain issues; appealing not to just those directly affected, but those with an ideological position. This past midterms is said to have been decided over the abortion issue and yet the vast majority of those who cast their votes for candidates supporting abortion weren't directly affected by it.

 

99.9999999% of girls are raped by heterosexuals, she needed to go after them dang evil heterosexuals

 

Where have you been? The trans community has repeatedly told us that being trans does not equal being gay. I know there should be a chart on this that we can refer to in a pinch, but consider yourself schooled.

 

not sure your point, lesbians and gays will still use the same genders restroom under this law, same group showers even

why doesn't Sanders ban group showers in our schools?

 

Well it doesn't. Sexual orientation and gender dysphoria are two entirely separate things.

 

Oh, look ! The righties in this thread, after having their bigotry dismantled, are starting to throw around the word "woke" !

They don't even know what "woke" refers to , but they're sure it's an insult , so off we go !

 

So despite your claims of how confusing it is you knew exactly what I meant...

So you think one example disproves my argument? That's not how it works.....not even close.

Nowhere did I claim that it would prevent all attacks so your anecdotal example is completely meaningless as it disproves something that nobody claimed.

Stop pretending I claimed things I didn't.

Once again, NOBODY is making this argument. If you have to argue against things that weren't even claimed in the first place, you have no argument at all since it's clear you can't argue against the things I actually said.

I'm seeing a pattern. You think anecdotal evidence proves something.....it doesn't....ever.

If no guns were just as good as guns and defending against others with guns, police would have no need to be armed.

Nope, that case can't, and hasn't, been made. Not to go on like a broken record, but your anecdotal evidence doesn't prove this in any way.

Nothing would stop here other than proper security.....which is my entire argument.

You can argue with someone else now. You are attempting to use poor tactics like anecdotal evidence and arguing against things I didn't say. It's not worth any more of my time to correct you.

 

It sounds minor but imagine the tax payer cost to put a 3rd bathroom in every single public facility in the country. It might actually be cheaper to have one ALL GENDER bathroom and throw a security guard in each one.

 

Are people really suggesting security guards for bathrooms? Talk about creating a problem that doesn't exist. WTF....people have lost their minds.