Author Topic: 'Mom' and 'Dad' banished by California (Read 13550 times)

cordex · « **Reply #25 on:** October 15, 2007, 07:40:52 AM »

Quote from: Nitrogen on October 15, 2007, 12:06:44 AM

He/she would have to be under treatment for gender dysphoria. If someone wants to use the woman's shower, they have to be living as a woman, even if they are genetically male, for instance.

Whoa ... women and men are supposed to live differently? Isn't that discriminatory?
If someone is genetically male but feel that they are really a strong female that chooses to dress and behave in a traditionally "masculine" manner, are they not protected?

Quote from: Nitrogen on October 15, 2007, 12:06:44 AM

As I said before, it's NOT to allow someone to just walk into somewhere to get their jollies.

I agree, this law is not intended to achieve that goal.

longeyes · « **Reply #26 on:** October 15, 2007, 08:33:45 AM »

What is amazing is how, in this matter and in the matter of gun laws, a small number of uber-zealots, aided and abetted by a cadre of wacked-out jurists and lawyers and the general apathy of the consumer class, can overturn a society in short order.

Enjoy.

Strings · « **Reply #27 on:** October 15, 2007, 01:57:24 PM »

Ya know, I'm all about "alternative lifestyles" being accepted and all. But this just seems to go a bit too far for my tastes...

I have to ask: who decides when someone is suffering from "gender dysphoria"? Does it take an actual psychological eval, or what? I mean, I've always been a lesbian trapped in a man's body...

And what's up with "not consulting the parents"? shouldn't they KNOW if their child is being treated in such a manner?

no... this still sounds like a bad idea...

jnojr · « **Reply #28 on:** October 15, 2007, 02:12:37 PM »

Quote from: charby on October 15, 2007, 06:18:46 AM

So Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts will be no more in California?

They could become the "Person Scouts".

roo_ster · « **Reply #29 on:** October 17, 2007, 04:41:58 AM »

Quote from: longeyes on October 15, 2007, 07:33:45 AM

What is amazing is how, in this matter and in the matter of gun laws, a small number of uber-zealots, aided and abetted by a cadre of wacked-out jurists and lawyers and the general apathy of the consumer class, can overturn a society in short order.

Enjoy.

This needs to be repeated.

GigaBuist · « **Reply #30 on:** October 17, 2007, 10:17:19 AM »

Quote from: Strings on October 15, 2007, 12:57:24 PM

I mean, I've always been a lesbian trapped in a man's body...

I had an in-law go that route. It didn't sit too well with his wife of 18 years and explaining why "Keith" was no longer at family functions to the 80 year old grand parents took a while.

Man, now I can't stop thinking of that scene in Kintergarden Cop where a boy (he looked like a boy, probably had boy parts, but he might have been a girl on the inside) stands up and says, "Boys have a penis. Girls have a vagina."

Anybody having trouble figuring out which one they are should drop everything else in their life and get that one sorted out as soon as possible.

Strings · « **Reply #31 on:** October 17, 2007, 01:02:55 PM »

Odd... my wife doesn't have any problem with it. Heck, neither of the girls do... Wink

Brad Johnson · « **Reply #32 on:** October 17, 2007, 01:10:19 PM »

As a confirmed heterosexual, I feel shunned and discriminated against. Can I sue?

Brad

Devonai · « **Reply #33 on:** October 18, 2007, 06:21:35 AM »

Okay, let's assume they'll be using the MMPI* or a similar test to determine gender confusion. Like any test, the taker (assuming average intelligence) can skew the results to any result they please, especially on questions of gender identity. People can also lie to psychiatrists. So in my opinion there is nothing preventing anyone who wants "cheap thrills" bad enough from getting themselves into the women's locker room/showers.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mmpi

Antibubba · « **Reply #34 on:** October 18, 2007, 11:56:42 AM »

The group who wrote that article are in the "God hates fags" category, OK? They're not an unbiased observer. As for gender dysphoria, the Wiki article is a good start. Also look up "Intersex".

The effects of this law are pretty narrow--the stuff about boys and girls bathroom is nonsense.

Manedwolf · « **Reply #35 on:** October 18, 2007, 12:08:06 PM »

I hear of an awful lot of transgender males who become females, and then declare they're lesbians.

You know, I'd just call that..."confused".

roo_ster · « **Reply #36 on:** October 19, 2007, 04:04:13 AM »

Quote from: Antibubba on October 18, 2007, 10:56:42 AM

The group who wrote that article are in the "God hates fags" category, OK? They're not an unbiased observer. As for gender dysphoria, the Wiki article is a good start. Also look up "Intersex".

The effects of this law are pretty narrow--the stuff about boys and girls bathroom is nonsense.

Really? I did not see a link to determine the source. If you have the source, please share your information.

I dogpiled (a meta-search engine) the Capitol Resource Institute (the org of the first gal quoted) and came up with their website. Does not look to be a "God hates fags" sort of org, especially since I recognize a few of the names on the BoD as being regular conservative types.

To sum up, AB, show us something that either links the group to the Westboro Baptist Church, Fred Phelps, or some such organiztion.

Antibubba · « **Reply #37 on:** October 19, 2007, 08:14:52 PM »

I didn't mean to imply that they ARE the same group. They're views and histrionics are the same though.

You know, when they tried to muster support for the ERA back in the 70's, the folks opposing it used the "bathrooms" threat too.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #38 on:** October 20, 2007, 06:24:36 AM »

antibubba, do you have any idea of the "views and histrionics" of the WBC? Their views are totally unlike any other Christian conservative, pro-family type of group I've ever seen.

Here's a quick run-down on Phelps' teachings.

1. WBC members should pray that no one else converts to their point of view. They are taught to pray that every single person not of their tiny cult will go to hell, and should go to hell, to the glory of God.

2. "Deep-dyed fagots" are totally incapable of repentance and beyond any hope of redemption. I heard Phelps say this on a radio interview. Totally contradicts with the religious right's much-vilified belief that homosexuals can change.

3. God is using the Iraq war to punish America for being a "fag-loving" country. They hold banners saying things like, "Thank God for I.E.D.'s."

Most of this can be found on the "church's" website, in addition to their hatred of James Dobson's Focus on the Family and similar pro-family groups.

Bringing Phelps into this is completely disingenuous, and no different than shouting "NAZI!" every time you disagree with someone.

InfidelSerf · « **Reply #39 on:** October 21, 2007, 07:43:48 AM »

Ok I know this is just a tad off topic.

But I've always wondered that if a person's sexual proclivities are genetic and you are born with them.
Then why is it socially acceptable to try and correct pedophilia and bestiality?

If one is born homosexual then it's fair to say that a pedophile is born the way they are and therefor
not able to control their desires.

I'm sorry that's why I call bull*cough* on all this talk of your born with this or that.
I'm supposed to be predisposed to being an alcoholic.
Should I be ashamed of the fact that I've never had a problem with alcohol?

The conversion of behavioral conditions to uncontrollable genetic ones is one of the biggest lies pushed on us.
I see no difference from "Guns kill people" to "I have no control over this behavior, I'm born with it"

With beliefs in psycho babble like that you are essentially saying freewill doesn't exist.

JMHO

Sergeant Bob · « **Reply #40 on:** October 21, 2007, 08:09:35 AM »

Quote from: veloce851 on October 21, 2007, 06:43:48 AM

Ok I know this is just a tad off topic.

But I've always wondered that if a person's sexual proclivities are genetic and you are born with them.
Then why is it socially acceptable to try and correct pedophilia and bestiality?

If one is born homosexual then it's fair to say that a pedophile is born the way they are and therefor
not able to control their desires.

I'm sorry that's why I call bull*cough* on all this talk of your born with this or that.
I'm supposed to be predisposed to being an alcoholic.
Should I be ashamed of the fact that I've never had a problem with alcohol?

The conversion of behavioral conditions to uncontrollable genetic ones is one of the biggest lies pushed on us.
I see no difference from "Guns kill people" to "I have no control over this behavior, I'm born with it"

With beliefs in psycho babble like that you are essentially saying freewill doesn't exist.

JMHO

Whoa! There's the Big Boot of Logic stomping all over the Politically Correct's sensibilities! grin

Strings · « **Reply #41 on:** October 21, 2007, 08:33:09 AM »

>Whoa! There's the Big Boot of Logic stomping all over the Politically Correct's sensibilities!<

Umm... not really. We honestly DON'T know what behaviour is hardwired, and what is learned...

I know too many gays that had a nice, relaxed childhood (no trauma), that the "it's a learned behavior" just doesn't make sense. Of course, when asked "nature or nurture?", I usually reply "Both!"

roo_ster · « **Reply #42 on:** October 21, 2007, 09:46:38 AM »

Quote from: Antibubba on October 19, 2007, 07:14:52 PM

I didn't mean to imply that they ARE the same group. They're views and histrionics are the same though.

You know, when they tried to muster support for the ERA back in the 70's, the folks opposing it used the "bathrooms" threat too.

AB:

Gotcha. I think that your conflation of the two groups is made in ignorance, not malice. Conservative Christians have been beat over the head with the WBC loons by the MS enough to prompt a lot us to research what they actually believe.

WBC is not on polite terms with any right-of-center religious group that I can think of. That is a polite way of saying that folks in the religious right think Phelps & WBC are nucking futz. They may appear to be on the way right of the RR*, but their doctrine is such that it is incompatible with every single overtly-Christian conservative group I have ever participated in or read about.

fistful gives examples of some, but not all of the deal-breakers. These are not "logical extensions" of Christian doctrine, but something Phelps has cooked up in his little cult of personality. The wonder of it is that he, like fistful wrote, posts it for all to read what a complete fruitcake he is. Another wonder is that the MSM and others confuse his doctrine with the religious rights' (which also has no problem posting its different doctrines).

--------

The "Unipotty" argument is made for two reasons:
1. It has the virtue of being true, given what has happened elsewhere such policies have been enacted
2. It is effective

* At least, they are portrayed, gleefully, by MSM this way.

longeyes · « **Reply #43 on:** October 22, 2007, 06:30:38 AM »

This, like many other things, is an outgrowth of an ever-expanding nanny state, which should be called the "husband state" because increasingly single woman are married to the government.

Antibubba · « **Reply #44 on:** October 22, 2007, 07:54:05 AM »

OK, so the comparison is a poor one. I retract it.

But "Banishment of Mom and Dad"? "Boys and girls sharing bathrooms at school"? Where's the part about dogs and cats living together? Unsupportable scare tactics and lies don't help their cause.

roo_ster · « **Reply #45 on:** October 22, 2007, 11:58:56 AM »

Well, if Bill Murray had written their copy, I am sure the dogs & cats would have been mentioned. Wink

I do agree the tone of the piece is a bit breathy.

Strings · « **Reply #46 on:** October 22, 2007, 12:52:00 PM »

Yes, the piece is a bit over the top. However, I've noticed that, if you take any proposed legislation as far out to left field as possible, you'll have a good chance of correctly predicting how it will be used...

"possession with intent to sell", anyone?

Iapetus · « **Reply #47 on:** October 27, 2007, 09:02:17 AM »

Quote from: veloce851 on October 21, 2007, 06:43:48 AM

Ok I know this is just a tad off topic.

But I've always wondered that if a person's sexual proclivities are genetic and you are born with them.
Then why is it socially acceptable to try and correct pedophilia and bestiality?

If one is born homosexual then it's fair to say that a pedophile is born the way they are and therefor
not able to control their desires.

I expect all those are at least partly, probably mostly genetic.

But IMO it doesn't really matter whether they are due to genes or due to choice. If someone is (or chooses) to be homosexual, they are not harming anyone, and should be left to themselves. If someone is (or chooses) to be an active paedophile, then they are terribly harming children, and need to be "corrected". Permanently.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #48 on:** October 27, 2007, 11:08:48 AM »

Quote from: Iapetus on October 27, 2007, 08:02:17 AM

Quote from: veloce851 on October 21, 2007, 06:43:48 AM

Ok I know this is just a tad off topic.

But I've always wondered that if a person's sexual proclivities are genetic and you are born with them.
Then why is it socially acceptable to try and correct pedophilia and bestiality?

If one is born homosexual then it's fair to say that a pedophile is born the way they are and therefor
not able to control their desires.

I expect all those are at least partly, probably mostly genetic.

But IMO it doesn't really matter whether they are due to genes or due to choice. If someone is (or chooses) to be homosexual, they are not harming anyone, and should be left to themselves. If someone is (or chooses) to be an active paedophile, then they are terribly harming children, and need to be "corrected". Permanently.

Yeah, more or less. "Nature made me this way," really doesn't answer whether something is wrong or right, or should be legal or illegal. Genes can predispose us to alcoholism, or deform us at birth, so they are no guide to what is moral or good for us.

Chris · « **Reply #49 on:** November 01, 2007, 06:57:01 AM »

Hey kids, I just read the bill. The entire bill. First word to last word. And the words "restroom", "bathroom", and "locker room" never appear in the bill. The bill has many different facets, most of which are rather mundane. Covers expenses and fees for school transportation. Orders that every public college and community college create emergency plans, including evacuation plans. Oh yeah, and it also expands the protections afforded against discrimination are expanded to include sexual orientation as a protected class. So, in California, you cannot discriminate on the basis of race, religion, ethnic identity, gender, or sexual orientation. Period. Nothing about gender-neutral bathrooms or locker rooms. Nothing about the contents of textbooks. No one had banned Judy Blume from teh school library because she uses Mom and Dad in her books. Could someone try to sue to get gender-free bathrooms? Sure. Good luck convincing anyone that a 16 year old boy should be able to use the girl's room because he's really a lesbian trapped in a male body. Don't sweat this one, folks.

News:

Author Topic: 'Mom' and 'Dad' banished by California (Read 13550 times)

Strings

Strings

Strings

Strings

Chris