Submitted by BudsKind802 t3_1133zhb in vermont
Comments
21stCenturyJanes t1_j8p9vrw wrote
Seriously. "provocative stances"? That is way too kind.
ccasey t1_j8ny8nx wrote
Typical fascist cop
Definitelynotcal1gul t1_j8og5wp wrote
ACAB
[deleted] t1_j8oschf wrote
All of um
Pyroechidna1 t1_j8ozwsi wrote
Saying ACAB is as far as anyone gets on police reform in /r/vermont and /r/burlington. Nobody ever posts good ideas for what to do about it
thisoneisnotasbad t1_j8p6ii0 wrote
Mandatory insurance like doctors or shrinks. Rates rise when there is a complaint.
That’s my idea.
ccasey t1_j8p3a56 wrote
Disband their Union, require them to hold professional liability insurance and a revocable license and require more than 30 days of training. Each of those individually would help
Ok-Doughnut5760 t1_j8p5l8f wrote
Let's start by disconnecting the police presence in the state mandated school presentations about internet safety. My school that I work in, and my child who attends that school, or subjected to a all-day program of propaganda. This included the directive to 5th and 6th graders, that if anyone ever distributed nudes of them, they should go immediately to the police. Not the teachers, the school counselor, the principal, the internet integrationist, nope, go straight to the police!
Plus-Birthday1987 t1_j8pbcva wrote
yup. and its FAR bigger than the PDs in your home town 😂 start with abolishing privatized prison systems- when locking people up becomes a profitable business, every other aspect of the justice system becomes compromised (many dumb fuck police activists dont even know private prisons exist) its a far bigger issue, but like you said; no one wants to think about the root cause, its far easier to just go on reddit and shit on an entire town for being “racist” LOL
yet everyone wonders why nothing ever changes 🤷🏻♂️
no-mad t1_j8pepgs wrote
root cause? 13th Amendment.
Intelligent-Hunt7557 t1_j8pfo9w wrote
Ok-Doughnut nailed it, but clear them the eff out of our schools. Are you still in VT or Mass. currently? We have had quite the success, amidst record numbers of police abuses, getting them out recently (moving to liaison/off-site models) in Brat, B-Town, St. A, Montpelier, and other places. Chances are you could involve yourself with a school board or police oversight board near you to ramp up the solutions.
Ok-Doughnut5760 t1_j8pq6bi wrote
Thank you for your work in my town ✊🏼 Their presence is definitely problematic. Their advice was traumatic...
escapefromburlington t1_j8p1zf7 wrote
Nationally since the Biden administration the per capita incarceration rate has dropped to around 500. Used to be the highest in the world at over 700 and now it’s only the 6th worst incarceration rate globally. I guess you can call it progress… I’m not sure about Vermont’s per capita rate rn. Last time I checked it was pretty bad when compared to other places in developed countries.
BreadTruckToast t1_j8nsq2i wrote
I don’t think “provocative” works - maybe “hypocritical bigot” would be a better choice.
Klutzy_Opportunity_8 t1_j8ntxag wrote
I'm confused. How is a father and police officer concerned about a boy using the girls locker room is a hypothetical bigot?
BreadTruckToast t1_j8o1z6m wrote
You’re not confused you’re just an ignorant asshole and you know it.
HumpSlackWails t1_j8o5qu2 wrote
Just upset because trans folks are yet ANOTHER group that won't sleep with him.
Green_Message_6376 t1_j8ochfo wrote
go easy on the courageous tool, it's their very first post from that account. Such bravery! /s
Willie_the_Wombat t1_j8q4w4y wrote
How can someone be “ignorant” and “know it” simultaneously?
Mntnrunner516 t1_j8o1w3l wrote
I'm confused as to why you think anyone cares about your opinion. The adults are talking. Go home.
[deleted] t1_j8otagj wrote
We have had separate male/female spaces for the entire history of public school in the usa. It's insane to call anyone who thinks there might be value to that a bigot.
BudsKind802 OP t1_j8ouxyd wrote
> We have had separate male/female spaces for the entire history of public school in the usa
That's funny, the one room schoolhouse in my town only had a unisex outhouse, and it was used well into the 20th century.
[deleted] t1_j8owwgt wrote
Somehow I'm not sure a single user outhouse may not be a typical circumstance.
I like the idea of it but for the most part schools are much larger now and use public bathrooms rather than outhouses.
Did you have a coed highschool football team too?
ryan10e t1_j8o3p9u wrote
Downvote and block. Don’t engage!
resistreclaim t1_j8oe8az wrote
There isn't anything hypothetical about it. He's just a shitbag bigot.
ThirdFirstName t1_j8o6v4u wrote
If you want to have a real discussion about this reach out. Happy to help!
Definitelynotcal1gul t1_j8ogb36 wrote
The poster doesn't want a real discussion. Just concern trolling.
Longjumping_Vast_797 t1_j8rit9i wrote
I'll take a stab at one particular objection of his: the BLM flag. Have you ever looked up the local burlington chapter, and their charter?
They want to make interracial adoption illegal.
Noone should support that, but the school openly is.
Definitelynotcal1gul t1_j8rjzz3 wrote
I'm sure whatever you said is false, but I guarantee he'd fly a Confederate flag and you wouldn't bat an eye.
[deleted] t1_j8ote2q wrote
Some people believe there is value to separate male/female spaces. Does this belief make someone a bigot?
LaGruntaInnAndResort t1_j8p52e0 wrote
Your “beliefs” are revealing that you are a misogynist.
[deleted] t1_j8rkyvn wrote
You have that reversed. I'm the one saying "we should protect the integrity of women's sports" and "women should have shelters where they don't have to deal with men" while you are the one saying "males should be allowed to play on female only teams!" "Males should be allowed to go to women's shelters!"
LaGruntaInnAndResort t1_j8uzlik wrote
Transwomen are always welcome in my safe places. Cismen not so much. But, please continue to mansplain how you’re looking out for my safety. I don’t need your protection. I need protection from men like you.
ThirdFirstName t1_j8rndt8 wrote
I never said you’re a bigot but I don’t think you fully grasp the scope of this topic and I’m happy to help if you want!
[deleted] t1_j8rx0f9 wrote
Ok, if someone feels there are circumstances where male/female exclusive spaces have value, is that an inherently bigoted position?
ThirdFirstName t1_j8rxiwg wrote
I may be mistaken but I don’t think you understand what male/female means. And I can absolutely guarantee that you don’t understand it on a biological level. I think your point is ignorant not bigoted because bigoted would suggest understanding.
[deleted] t1_j8s61y7 wrote
lmao you didn't even make any attempt to respond to a legitimate question that you invited.
Don't say "I'm happy to help if you want!" when you don't mean it at all.
If someone feels there are circumstances where male/female exclusive spaces have value, is that an inherently bigoted position?
And yes, I mean male and female. I know the definitions of words I use.
ThirdFirstName t1_j8s7f8u wrote
And I’m responding to your question with the reality that what you asked isn’t a black or white question as you have it framed or desire an answer for. And if you think it’s a black or white question then you are coming from a place of ignorance not bigotry. I work under the idea that most people have good intentions but are misguided by a lack of edification on a topic and that if presented with the information they can make a proper logical conclusion.
[deleted] t1_j8s949e wrote
Ok. Do you believe there are any circumstances where a female only space is justified?
ThirdFirstName t1_j8sboga wrote
I believe having a space for female identifying individuals is important. But I don’t believe our definitions of “female” are the same.
[deleted] t1_j8t4j4c wrote
I'm not talking about women, I'm saying female. It is a scientific term. Is there any justification for a space for biological females only or should biological males be allowed in ANY space.
ThirdFirstName t1_j8s67z8 wrote
What is the biological definition of those two words?
[deleted] t1_j8s8uvy wrote
You aren't even making a good faith effort to engage. You can look up the definitions yourself if you don't know.
Female: of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes.
Male: of or denoting the sex that produces small, typically motile gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring. "male children"
ThirdFirstName t1_j8sbdx1 wrote
Good those are the correct definitions under the current biological understanding. But what that doesn’t say is that these individuals present with any specific appearance or behavioral attributes attributed to either sex. The reason for that is because within physical development there are a whole host of processes that must occur for the complete differentiation from female to male sex characteristics. With any of these steps disrupted you may have an individual that is phenotypically presenting different then what raw genetics may suggest. Eliciting the point that sex determination isn’t binary on a developmental basis at the biological level. This is confounded with the psychological development of a human beings having both biological and environmental roots. We just established that genetics and physiological states can result in a whole host of variability in what can phenotypically present as “male” or “female”, when that is combined with the psychosocial aspects of “male” and “female” gender roles in today’s society you are left with a spectra of behavior prescribe and ascribed by both biology and environment. Within this spectra people may see and internalize patterns they see as a gender binary but this is a generalization and doesn’t fully apply to the entirety of the population. So when you say “male and female” it is predicated on your own internal understanding of this topic which isn’t necessarily complete.
[deleted] t1_j8t4u9y wrote
Actually you are confusing male with the term "man" and the term female with the term "woman."
Instead of a massive word salad trying to argue about definitions of words can you just answer in good faith?
Are there circumstances where it is ok to have female only spaces? Or should males be allowed in to them as well?
ThirdFirstName t1_j8t76hp wrote
But here is my answer. I believed there should be spaces for female identifying individuals to be separate from male identifying individuals. No I don’t believe that should be determined by the type of gamete produced. I have trans people in my life I know and love and I know the people in my life would be safer in their company than with someone who makes arguments like the one you are trying to make. Yes I am generalizing you.
[deleted] t1_j8t88ei wrote
You are using the term female to mean woman. If you are born male, you can not identify as female. You can identify as a woman but you cannot ever become female.
If you are using this definition that is universally accepted in the scientific community do you think there is ever a scenario where you can have female only spaces? Or do you believe males should always be allowed in?
> I know the people in my life would be safer in their company than with someone who makes arguments like the one you are trying to make
Honestly that is an insane position to take. This is why there is a backlash against the new trans movement... if someone says "well what about this situation..." the response is OMG YOU ARE LITERALLY KILLING PEOPLE!
ThirdFirstName t1_j8t92u8 wrote
Again “born male or female” on a biological level isn’t a yes or no situation. Biology is much messier than that. And cognitively within development the internal sense of self isn’t determined by what gamete you produce. Nope that’s not what’s happening here you aren’t the victim in this conversation. I’m arguing using scientific knowledge and first hand experience, what are you arguing with?
[deleted] t1_j8ta82d wrote
> I’m arguing using scientific knowledge and first hand experience, what are you arguing with?
lmao you are arguing by trying to avoid what is obviously my question. You have done backflips to try to avoid answering it.
>Again “born male or female” on a biological level isn’t a yes or no situation. Biology is much messier than that.
Not accurate. For more than 99% of people it really is that simple.
You are trying to avoid answering the question at all costs because you know your answer doesn't make any sense.
ThirdFirstName t1_j8taqew wrote
Yeah not really. I literally answered your question. The trans community is not very big so that 1% really matters in this situation. You just want excuse for you to be correct which you aren’t in this situation
[deleted] t1_j8tcec3 wrote
> so that 1% really matters
It really does not. You are trying to compare gender identity to deformities or genetic issues. Trans issues are distinct from genetic issues.
You didn't answer the question at all. You changed the question to be asking about gender identify when I was talking about biological sex.
We have literally sent more than a dozen replies as you act like you are a comedian answering a different question.
Do you believe that females, based on the modern scientific understanding of that term, should be allowed to compete in female only events or should males, based on the modern scientific understanding of that term, be allowed to compete with them?
ThirdFirstName t1_j8tdmep wrote
Again the “biology” isn’t that cut and dry it never has been.
But let me play your game, adopting your definition of “biological sex” no I don’t think there should be a place that discriminates like that other than your own house hold.
I think physical competition is not really essential so yes I think anyone should be able to compete in what ever class of any sport they want. If sports are the hill you die on in this topic then that presents to me that you don’t grasp the actual hardship of existing as a person off the central curve of humanity. Trans individuals aren’t gaining anything you don’t have in life when it comes to survival.
[deleted] t1_j8tee94 wrote
Again, not my definition. This movement represents an iconoclasm of language. Just insane that you knew exactly what I was asking but you must have typed twenty pages of circular reasoning to avoid answering.
It would have been easier to say off the bat "no I don't think females should be allowed to have spaces without males, whether it be group therapy, women's shelters, women's fitness centers, women's sports or even in women's clinics, males should be allowed to participate."
ThirdFirstName t1_j8teypy wrote
Oh no again I believe that female identifying individuals should have spaces free of male identifying individuals. No I don’t think this should be determined by their gamete production.
No it is your definition and it’s not backed by the science period.
[deleted] t1_j8tgwhz wrote
lmao it's not my definition. Show me one scientific source that has a different definition of female.
You can't "identify" as female if you were born male. You could identify as a woman, but male and female are traits you are born with.
I empathize with people who wish it was different but not everything in life is how you wish it is. Males can never be females. Sorry dude.
And you have to accept your real beliefs that you believe that people who are born male should be allowed to enter spaces that women have designated for people born females only. Typical male privilege.
Going to just mute you, this feels like I'm huffing paint. Your cognitive dissonance is dominating your life.
ThirdFirstName t1_j8thqjn wrote
Haha just because you say it’s that way doesn’t mean your correct. These people exist and they always will do you will have to deal with that. Biologically the definition is gamete psychologically the definition is different. I can get you some sources on that if you want.
ThirdFirstName t1_j8t5vsw wrote
No I literally just gave you the current scientific theory of those concepts. In a semantically correct way. Again I will refer to what I just said I don’t think your personal definition lines up with the biological and psychosocial definitions.
[deleted] t1_j8o6dfq wrote
[deleted]
RoseGrossbeak t1_j8o6txo wrote
Left leaning nut jobs
GHeusner t1_j8of870 wrote
"People speak out all the time: Plumbers, doctors, lawyers even, advocate for their kids at school board meetings," Helfant said in a phone interview last week. "So why don't I get to?"
​
Because you're a public official...Duh.
Bradcopter t1_j8opljw wrote
I can not hire that plumber, not visit that doctor, and not retain that lawyer.
And here your town is, asking you to leave.
VermontArmyBrat t1_j8otcrq wrote
This. I make choices all the time to not use businesses or contractors that I know have views I don’t agree with. But I don’t have that option when dealing with a public official.
Flimsy_Patience_7780 t1_j8o6i8b wrote
His stances are the furthest thing from provocative. Bigoted would probably be a better descriptive adjective.
bobrossjiujitsu t1_j8ofbsz wrote
Oh, is that what that word means? I had to look it up. It said, "bigoted (adjective): having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others."
Ok, let me try to use it in a sentence: because they were unable to meaningfully engage with the content of his viewpoint, the bigoted redditors resorted to insulting and defaming the police officer instead.
How did I do?
PPOKEZ t1_j8on4yq wrote
It's not intolerant to call out intolerance.
Whether you know it or not, you are now writing in defense of well proven misinformation on race and gender and it is okay to be intolerant of you and others who spout from the same sources. I know it sucks to have your voice not taken seriously in this conversation. It never will be.
bobrossjiujitsu t1_j8p0g26 wrote
That's not what the paradox of tolerance states. What it states is that being tolerant of intolerance may lead to an intolerant society, which is not a bad point and is perhaps what you actually meant. Either way, I appreciate your effort to discuss the issue rather just insulting me.
I would argue that the nature of what is tolerated or not tolerated is of critical importance because it is the content of the intolerance that determines its moral value. To illustrate, few people would criticize me for being intolerant of a convicted pedophile sharing a public space with my children. The content of my intolerance matters.
My contention is that it is reasonable to be intolerant of allowing boys to change in a girls locker room, even if those boys insist that they really strongly feel like they are actually girls. The reason I am intolerant in these circumstances is that my concern for the group of girls exceeds my concern for the preferences of the transgender person. While you may not agree and may feel like the girls just need to tolerate feeling uncomfortable in their own locker room, what I hope is that we can have that conversation without vilifying those who disagree with us, vilifying the uncomfortable girls, or vilifying the transgender person. Because we are clearly going to be talking about this issue for a very long time.
If this viewpoint makes me intolerant, and if it is morally permissible for you to be intolerant of my intolerance, then you are in the awkward position of having to figure out how to censure/exile/execute nearly half the country. Instead, I would recommend trying to change our minds instead, and maybe we'd all benefit from that endeavor.
Intelligent-Hunt7557 t1_j8pz74b wrote
Some views make you incapable of doing a job, through sheer incompetence. If the firefighter arrives at your house and thinks fires have rights to exist then We Got Beef right? Any views a cop concerning equal protection has are germane because they deal with the public. Did you even read the article? He’s a known official liar and abuser of rights. He should eff off
Flimsy_Patience_7780 t1_j8ofy9y wrote
A full grown man in a position of power should not be going after a 14 y/o girl and calling her voyeuristic because she chooses to use the restroom/locker room with which she identifies.
Not sure about you, but I don’t know many full grown men who bully minors about their gender and journey of self discovery/personhood. And the ones I do know can most certainly be described as bigoted.
bobrossjiujitsu t1_j8oma0i wrote
Why would you say he's going after a 14 year old girl and not protecting a group of 14 year old girls? Who is really the victim here? Why does your concern for well-being only extend to the person with the transgender identity?
Rachel Dolezal identifies as a black woman, and she worked tirelessly to advocate for that community for most of her adult life. Yet when she was discovered to be a biological white woman, she was castigated and cancelled. Why do we accept some forms of self-identification and not others?
Intelligent-Hunt7557 t1_j8phaiw wrote
Do you know why reactionaries who wet their pants over people getting “cancelled” are boring? It’s a facade. No one ever got cancelled. You know how I know? Mel Gibson is still making movies. What was a news oddity about Dolezal is someone choosing to give up white privilege. It’s almost inconsequential.
oldbeardedtech t1_j8ojebm wrote
Probably because you don't know any with daughters in said school
Flimsy_Patience_7780 t1_j8ol5um wrote
I will not argue with some rando on Reddit about trans rights. Continuing to spew transphobic rhetoric and paint literal children out to be predators will always be a pathetic look.
[deleted] t1_j8ot0us wrote
This debate will never be productive because parents have a legitimate concern about keeping girls safe. There is a long established reason for having male/female sports, spaces and activities.
Calling everyone who is concerned for their kids safety a transphobic bigot does absolutely nothing to deal with anyone's concerns.
Imagine if they made a girl play on the boys soccer team. We would all call that out as wrong because there is a reason we have male/female sports (size, power, safety). It is asking a lot of people to just toss out all of their beliefs about sex without any discussion.
That said, for a cop he needs to be a neutral authority figure and shouldn't weigh in on social issues publically.
edit: the fact that people only downvote and try to attack me personally only proves my point more. Nobody has a coherent response to the idea that there is a positive value to male/female only spaces.
[deleted] t1_j8ow2xf wrote
Damn dude, you post more about trans stuff than I do and I’m actually trans lmfao
[deleted] t1_j8ownig wrote
That's what I do if I can't come up with a coherent response. Stalk someones profile!
[deleted] t1_j8oy31r wrote
Nah, I saw multiple comments by you in this thread and was curious what the hell you were on about. How many hours have you poured into being this?
It’s a bullshit argument. What exactly do you think is going on? Tons of opportunistic little boys wanting to flip their dicks out in girls locker rooms are pretending to be girls? Do you understand how fucking terrible it is to be trans? But yeah people are pretending so they can reap all the benefits lmao.
What are you protecting anyone from by pushing this ignorant garbage? It’s a complex issue for sure and part of me is glad as fuck I stayed closeted as long as I did. The way this “argument” is always framed comes from some imaginary place, there’s no basis to this shit in reality.
[deleted] t1_j8oyq5q wrote
> Do you understand how fucking terrible it is to be trans? But yeah people are pretending so they can reap all the benefits lmao.
This has literally nothing to do with anything I said.
For the modern history of the USA we have had male/female sports and male/female changing rooms. We even have male/female summer camps... It isn't always about sexual predation, sometimes it's just you don't want 17 year old boys and girls butt naked showering together at a public school.
Why do we have male/female sports? In order to allow women to show their athletic talent and compete safely even in the face of male genetic advantage.
It is just factually true that there is a competitive and safety based reason we have male/female sports.
In no way am I advocating hurting or causing any disadvantage to trans people. The fact that you immediately jump to that angle and try to make it seem like I'm advocating genocide just highlights the weakness of your points.
[deleted] t1_j8p11s5 wrote
It has everything to do with it. On a basic level you don’t accept or trust trans people so we must keep them segregated. Boys with boys and girls with girls, unless they’re trans. Why is there never mention of trans boys in the boys locker room?
Lmao, come on. 90% of your comments are bullshit opinions on trans issues, but yeah I’m sure you’re one hell of an ally. You’re spending large amounts of your time to spread ignorant trash. Genocide? Yeah, having issues with the way you’re approaching this means I think you’re calling for genocide. Not quite, but you do come off as a bit of a douche ahah
[deleted] t1_j8rk60f wrote
> On a basic level you don’t accept or trust trans people so we must keep them segregated.
Not at all what I said. I simply believe there are legitimate reasons behind female only changing rooms and female only sports.
You can't come up with a coherent response so you just attack me.
[deleted] t1_j8rm2ma wrote
Lol keep playing the victim
[deleted] t1_j8rxeeq wrote
In no way am I a victim. I'm just pointing out that instead of responding to what I said you spent two paragraphs mischaracterizing what I said or attacking other comments I made.
It is what happens when someone sees your point and can't come up with a good response.
Again, none of my points are based around the idea of not accepting or trusting trans people. I just believe that we have valued exclusive male/female spaces for hundreds of years and if we want to abolish that we should be able to have a reasonable discussion about the pros and cons.
[deleted] t1_j8rxpk0 wrote
You haven’t responded to half of what I’ve written dude. This “I’m just trying to have a conversation” bullshit is exhausting. GLHF
[deleted] t1_j8s5tlr wrote
> This “I’m just trying to have a conversation” bullshit is exhausting. GLHF
Your previous comment was just "lol keep playing the victim" and you literally do not respond to any point I made. Hypocritical.
You are the one who has tried to insult in literally every single comment you made. My point is that people have real concerns about the abolition of female only spaces and should be able to have a dicussion without people like you just attacking them.
[deleted] t1_j8s6rs8 wrote
“The abolition of female only spaces”
Lmao this is the problem and yet you fail to see how fucking shit this take is. You’ve already made up your mind and continue to repeat the same ignorant points.
Please, find some more threads to rehash the same trash arguments and receive the same responses. You’ve pushed this shit and the “sanctity of women’s sports” nonstop on this account, and when you don’t get support you just repeat it somewhere else. What a waste of fucking time. This shit is no different than the white dude explaining racism or the man explaining why women don’t face real issues. Have fun wasting your time, this is pathetic.
[deleted] t1_j8s8y9a wrote
Ok do you support the abolition of female only spaces?
[deleted] t1_j8s9rsn wrote
Yes, of course. We should actually kill all cis women. This is the goal of the trans after all.
Get real dude, no one is trying to get rid of women’s spaces. You’re making up a bogey man and pushing it like it’s fact. There’s no substance to your arguments, just “oh no there’s men in the girls locker rooms!”. Do you support trans boys in women’s spaces? Do you support trans boys in women’s sports? Do you expect a young trans girl to participate in male sports? Do you actually care about children or just some of them when it’s convenient?
I’m done responding to this shit, it’s already been a huge waste of time lmao.
[deleted] t1_j8t52rj wrote
See my point stands because you literally refuse to answer a very basic question without making ridiculous jokes.
You literally cannot just respond... everything involves a word salad trying to wiggle out of answering.
Are there any situations where it is ok to have female only spaces or should males be allowed in if they want to?
thisoneisnotasbad t1_j8p8xl4 wrote
I’ve read this thread. You raise some reasonable and valid points. I disagree with your general stance in that I don’t believe this is an instance where a boy was taking advantage of the rule where he can use the locker room of the gender she identifies as.
If I thought was the case I would have a different opinion. If I thought someone was taking advantage of that policy to see a boob I would say that is an issue that needs to be addressed regardless of how they identify.
I don’t really care if you are concern trolling or whatever it was called. You asked for a good faith engagement, I hope my response offered one.
[deleted] t1_j8rjyi0 wrote
> I disagree with your general stance in that I don’t believe this is an instance where a boy was taking advantage of the rule where he can use the locker room of the gender she identifies as.
I don't think that is what was happening here either, that is why I kept my points general. In this specific case I agree with the criticism of the police officer: cops can have opinions but it is in bad taste to air them publicly.
I think we get too caught up in specific instances. We have to ask ourselves "is the concept of female only changing areas a hateful, bigoted idea or is it based out of legitimate concerns?"
thisoneisnotasbad t1_j8romth wrote
>is the concept of female only changing areas a hateful, bigoted idea or is it based out of legitimate concerns?
And the answer is "it depends"
Reddit is not good at nuance.
[deleted] t1_j8oy6ri wrote
[deleted]
LaGruntaInnAndResort t1_j8p4888 wrote
Because you’re not worried about kids safety. You’re calling for transgender men to be forced back into women’s sports, locker rooms, and bathrooms.
Also, mens sports have no rule stating women cannot participate. The only reason it doesn’t happen is misogynists stopping it.
[deleted] t1_j8rleio wrote
> Also, mens sports have no rule stating women cannot participate. The only reason it doesn’t happen is misogynists stopping it.
The main reason is actually the inherent male physical advantage. If you compare track times for males vs females there is essentially no level that female athletes can compete with men on.
This is why it is important for female only sports. People like Serena Williams wouldn't even be able to go pro if there weren't women's categories.
mellercopter t1_j8pup6n wrote
I think most girls and women have a legitimate concern about keeping themselves safe and no one seems to be too concerned with our opinions about how either. We aren't worried about sharing bathrooms with trans women or playing on coed sports teams, we're worried about being killed by our male partners and raped by male strangers and even family members. Nothing you are advocating for actually protects women or girls from the things that are most dangerous based on facts.
There are places advocating for lowering the age of legal marriage, permitting perpetrators of domestic violence to continue to own firearms and giving convicted rapists less jail time than someone with unpaid parking tickets and you choose to focus on who's shitting in the stall next to me. Absurd.
[deleted] t1_j8rjrev wrote
I actually focus on that as well. I believe we need to be much harsher on people who commit sexual abuse.
The idea that anyone who thinks "perhaps a women's sports league is a good thing" is an insane bigot is nonsense.
mellercopter t1_j8rmiux wrote
Women's leagues do exist, we don't need you to advocate for them. They're already here. You keep mentioning sports teams with trans women specifically and implying that they are unsafe but don't seem to be concerned about trans men competing. I've watched female rugby players absolutely demolish fully padded football players so let's not pretend like it's not possible for genders to fairly compete. Considering most female athletes are not paid equitably, treated with the same respect, or provided with the same resources I don't think that most of them would be worried about trans athletes impeding their ability to make a career in sports. Maybe your energy would be better spent in pushing equity regardless of gender if you'd like to further parity in women's sports.
If you really truly do care, then start advocating for folks to focus on better protections for people from things that are actually dangerous, which to this point in this thread you have actually yet to do. It's not about the safety of your daughters or your wives, if it was making sure they aren't interacting with trans women wouldn't be high or on your list of priorities at all. Half the time people (myself included) can't even clock if a person is trans or not, because honestly really what does it matter to you. And for the love of whatever god you may believe in, stop speaking FOR us or OVER us. We can communicate our concerns just fine on our own.
[deleted] t1_j8s5jde wrote
> Women's leagues do exist, we don't need you to advocate for them.
The entire premise of the discussion is that people want to open up women's leagues for males.
>but don't seem to be concerned about trans men competing
Because in general people who are biologically female will not be competitive in a mens league. Also if they are on T that is a banned substance.
> don't think that most of them would be worried about trans athletes impeding their ability to make a career
I'm in a running club and train with some very competitive women. I think that is insane to believe that someone who is running 60 miles a week or more just wouldn't mind losing their spot. The idea that someone could train for 6 months for a race and wouldn't mind losing that spot to an athlete with a bio male body is not reasonable.
I also race skimo, where there is a strong mtf trans athlete competing for a spot on next year's national team. She is a great athlete but if she gets in the top 3 for the specific division, that means a female athlete who competed will not get the spot.
>If you really truly do care, then start advocating for...
I'm interested in sports. It is ok to talk about issues in sports even though there are more pressing issues in the world.
mellercopter t1_j8sgni1 wrote
I don't know what article you read, but the premise of the discussion had nothing to do with opening women's leagues to anyone. It has to do with a cop advising via a public newspaper that a 14 year old should be charged with voyeurism under the guise of keeping children safe for utilizing a locker room that they were legally permitted to use under state law.
To address your other concerns, testosterone testing in sports is not an accurate measure for cis or trans people as is evidenced by the Olympics continued disqualification of African women from track and field because their natural testosterone levels were testing "too high" for females. There is no standard for what a person's testosterone should be if they are male or female as it is largely dependent on the individual and the time of testing. Women's testosterone levels fluctuate throughout the day and throughout their cycles. Additionally trans men are and have been competitive in men's sports and the same goes for trans women, both before and after transition. Here's a great link to some examples: 25 Transgender Athletes You Should Know
I'm not sure if it's intentional, but when you say that a trans woman could take a spot from a female athlete you are implying that trans women aren't women. I would encourage you instead of making assumptions about how these women might feel, maybe have discussions with them first. I could not imagine being so entangled with a recreational sport that I would feel the need to ostracize and individual or group simply trying to participate in societal norms. If you are an athlete who's in it to compete against other people and win rather than to compete against yourself and improve I would imagine you're not gonna have a good time most of the time and you're probably not super fun to be around.
The idea of a gender binary is not only biologically inaccurate, but also culturally was only introduced through colonization. Trans men and women are revered in a large number of indigenous groups, including Native Americans. While it's fine to have talk about sports, the origins of the discussion were an article where a person in a position of power was openly supporting criminalizing a teenager who is already at a high risk of being a target of violence. It also serves to ignite a conversation about an issue that doesn't exist, implying that trans women and girls are dangerous and predatory. VT is not a state in a vacuum, Fern Feather was killed less than a year ago.
[deleted] t1_j8t640j wrote
I didn't say anything about testosterone levels in female athletes. That has nothing to do with what I am talking about. I am specifically talking about allowing biological males, which have a long established physical advantage, to compete in biological female divisions.
>I'm not sure if it's intentional, but when you say that a trans woman could take a spot from a female athlete you are implying that trans women aren't women.
No, I am working on the fact that they are not female. In each event in track and field, on the olympic level, each country sends three male and three female athletes.
I literally have competed against a trans athlete in Vermont that is trying to get one of the three spots in this sports national under 20 women's team. If she achieves it, the national team will have to bump whoever was the third best female in this sport that year. This would mean that in this sport we will have 4 males now and just 2 females.
>The idea of a gender binary is not only biologically inaccurate
My friend, to reproduce humans need exactly one male and one female. Birth defects are NOT related to the concept of transgender and do not inform this debate at all.
>Fern Feather was killed less than a year ago.
This is honestly a ridiculous tactic. I am only speaking about the push to allow males into previously female only spaces. In no way does talking about this argue that we should kill people.
It is shocking how any discussion about the role of sex in society goes... if you even discuss it activist types will say that your discussion is causing murders.
mellercopter t1_j8t9k8c wrote
You spoke of using testosterone being unallowable in sports, which is false. Try reading the article I linked and you will see examples of Olympians who have transitioned hormonally and have competed after transition.
You talk about biological sex as if there are only two which is scientifically (not socially) false as is the idea of a gender binary (again scientifically and in this case socially as well).
You refer to trans people based on your perception of their biological sex which is terfy. In order to reproduce you need a person with a uterus who is capable of carrying a fetus to term, and a fertilized egg, good old science has shown you don't require sperm so your male and female requirement is inaccurate.
Referring to genetic conditions as birth defects is also incorrect.
It's not a ridiculous tactic to site the death of a marginalized community member who lived in the geographical vicinity of the same marginalized group you are reducing to genitalia. There is no push to allow men in female spaces, you're not welcome and we don't want you there. But I will welcome any trans woman who is interested with open arms.
We are discussing gender, not sex. And I have not once said that simply discussing it leads to murders, but I did say that we don't live in a vacuum in VT and our community isn't immune to the type of violence that is perpetrated against this community around the world just because VT is "progressive". Words matter, they guide action and bothering and excluding individuals absolutely leads to violence. Whether it is external or self inflicted. But enjoy your runs, cause honestly that's the top priority here right?
[deleted] t1_j8tbso7 wrote
> In order to reproduce you need a person with a uterus who is capable of carrying a fetus to term, and a fertilized egg, good old science has shown you don't require sperm so your male and female requirement is inaccurate.
lmao this is clownish. Name one person who was born from a female with no sperm fertilizing the eggs. Human reproduction requires the two sexes to combine.
>You talk about biological sex as if there are only two which is scientifically
There are in fact just two sexes. Plenty of people have deformities but in terms of species normal reproduction, it requires a male and female. In typical development without any genetic issues or deformities there are just two sexes. Denying basic facts like that is just silly.
>We are discussing gender, not sex
See you aren't listening very well. When parents are concerned about their daughters competing against males they are talking about sex. Gender is a set of beliefs and behaviors that people engage in... this isn't about whether you wear long hair or not, it's about biology. Males and females are different and the differences are real.
mellercopter t1_j8tgoyf wrote
It is very apparent you don't work in a scientific field, that your opinions (which is what you keep insisting are facts) are not based in any reality where research exists and that you are singularly fixated on continuing to repeat absolute garbage in the hopes that you're gonna stumble on a gotcha. You're right, I'm not listening because you're not talking you're writing. See how words are important. Again, if you weren't informed someone was trans in a lot of instances you would never know. It's not about sex it's about the gender you perceive someone to be and there are plenty of cis women that are in sports that you would likely label as trans using your dated assessment of what a woman should present as. Here's 75% of the work done for you, in case you don't read them one article states that trans women do not in fact dominate women's sports when they participate, in fact they lose quite often. I hope you read at least some of it and with that I'm all set on entertaining your drivel.
What do we mean by sex and gender
The idea of 2 sexes is overly simplistic
Scientists create human embryo without sperm
Transgender people over four times more likely than cisgender people to be victims of violent crime
[deleted] t1_j8thqnh wrote
Ok can you give me an example of someone who was born without any sperm being involved? You literally said that you don't need a sexual binary to reproduce and I'm very curious.
Your example of an embryo is very interesting for treating some diseases but is not in any way reproduction without the sexual binary.
In terms of sport I appreciate Scientific American as a pop culture science mag but it isn't a research study. The article you talk about makes a normative argument for your position.
This one makes an objective argument about the advantage males have. It's also an actual research paper, not a magazine link.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-020-01389-3
Also the articles on intersex are irrelevant. That is a physical condition that is abnormal. Transgender is a mental state with no physical basis.
mellercopter t1_j8tszwf wrote
I appreciate your willingness to engage in a good faith dialogue, sincerely.
What I said was that sperm is not needed in order to reproduce, but that you needed a fertilized egg and a uterus to grow it in. And it isn't currently needed in a ton of species and is very close to becoming a reality for humans. The research in the UK was primarily focused on creation of non-viable embryos which could be culled for stem cells which would allow for regeneration of specified cells for healing damaged tissues, regrowing tissues, treatment of ALS, Parkinson's, cancer, etc.
The focus of a 10 year Israeli study veers towards reproduction without both sperm and an egg to address all of the goals of the UK study as well as to eventually assist with the declining human population. They literally grow tiny artificial testicles in microchips which then produce sperm. They've been working on growing embryos in petri dishes and the mouse embryos have hearts and tails, they are mice. They are working on growing the synthetic embryos outside of a uterus in and artificial womb. It sounds scary, but so does one Professors recent propositions to start using brain dead women as incubators labeled whole body gestational donation. I would personally prefer matrix babies to my corpse being used as a greenhouse for humans, but I think it's also worthwhile looking into why fewer women want kids.
Your article on trans women in sports (btw there is a corrected version which outlines additional background to clarify potential conflicts of interest) outlines what the authors believe performance should look like based on testosterone suppression during transition. The article I linked was the results of actual outcomes of women's sports competitions including trans competitors and the actual outcomes demonstrate that the predicted outcomes and assumptions (word used by the authors) were not accurate to real world results.
So while hormones indicate that trans women should have an advantage, they don't perform as anticipated. Assuming someone is going to be good at a physical activity based on their physical appearance is a misnomer that also impacts cisgender athletes. Im old as shit, but Muggsy Bogues would be an armrest for me and he was an amazing ball handler. There are other factors than hormones and physique. So good news, your concerns about women getting obliterated by trans women in sports on the whole are unfounded. The original article I linked outlined several instances where trans women underperformed in comparison to women even in sports which are considered to be male dominated like weightlifting.
I think you truly believe that you are doing women a service by defending women only spaces, but I also think you are underestimating what women as a whole are capable of, and what spaces need defending. We do need men who are willing to step in and be a voice in defense of women (all women) especially in conversation with other men, but we don't need to be defended in sports from trans women. What we really need is more people in general to start raising their boys to be and do better when it comes to their treatment and perception of women. The greatest harm to women, including trans women, are the boxes we are continually expected to squeeze into by others.
I urge you to do some more research on the negative impacts of trans exclusion on both trans and cisgender kids and adults. I am happy to provide some insights based on research, but also maybe consider learning about the lived experiences of trans people in your community.
[deleted] t1_j8weubn wrote
>you needed a fertilized egg
So you are saying without cutting edge science, in the context of homo sapians the animal, we need two sexes to reproduce?
>So while hormones indicate that trans women should have an advantage, they don't perform as anticipated.
The RESEARCH ARTICLE I sent indicates the opposite. Please read it! This controls for selection bias we see in non controlled samples. It is extremely extensive.
Affectionate_Cod_348 t1_j8ocwow wrote
The messed up thing is that he's the least problematic police chief that Northfield has had over the years. The town seems to keep hiring these sorts of people - I'm going to go out on a limb and say the issue is with the select board.
DangerZoneSLA t1_j8rijdl wrote
The police chief of Northfield accurately represents the majority of the community.
Source: Lived in Northfield for 5 years.
Affectionate_Cod_348 t1_j8rky3p wrote
You’re not wrong. I’ve lived there long enough to know that you’re not wrong.
Vermonter_Here t1_j8rxbfx wrote
If election results are any indicator, then that's not true.
The town has a lot of very vocal and visible jackasses, but if we're talking about the number of people, they are the smaller group, measurably so.
DangerZoneSLA t1_j8rxr04 wrote
Just because you voted for Biden doesn’t mean you’re not a racist.
Vermonter_Here t1_j8s3wyu wrote
I agree 100%! We are in agreement.
But it would be very odd for even a good chunk of those Biden voters to agree with the police chief's "let's go Brandon" stance. The Venn diagram of Biden voters and people who dislike Biden is by no means a circle (I should know--I'm one of them), but as far as I'm aware, the "let's go Brandon" crowd does not include very many Biden voters.
21stCenturyJanes t1_j8p9xl6 wrote
And the town itself?
Affectionate_Cod_348 t1_j8ph3zy wrote
Well, Norwich university has a lot of pull there…
Mntnrunner516 t1_j8nxjy3 wrote
This is why you don't trust police. They're all like this.
Ok-Doughnut5760 t1_j8p5s1s wrote
Even if they don't explicitly hold those same beliefs, they have to know that they have KKK members among their ranks. And they stay silent. That blue wall of silence is criminal in so many ways. Let's also go after qualified immunity.....
xxxDog_Fucker_69xxx t1_j8prl4j wrote
Pretty bigoted claim,
bobrossjiujitsu t1_j8ofvn4 wrote
Hmm, I wonder if we can we make broad, sweeping statements like that about some other really large groups of people. How about dentists - they're pretty, weird, am I right? Or maybe skateboarders? Pokemon enthusiasts? Jews?
Definitelynotcal1gul t1_j8oglog wrote
You're free to go look up the statistics on how many cops are also abusive to their families. Once you start there, you can tell me how many skateboarders are also family abusers.
bobrossjiujitsu t1_j8on0vy wrote
So all skateboarders are drug-addicted anarchists? And all Pokemon enthusiasts are regressive man-children living in their parents' basement? Despite my obvious biases, I'm sure that's not the case. And I'm equally sure that at least some police officers are brave people who sincerely want to protect their communities - and don't beat their wives.
Definitelynotcal1gul t1_j8oot22 wrote
You did not look up the statistics, I take it.
EastHesperus t1_j8os6u2 wrote
He clearly didn’t. Otherwise he might be surprised with how many cops do beat their wives. But when it comes to things like reality or data or facts, people like this don’t want to hear it. They want to stay in their protected snowflake make believe land where they’re always right, despite the facts.
raz0rsnak3 t1_j8ow1td wrote
You don't need statistics to invalidate statements such as : "ALL people of X Group are like that".
That is the definition of stereotypical and prejudice.
EastHesperus t1_j8p5d9z wrote
Ok, fair point. You win. Not ALL cops are like this. Only over 40% of cops beat their wives. So if you bump into a cop, it’s close to the same statistics as flipping a coin if they go home and beat their spouse.
Plus-Birthday1987 t1_j8pa9g1 wrote
you should cite your source(s) when posting things like that.
…you do have the sources available, right??
EastHesperus t1_j8pe2g5 wrote
https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2017R1/Downloads/CommitteeMeetingDocument/132808
Here you go. This source also has a list of numerous sources on the issues.
Plus-Birthday1987 t1_j8pfv9q wrote
thank you, sir
raz0rsnak3 t1_j8skqui wrote
You kidding me? The stats you provide say in the first scentence "40% of police officer families experiance domestic violence." And you're equating that to "40% of all cops beat their wives"...
You're just parroting studies and taking a superficial look at the data. What about cops that experianc domestic abuse at the hands of their spouse? Yeah, that's lumped in that 40%...
Thanks for the data reference, but your interpretation of data (objectively) needs a lot of work.
EastHesperus t1_j8ssqjh wrote
So let me get this straight.. your argument against this is that it’s possible that the spouses are being abusive towards their cop spouse? 10% of all families report domestic abuse, whereas 40% of cop families reported abuse. Either the common connection to this high number are the cops or the highly unlikely chance that all these cops are marrying abusers. That makes no sense. Bad argument. Bad whataboutism. Your skewed and biased look into the data needs work.
raz0rsnak3 t1_j8u1967 wrote
Skewed and biased? Your studies that you reference are garbage, and your logic is garbage. I could poke a thousand holes is your 'argument' that '40% of all cops in the US are wife beaters' but just that statement alone is moronic. You're using stats (poorly) to validate your narrative. Waste of time...
Oeslian t1_j8o98nr wrote
If there were justice in this country, any cases his department touched involving POC would at the very least be ruled a mistrial due to clear racial bias from the department. This is the same shit Oj Simpson walked free for. Instead the state will refuse to address this, and people will stay in prison regardless of clear police bias in their case.
21stCenturyJanes t1_j8pa8mi wrote
Not a coincidence that he is suddenly speaking up when he's only months from retirement. He thinks he can ride this out until May and get his full benefits. Do people in Northfield care enough to do something? I don't actually know anyone who lives there but Northfield's reputation says no, they don't care.
Human802 t1_j8oft1n wrote
Disappointing to see this here. Amazing how terrified these cowards let themselves become, anything the talkheads say they swallow and spread like a virus.
Dadfart802 t1_j8onvm9 wrote
A cop is stupid? News at 11.
Significant_Guava881 t1_j8pl33c wrote
I'm proud that Peter Evans is among those speaking up. I was a student at MHS when he was a principal there and really liked him. Very kind and compassionate guy.
BigVerMonster t1_j8qg1l8 wrote
Mr Evans was by far one of the best educators I ever had. Mr Skea is a close favorite too
MontyoftheFuture t1_j8rsupb wrote
Another way to phrase this would be, “Northfield’s Police Chief Takes Flak for Being a Goddammed Moron”
FireNateMcMillianPlz t1_j94l9t2 wrote
let’s fucking go. getting those capital rioters out of the police station one bigot at a time
[deleted] t1_j8os437 wrote
[deleted]
TheMobyDicks t1_j8rxsrd wrote
" Town manager Jeff Schulz said Northfield has looked into complaints about its police chief and will continue to do so. Schulz declined to say whether the town would take any action, calling the situation a personnel issue."
I mostly disagree with his politics but he's got a first amendment right to express them. Northfield residents calling for his firing had better be prepared for their taxes to go up owning to the lawsuit they're going to have to pay out when he sues the town for unfair and illegal termination.
JodaUSA t1_j8sh1qc wrote
I still need evidence that this isn’t every police chief. Comes with the job.
raz0rsnak3 t1_j8t2ycb wrote
I can't see your whole comment, but let me relpy:
I think that you're cherrypicking your 'facts' to fit your narrative. And by 'facts' I mean this bullshit article that you linked me to.
You didn't even understand the first scentence, and you took that as "40% of all cops beat their wives" and then doubled down by saying "if you bump into a cop, it's a coin flip that they have beaten their wife"...
HumpSlackWails t1_j8o50lz wrote
Can we please remember the chief here isn't the problem... just a symptom?
That town is. If a town tolerates this shit it means the majority of its populace agrees.
That town is majority bigot, racist trash. We need to stop blaming people elevated to positions of power by communities... all they do is represent their communities.
Clamato-n-rye t1_j8okqj9 wrote
Uh ... the fact that the town might be part of the problem (I don't know Northfield enough to say) doesn't absolve the chief. He is literally a leader of Northfield. People take cues from, and will often follow their local leaders.
Affectionate_Cod_348 t1_j8ozx91 wrote
Northfield has a history of hiring problematic police chiefs. This guy’s best attribute so far is that he hasn’t fired his gun at a local business owned by someone he had a disagreement with. (That guy was two of three chiefs ago) He hasn’t been arrested for a DUI either (prior chief), so there’s that.
Clamato-n-rye t1_j8v2ezt wrote
Wow. Didn't know that.
Baby steps, I guess.
HumpSlackWails t1_j8rbjrh wrote
Of course it doesn't absolve him.
But the point is... if you get rid of the chief...
Does it change the community that hired, defends and supports him?
Yes or no?
Your friends, family, neighbors - people in your community are the problem. The chief is a big, enflamed, pus-filled pimple. But he's still just a symptom.
​
Downvote me all you want. Until you stand against your right-wing voting friends and family... this is your reality. Won't go away because you wish it was different.
Clamato-n-rye t1_j8v2chn wrote
The interplay between leaders and those who choose them goes both ways. Getting rid of a leaders can absolutely change the attitude or mood of a city; especially if the next one is better.
You're right that the local support for right-wing shitheads is part of the problem. But that doesn't mean it's worthless to get rid of a bad leader.
Longjumping_Vast_797 t1_j8ri7la wrote
A citizen publicly expressed generally conservative views regarding preferential subject treatment in a neutral learning environment....proceeds to get threatened to lose his job.
I'm sorry folks, I know it's easy to pile onto this guy. But, looking at 30 years of police work and scraping to find two stops where he may have treated a male passenger different than a women is, well, a nothingburger. If you're trying to skew someone like this guy as a villain, you need to reassess your outrage.
It wasn't long ago, at all, where the scientific concensus on Trans was "body dismorphia." Don't forget this guy's age. He grew up in a totally different Era, and doesn't subscribe to the new train of theory on the subject.
That's basically freedom of expression.
whattothewhonow t1_j8sh7tt wrote
Nope.
If my dentist says some ignorant, hateful, transphobic shit I can tell him to fuck himself and go to a different dentist.
If a plumber says ignorant, hateful, transphobic shit I can throw him off my job and have a different plumber finish the work.
If the chief of police says something ignorant, hateful, and transphobic, welp we're stuck with his dumb ass until at least the next election, potentially get harrassment from him and the rest of his armed and unaccountable law enforcement buddies, and worst case he kneels on the back of my neck until I asphixiate.
Public servants must be held to a higher standard, and if they don't like it, they shouldn't be public servants.
greenergrassgrows t1_j8otom0 wrote
The Northfield Middle School Sexuality club is bringing to light a long history of abuse against LGBTQ students. If parents don’t like their daughters undressing in front of boys, MOVE
raz0rsnak3 t1_j8ov0rh wrote
More proof that if you speak your mind, and people disagree with you then you're labeled a bigot, racist, XXXXXphobe, etc.
Ok-Doughnut5760 t1_j8p65c8 wrote
When you are a public official, your private opinions need to stay private. This ludicrous idea that the police can also be activists in their communities.....
raz0rsnak3 t1_j8raqhl wrote
Not to mention, if this was a black cop speaking out to support BLM for instance, this wouldn't have even hit the media.
raz0rsnak3 t1_j8r9iw9 wrote
My comment stands on it's own, and your reply really has nothing to do with what I said.
Down votes on my comment prove my point.
greenergrassgrows t1_j8oteuo wrote
Suicide is a major issue in the trans community. And saying it is inappropriate for boys to show girls their penises is tantamount to murder. Do better Northfield.
[deleted] t1_j8otpsf wrote
Lmfao, what a fragile little dude. How many dumbass comments are you going to make?
greenergrassgrows t1_j8ost2h wrote
There is nothing more bigoted than complaining about your minor daughter sharing locker rooms and showers with men. It really pisses me off when parents think their daughters should not be forced to see penises while in middle school and high school.
BudsKind802 OP t1_j8oudsp wrote
You seem super obsessed with penises. You know, that's a strong sign of latent homosexuality.
[deleted] t1_j8rc0on wrote
[deleted]
RanikG t1_j8pswp1 wrote
I noticed you switched ages when making your comparison. I see this pattern often when someone argues this point. Can you explain your rationale for framing it this way? ::minor daughter:: showering/locker room with ::(adult) men::
I find your statement confusing because If students are sharing locker rooms, presumably it is with peers of similar ages. So, why not frame the argument accurately as minor daughter v minor boy. Why introduce the false and emotionally loaded power dynamic of man/big vs. girl/small?
Regardless of your thought process, your point is complete bullshit.
greenergrassgrows t1_j8q6svh wrote
At least you agree boys shouldn’t be showering with girls.
RanikG t1_j8rcygl wrote
Nope. I don’t agree with you at all.
Good sidestep though.
I support transgender youth participating in school sports. Trans girls are girls and trans boys are boys.
Fuck off bigot.
greenergrassgrows t1_j8ot56c wrote
Trans rights are human rights and if boys want to show their penises to girls, it’s their right. The bigoted Nazi parents need to shut up
Devon301f t1_j8qkohf wrote
Did you get the attention you wanted
Nickmorgan19457 t1_j8nunsv wrote
They misspelled racist bullshit again.