GOP & Policies toward/treatment of Transgender Americans

Paine said:
In terms of the bathroom bill, I think that was a big part of it. I think there was some sporting event that pulled out of the state? I know the film industry in NC also took a hit from it.

And yeah, I pointed it out a day or so ago. They only ever talk about trans women. Deep down, they acknowledge why a woman would want to transition to or identity as a man. If you’re a misogynist and think women are inherently inferior to men, why wouldn’t you want to be a man?

What they can’t tolerate is a man who denies conforming to non-traditional gender roles, let alone non-traditional gender presentation or expression. The very idea is an attack on their ideological and cultural frameworks.
Click to expand...

They also don't won't to think about the assaults that would occur in a men's room and who would be doing the assaulting.
 
Callatoroy said:
Also, "he was wearing a skirt" Why do you think he was wearing a skirt all of a sudden?
Click to expand...
He wasn't.

apnews.com

Teen placed on sex offender registry after school assaults

A northern Virginia teenager found guilty of sexually assaulting classmates at two separate schools has been ordered to attend a locked, residential treatment facility until he turns 18.
apnews.com apnews.com

Parents were angered that there were multiple assaults. After the first one occurred in a school bathroom at Stone Bridge High School in May 2021 the boy was allowed to attend nearby Broad Run High School while he awaited trial in juvenile court. The second assault occurred in a Broad Run classroom last October.

The case also became embroiled in debate over extending protections to transgender students in schools, amid allegations that the boy had been wearing a skirt when he assaulted his classmate at Stone Bridge. At trial, prosecutors presented evidence that the boy in part blamed that assault on the fact that he accidentally caught his knee-length skirt on his watch while locked in a bathroom stall with the girl, according to news reports. The boy’s sexuality or gender was not an issue in Thursday’s hearing.
 
CFordUNC said:
Brother, I don't have to find anything else to support my position. You're just not willing to accept and acknowledge that you are trying to simultaneously argue that you are only looking out for the safety of women, while at the same time voting for a party that is in the midst of stocking the presidential cabinet full of sexual deviants who have directly harmed the safety of many women. That's not a fault in my logic or my argument- it's a fault in your morals and ethics.

Trump was convicted by a jury of his peers to be liable for sexual assault. Do you or do you not actually believe in the rule of law? Matt Gaetz just resigned from Congress **before he is even confirmed to be AG** because the House Ethics report that is about to come out is THAT damaging to him as an accused pedophilic statutory rapist. Pete Hegseth had a woman sign an NDA- is that something that you generally do when you've not committed any type of sexual impropriety? Linda McMahon is currently being sued for covering up sexual harassment allegations at the WWE.

Like, what are doing here, man? Surely your partisanship is not *this* tribal that you are going to go to the mat to defend a whole bunch of people with a whole lot of histories of sexual misconduct. Also, did you really use Bill friggin' Clinton as a point of rebuttal about today's Republican Party being full of sexual deviants He hasn't been president in almost 3 decades! Tell you what. When Bill Clinton becomes POTUS, you have my sworn oath that I will scream from the rooftops that he should not be president. And the next time the Democratic Party puts an accused sexual pest in the presidency or in the presidential cabinet, I will absolutely fucking bellow from the rooftops. How does that sound?
Click to expand...
Identifying flaws in your logic and calling out your situational ethics isn't me defending anything. I have zero influence on who trump chooses and am on record on this board questioning some of them. I'm telling you that you are making assumptions that you have zero proof of (other than trumps civil verdict) because of your partisan views. Hegseth gave an explanation for the nda. Why should I disbelieve him? Why do you disbelieve him? because he is a republican? Have you ever heard anything negative about him prior to getting into politics? Other than partisanship why is an accusation more credible than his denial?

You actually asked me if I believe in the rule of law while I am the one following the rule of law here and you are the one having LAW determined by accusations with zero proof and based purely on partisanship. But since you think you follow the rule of law, here are legal facts:
Gaetz was investigated by LE and no charges were brought
Hegseth was never investigated by LE for any sexual misconduct
trump has never been criminally convicted of any sexual misconduct

Applying the rule of law, do you disagree with those 3 statements?
 
lawtig02 said:
Now do Trump.

apnews.com

Jury finds Trump liable for sexual abuse, awards accuser $5M

A jury has found Donald Trump liable for sexually abusing advice columnist E. Jean Carroll in 1996. Jurors awarded her $5 million in a judgment that could haunt the former president as he campaigns to regain the White House. The verdict was announced in a federal courtroom in New York City on...
apnews.com apnews.com

A jury found Donald Trump liable Tuesday for sexually abusing advice columnist E. Jean Carroll in 1996, awarding her $5 million in a judgment that could haunt the former president as he campaigns to regain the White House.
Click to expand...
Ok, not disputing that. Not sure what your point is. Are you off the bathroom issue now and taking up Ford's cause of trying to argue your party is more virtuous when it comes to sexual misconduct?
 
Callatoroy said:
Identifying flaws in your logic and calling out your situational ethics isn't me defending anything. I have zero influence on who trump chooses and am on record on this board questioning some of them. I'm telling you that you are making assumptions that you have zero proof of (other than trumps civil verdict) because of your partisan views. Hegseth gave an explanation for the nda. Why should I disbelieve him? Why do you disbelieve him? because he is a republican? Have you ever heard anything negative about him prior to getting into politics? Other than partisanship why is an accusation more credible than his denial?

You actually asked me if I believe in the rule of law while I am the one following the rule of law here and you are the one having LAW determined by accusations with zero proof and based purely on partisanship. But since you think you follow the rule of law, here are legal facts:
Gaetz was investigated by LE and no charges were brought
Hegseth was never investigated by LE for any sexual misconduct
trump has never been criminally convicted of any sexual misconduct

Applying the rule of law, do you disagree with those 3 statements?
Click to expand...
What on earth? How am I having "situational ethics"? I'm outright telling you that I don't care what someone's political affiliation is, that credible accusations or convictions of sexual misconduct are absolutely, positively disqualifying in my book. That isn't situational ethics. That's applying the exact same standard to every single elected leader, regardless of political party.

You are a really poor liar. Am I going to have to assume that you just lied on this thread about your daughter being sexually harassed the way that you lied on the old ZZLP about your father dying to score some weird political points? What are we doing here, man?

I am not even going to address those stupid "rule of law" gotcha questions that you think you are so clever in trying to trap me. Everyone can see right through it, including you. You are clearly aware that it does not require a law enforcement investigation for someone to be a sexual pest and thus disqualified from holding public office. Bill Clinton, to my knowledge, wasn't "investigated by LE" yet you thought you were being clever in bringing up his sexual misconduct as being disqualifying. Just be consistent, is all I ever ask.
 
lawtig02 said:
Come on, man. HE WAS NOT TRANS. He was every bit as much a woman-loving cis man as you are. Why do you insist on lying about this?
Click to expand...
You are completely missing the argument. I have never claimed he was trans. I literally said he could have just been using the policy as an excuse to gain access to the bathroom. My entire argument has been simply that a policy of allowing men (people having a penis) even though they claim to identify as a woman, access to the female bathrooms puts women at risk of being assaulted. Nothing more complicated than that. You can disagree but there are cases to support my claim. As such, I disagree with that policy. My view isn't discriminatory toward trans people because they haven't fully transitioned yet.
 
Callatoroy said:
taking up Ford's cause of trying to argue your party is more virtuous when it comes to sexual misconduct?
Click to expand...
Lololol. You are so incredibly bad at this. When did I ever say that the Democratic Party is "more virtuous?" While you're searching for that, go ahead and look up which Democratic presidential candidates and which Democratic presidential cabinet nominations were adjudicated sexual deviants. Feel free to go all the way through the 1992 election or so, that was the first one for which I was alive.
 
Callatoroy said:
He was waring a skirt. "The family alleges that because Loudoun County Public Schools had been considering a new bathroom policy for transgender students when the assault took place..."

https://le.utah.gov/interim/2024/pdf/00000577.pdf - You can vet them to fit your narrative if you want. I'm not going to. But to say a non transitioned man in a female bathroom is never a threat is false and we can just stop any further discussion because it won't be in good faith.
Click to expand...
Men have been assaulting women in bathrooms since the creation of bathrooms.
 
Callatoroy said:
Ok, not disputing that. Not sure what your point is. Are you off the bathroom issue now and taking up Ford's cause of trying to argue your party is more virtuous when it comes to sexual misconduct?
Click to expand...
Uh, has the leader of my party been found liable and ordered to pay $5 million for sexually assaulting a woman? Has he been convicted of committing fraud by paying off a porn star using campaign funds to cover up his boinking of her while his wife was at home with their newborn son? Has the AG of my party been investigated by the House Ethics Committee, which heard testimony from women who saw him having sex with a minor for money? Has the SecDef appointed by the president of my party paid off a woman who accused him of sexually assaulting her?

Yeah, I'm saying my party is more virtuous when it comes to sexual misconduct. Are you really trying to dispute that?

seth meyers GIF by Late Night with Seth Meyers
 
I'm beginning to think that this is a cover for the real issue. Men couldn't handle a trans person in theirs and don't want to say it.
 
Callatoroy said:
You are completely missing the argument. I have never claimed he was trans. I literally said he could have just been using the policy as an excuse to gain access to the bathroom. My entire argument has been simply that a policy of allowing men (people having a penis) even though they claim to identify as a woman, access to the female bathrooms puts women at risk of being assaulted. Nothing more complicated than that. You can disagree but there are cases to support my claim. As such, I disagree with that policy. My view isn't discriminatory toward trans people because they haven't fully transitioned yet.
Click to expand...
What in the name of Yosemite Sam does that have to do with the Virginia perv?

Let's say Virginia had a rock-solid law that says biological men who identify as women must use the men's restroom. Can you please let me know how that law would have had any impact whatsoever on what actually happened?

I could potentially see your argument if the sexually deviant man had attempted to enter the women's restroom, been challenged, and had claimed he identified as female and should therefore be allowed in. But THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN!!! This was a straight cis dude who sexually assaulted girls in the women's restroom. That's illegal everywhere in the country. Unless you want a security guard stationed in every school bathroom, I'm really at a loss what you think the school could have done differently to prevent this.
 
CFordUNC said:
What on earth? How am I having "situational ethics"? I'm outright telling you that I don't care what someone's political affiliation is, that credible accusations or convictions of sexual misconduct are absolutely, positively disqualifying in my book. That isn't situational ethics. That's applying the exact same standard to every single elected leader, regardless of political party.

You are a really poor liar. Am I going to have to assume that you just lied on this thread about your daughter being sexually harassed the way that you lied on the old ZZLP about your father dying to score some weird political points? What are we doing here, man?

I am not even going to address those stupid "rule of law" gotcha questions that you think you are so clever in trying to trap me. Everyone can see right through it, including you. You are clearly aware that it does not require a law enforcement investigation for someone to be a sexual pest and thus disqualified from holding public office. Bill Clinton, to my knowledge, wasn't "investigated by LE" yet you thought you were being clever in bringing up his sexual misconduct as being disqualifying. Just be consistent, is all I ever ask.
Click to expand...
Please tell me what I lied about regarding my father and daughter? Fuck you. I'm done with you

Who determines what is credible? Never mind, I know. Accusation against R = credible Accusation against D = not credible

You can't address the "gotcha" questions because they discredit your claim to follow the law. You are using the definition of credible above as law because you have zero information about the accusation against Hegseth. Nothing / Nada. Other than its an accusation against R
 
lawtig02 said:
What in the name of Yosemite Sam does that have to do with the Virginia perv?

Let's say Virginia had a rock-solid law that says biological men who identify as women must use the men's restroom. Can you please let me know how that law would have had any impact whatsoever on what actually happened?

I could potentially see your argument if the sexually deviant man had attempted to enter the women's restroom, been challenged, and had claimed he identified as female and should therefore be allowed in. But THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN!!! This was a straight cis dude who sexually assaulted girls in the women's restroom. That's illegal everywhere in the country. Unless you want a security guard stationed in every school bathroom, I'm really at a loss what you think the school could have done differently to prevent this.
Click to expand...
Was he hanging out in women's bathrooms wearing skirts prior to the new policy? Why was he wearing a skirt? What could the school have done? Maybe not rush to be woke and not attempted to change the policy.

Move past that case. What is your opinion on biological men using female bathrooms?
Do you see any logic in the claim that non transitioned men could pose a threat to women in a women's bathroom?
Do you think any woman who objects to that is absurd and discriminating against trans men?
 
Callatoroy said:
Please tell me what I lied about regarding my father and daughter? Fuck you. I'm done with you

Who determines what is credible? Never mind, I know. Accusation against R = credible Accusation against D = not credible

You can't address the "gotcha" questions because they discredit your claim to follow the law. You are using the definition of credible above as law because you have zero information about the accusation against Hegseth. Nothing / Nada. Other than its an accusation against R
Click to expand...
You are such a child. You are projecting your own dishonesty and tribal partisanship onto me. I have very clearly said, multiple times, and now I'm going to say it in all caps so that maybe this time it will register: "I DO NOT CARE ABOUT SOMEONE'S POLITICAL PARTY AFFILIATION. IF THEY ARE AN ADJUDICATED SEXUAL PEST I DO NOT WANT THEM ANYWHERE NEAR THE LEVERS OF POWER OR IN PUBLIC OFFICE. DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN DOESN'T MATTER TO ME."

Read that, re-read it, and then re-re-read it if you need to. You are just angry because you are having to defend what you know to be indefensible. You are angry because there is no way to defend the nasty, unethical, and amoral people that your party is currently electing and putting into positions of power. It's stupid and childish, but it's exactly what you are doing. Just own it! Everyone here would have so much more respect for you if you just said something like, "fuck you libs! I don't care what leaders of my party have been accused of! We won, you lost!" That is at least honest. Your attempts to act like all of us big huge meanie head Democrats are unfairly characterizing the Republican Party as being full of sexual pests at the highest levels, are so pathetic and impotent.

One more time: "ALL DEMOCRATS CREDIBLY ACCUSED OR CONVICTED/ADJUDICATED OF SEXUAL ASSAULT, HARASSMENT, OR STATUATORY RAPE SHOULD NOT BE ANYWHERE NEAR PUBLIC OFFICE."
 
Callatoroy said:
Was he hanging out in women's bathrooms wearing skirts prior to the new policy? Why was he wearing a skirt? What could the school have done? Maybe not rush to be woke and not attempted to change the policy.

Move past that case. What is your opinion on biological men using female bathrooms?
Do you see any logic in the claim that non transitioned men could pose a threat to women in a women's bathroom?
Do you think any woman who objects to that is absurd and discriminating against trans men?
Click to expand...
He was like 10 years old when the policy was adopted!! Of course he wasn't wearing a skirt. I have no idea why he started wearing a skirt, except that it wasn't because he identified as a woman. The guy was a criminal. A pedophile. A rapist. A predator. There's not a damn thing about the Virginia policies that impacted what he did.

By the way, the leaders of your party are also criminals, pedophiles, rapists, predators. Are you really ok with that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top