By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Trump revokes Obama guidelines on transgender bathrooms

Goatseye on 26 February 2017
VGPolyglot said:
Goatseye said:

-Ofcourse he didn't close Guantanamo. It wasn't in the interest of Congress, Intelligence Community or Republicans. Also, it was naive of Obama to try to insist to get it done through bipartisan efforts.

-Other than Manning, who else is still there? And like I said, retrieving government top secret info won't get you free pass to walk no matter what, without being cleared.

-So you're against deportation of illegal immigrants?

-Like I said, banks hold a huge percentage of US debt. Even with majorities in chambers, there's little they could do.

If the banks had not get bailed out, it would've caused a domino effect of banks falling up to the top banks. People would've made runs to the banks and most people's savings and money would've been rendered useless. Shadow economy would've settled, there would be no money for firms to lend to start up, expand or stop lay offs. You'll have to forget about debit and credit cards and socially that would lead to rise in burglaries as money are would be stored in "mattresses".

Bro, anything related to socialism socialism or even worse communism is shot down here. Cancer cure could be a communism invention and it would be shot down.

- He had congress for two years. He could have done it in that time, but didn't

- http://www.salon.com/2015/04/25/7_whistleblowers_facing_more_jail_time_than_general_petraeus_partner/

- I'm against the existence of states and borders in general. I support a stateless, classless world, so yes I am against Obama deporting them, because they're mainly just trying to seek a better life

- Well, the banks failing would mainly have hurt people with a lot of savings, in other words richer people as most people don't have really any money at all in the bank. If the banks failed the many people who became homeless would instead just own their houses

Yes, I realize that socialism/communism is viewed negatively in the United States. Obama wants to keep it that way too, because he's a multimillionaire with a lot of influence and corporate backing. That's why he's not on my side, and why I'll never support him.

-I guess you don't understand or don't want to understand how democratic process works here. The Intelligence Community has a big pull in decision making here.

-There was 2 whistleblowers worth of mentioning in the article, Manning and Snowden. The rest were just careless or wanted to profit off the info they got. It shouldn't be a surprise that Petraeus got a slap on the wrist. After all, we got legal bribary running rampant here.

-Oh boy, I'm not gonna discuss a Mac World idealism right now. There are borders, we live in now and there are laws and policies to follow. If we lived in a perfect world, I'd agree.

-Most only have their family savings as their safety net to fall back on in times of hardship. Which would be in crisis.

-Unfortunatelly, you can't have a cake and eat it too. That's why progressive wing in the Democratic party is trying to fight to get money out of politics.



Around the Network
VGPolyglot on 26 February 2017
Goatseye said:
VGPolyglot said:

- He had congress for two years. He could have done it in that time, but didn't

- http://www.salon.com/2015/04/25/7_whistleblowers_facing_more_jail_time_than_general_petraeus_partner/

- I'm against the existence of states and borders in general. I support a stateless, classless world, so yes I am against Obama deporting them, because they're mainly just trying to seek a better life

- Well, the banks failing would mainly have hurt people with a lot of savings, in other words richer people as most people don't have really any money at all in the bank. If the banks failed the many people who became homeless would instead just own their houses

Yes, I realize that socialism/communism is viewed negatively in the United States. Obama wants to keep it that way too, because he's a multimillionaire with a lot of influence and corporate backing. That's why he's not on my side, and why I'll never support him.

-I guess you don't understand or don't want to understand how democratic process works here. The Intelligence Community has a big pull in decision making here.

-There was 2 whistleblowers worth of mentioning in the article, Manning and Snowden. The rest were just careless or wanted to profit off the info they got. It shouldn't be a surprise that Petraeus got a slap on the wrist. After all, we got legal bribary running rampant here.

-Oh boy, I'm not gonna discuss a Mac World idealism right now. There are borders, we live in now and there are laws and policies to follow. If we lived in a perfect world, I'd agree.

-Most only have their family savings as their safety net to fall back on in times of hardship. Which would be in crisis.

-Unfortunatelly, you can't have a cake and eat it too. That's why progressive wing in the Democratic party is trying to fight to get money out of politics.

- And Barack Obama is the commander-in-chief and also knew what the president was capable of before coming to power. Instead, he jsut made that Guantanamo statement to look like a good guy and not have to follow through on it.

- On the article it doesn't make any mention of them wanting to profit off of the leaks

- And I oppose a lot of the laws because they are biased and treat people unfairly

- 34% of Americans have no savings at all, and 35% have less than $1000. So most people don't have any money in the bank to fall back on

- And they're going to get nowhere. Keith Ellison, who was not even nearly radical, still lost the DNC chair. Money is never going to get out of politics within the current system, the whole point of politics is money, that's why property rights are so important in the United States. The only way that will change is with revolution, because the Republicans and Democrats have no interest in making less money.



Kaneman! on 26 February 2017
Pemalite said:
Kaneman! said:

Oh, not at all. But currently it's not possible, and I doubt it will be in the near future. In any case, biotechnologists have better stuff to do than attempt to accomplish that.

The second part of your statement is not really an argument. I assume you're refering to XX male syndrome, that appears in less than 1 in 25.000 males. This genetic disorder means that even though the person has two X chromosomes, the SRY gene is still present on one X chromosome. And even DESPITE that, most such males are normal, except infertility. Ergo, the genes on the chromosome are what's important, not the chromosome itself.

Being fair, I admit that I simplified that in my first reply, but I didn't think someone would split hairs, because it was obvious what I meant. A genetic male (yes, even an XX male) is gonna stay a genetic male, no matter the number of operations. I hope this clears it up.

There are men with XX Chromosomes and do not have the SRY gene. However it is stupidly rare, albeit still possible.

And I think the point you are missing is that, regardless of what someone was born with genetically... It is ultimately irrellevent.

You don't have the right to tell someone how to live their life, it is their life to live, if they wish to transition to another gender with the assistance of modern technology and science, then they should be entitled to do so... And good on them for taking that journey.
And that also means they should also use the toilets that are associated with the gender that they are presenting to the world, once we start to question what sex someone was born with and then restricting them to specific gender roles... Then we have overstepped the line.

No, you're the one who's missing my point. It may be irrelevant to the person whom it pertains to. But to my statement it's not irrelevant. 

I'm not telling anyone how to live their life. I couldn't even care less about the whole thing. I just made a passing point that however they choose to change themselves, they were still born as a certain organism that was built to perform in a certain way, which they go against. Again, I got nothing against it, it's pretty much the same as using contraception, when you look at the big picture. So no need to go all preachy on me because of an observation.

Cheers



Locknuts on 26 February 2017

For me as a father, I don't want some grown man to be following my little girls into the toilet and people thinking it's normal. It's a pedophile's wet dream



VGPolyglot on 26 February 2017
Locknuts said:
For me as a father, I don't want some grown man to be following my little girls into the toilet and people thinking it's normal. It's a pedophile's wet dream

And if pedophiles really want to do that they already can. If they're that desperate, they're going to go in there and molest a girl whether it's their designated bathroom or not. They'd probably also molest little boys in the men's bathroom too, so it'd happen either way. It seems that your main goal is to associate transsexuals with pedophiles.



Around the Network
Heavenly_King on 26 February 2017
VGPolyglot said:
And transphobic people will feel vindicated. This is not good for transsexuals, as they are already some of the most vulnerable people on Earth.

Derp.  Edited



Open World-Survival-Game Days Gone

VGPolyglot on 26 February 2017
Heavenly_King said:
VGPolyglot said:
And transphobic people will feel vindicated. This is not good for transsexuals, as they are already some of the most vulnerable people on Earth.

Derp.  Edited

Is the derp a reference to me or yourself?



Pemalite on 26 February 2017
Locknuts said:
For me as a father, I don't want some grown man to be following my little girls into the toilet and people thinking it's normal. It's a pedophile's wet dream

Yeah. Nah. You are making a chicken out of a feather.

Transgender people have for centuries used the toilet they wanted... And pedophilia was never an issue.
Besides as a man I am not afraid of going into the lady's toilets if the need arises.





Kaneman! said:

No, you're the one who's missing my point. It may be irrelevant to the person whom it pertains to. But to my statement it's not irrelevant. 

I'm not telling anyone how to live their life. I couldn't even care less about the whole thing. I just made a passing point that however they choose to change themselves, they were still born as a certain organism that was built to perform in a certain way, which they go against. Again, I got nothing against it, it's pretty much the same as using contraception, when you look at the big picture. So no need to go all preachy on me because of an observation.

Cheers

So if you are going to take the "Natural" high-road, I hope you catch/grow your own food, build your own shelter from naturally occuring materials in the immediate vicinity of the building location... Walk/jog to work rather than use transport...

And don't get things like life-saving surgery.

And besides, you just used the key words... "They changed themselves". ergo. They should use the toilets that they identify with.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Goatseye on 26 February 2017
VGPolyglot said:
Goatseye said:

-I guess you don't understand or don't want to understand how democratic process works here. The Intelligence Community has a big pull in decision making here.

-There was 2 whistleblowers worth of mentioning in the article, Manning and Snowden. The rest were just careless or wanted to profit off the info they got. It shouldn't be a surprise that Petraeus got a slap on the wrist. After all, we got legal bribary running rampant here.

-Oh boy, I'm not gonna discuss a Mac World idealism right now. There are borders, we live in now and there are laws and policies to follow. If we lived in a perfect world, I'd agree.

-Most only have their family savings as their safety net to fall back on in times of hardship. Which would be in crisis.

-Unfortunatelly, you can't have a cake and eat it too. That's why progressive wing in the Democratic party is trying to fight to get money out of politics.

- And Barack Obama is the commander-in-chief and also knew what the president was capable of before coming to power. Instead, he jsut made that Guantanamo statement to look like a good guy and not have to follow through on it.

- On the article it doesn't make any mention of them wanting to profit off of the leaks

- And I oppose a lot of the laws because they are biased and treat people unfairly

- 34% of Americans have no savings at all, and 35% have less than $1000. So most people don't have any money in the bank to fall back on

- And they're going to get nowhere. Keith Ellison, who was not even nearly radical, still lost the DNC chair. Money is never going to get out of politics within the current system, the whole point of politics is money, that's why property rights are so important in the United States. The only way that will change is with revolution, because the Republicans and Democrats have no interest in making less money.

-One thing is have an idea, the other is getting it implemented through Congress. And special interests is a thing.

-What was the purpose of Jim Sterling giving out top secret information about Iran for a book? James Hitsleberger should've gotten a heavier sentence for exposing troops positions. And Jin-Woo Kim just gave a Fox News contributor info about UN medlings just for the f*cks of it.

-What's unfair about enforcing laws for people that have no documentation? I believe in clemency and facilitation of emmigration but let's not turn a blind eye to the dangers of leaving undocummented people living in the shadows.

-It's not just savings, pensions would get wiped and mortgage defaults would lead to property seizures. Talking about concentrating more power in the hands of few.



NewGuy on 26 February 2017
Kagerow said:
NewGuy said:

What do you mean why? It's pretty self explanatory.

It is not. That is the problem. While biological sex can be easily determined, aligning that description with gender... Does not work. This discussion tends to never end.

While I do not have any opinion about this issue - as I did not do researches nor calculations - It is amusing to see people thinking about criminals abusing it. Because they totally held up the law before this existed.

That's your opinion, mine is different. What is so hard to understand? I don't want or feel comfortable with someone who was born with a penis sharing a bathroom with my girlfriend, mom, daughter, or niece.