|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> No Reason it won't work, /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1525018089 Message started by justin_o_guy2 on 04/29/18 at 09:08:09 |
|
Title: No Reason it won't work, Post by justin_o_guy2 on 04/29/18 at 09:08:09 If a man can decide he's a woman and people are required to pretend it's true, I'm identifying as a millionaire. |
|
Title: Re: No Reason it won't work, Post by Serowbot on 04/29/18 at 09:15:50 Dinner's on you then... 8-) |
|
Title: Re: No Reason it won't work, Post by justin_o_guy2 on 04/29/18 at 09:27:33 As soon as the bank is forced to ignore the obvious and how to the PC demands, |
|
Title: Re: No Reason it won't work, Post by old.indian on 04/29/18 at 13:58:41 Works For Me !!!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeVx1C73o8k&start_radio=1&list=RDyeVx1C73o8k |
|
Title: Re: No Reason it won't work, Post by MnSpring on 04/30/18 at 08:21:46 2C3335322F2819291921333F74460 wrote:
Ya know don't care that Jenner, is now, 'identifying', as a woman. What I care about is, April, has, 'identified' as February, in Minn. "...I'm identifying as a millionaire..." Don't see any reason that won't' work. After all if a Man, can go into a Girls Bathroom, (Because he, 'Identifies', as a Woman) Why Not ! |
|
Title: Re: No Reason it won't work, Post by Eegore on 04/30/18 at 10:38:51 Who is required to "pretend" its true? |
|
Title: Re: No Reason it won't work, Post by MnSpring on 04/30/18 at 11:57:44 0C2C2E263B2C490 wrote:
So as JOG said: "...If a man can decide he's a woman and people are required to pretend it's true,..." I would say: Well it is Clear, that if one, does NOT, Recognize, the, 'requirement'; that (just one, the case of B.J. identifying as a, Woman) They are a, Raciest, Homophobic, Biased. Etc. Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, Including, Knuckle Dragging, KKK, and Nazi Lover. As described by the Ultra Liberals. AND, by LAW, if one, is a male and, ‘Identifies as a Woman’, can use a, Woman's, bathroom. And back it up with just ONE, law: https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/fs-bathroom-access-transgender.cfm “…EEOC enforces Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, and sex (including pregnancy, gender identity, and sexual orientation…” Then Expanded as: “…As of March 2017, 19 states, the District of Columbia and more than 200 municipalities have anti-discrimination laws and ordinances allowing transgender people to use public facilities that correspond to their gender identity….” https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/07/health/transgender-bathroom-law-facts-myths/index.html |
|
Title: Re: No Reason it won't work, Post by Matchless G11 on 04/30/18 at 17:42:28 When I am behind the wheel of my Mustang I pretend I am Steve McQueen. I just can't drive as well as he could. :-[ I am more like "toonces the driving cat" |
|
Title: Re: No Reason it won't work, Post by Eegore on 04/30/18 at 18:33:29 Those laws apply to Public bathrooms, as in those maintained at least in part by tax dollars. It may be possible to propose legislation to reverse the admittance of men into women's bathrooms, in public, by requiring them to use the biological dictated on their birth certificate. Where I am private businesses do not have to let men into women's bathrooms. How am I forced to "pretend"? I am fully aware and state my disagreement. I can not however tackle some guy in drag and keep him out of a public women's restroom, but again I couldn't do that to anyone for any reason. By my definition of forced, I would be incarcerated or otherwise judicially, punished for acknowledging a man using a women's restroom. Is anything like that happening anywhere? |
|
Title: Re: No Reason it won't work, Post by justin_o_guy2 on 04/30/18 at 21:13:44 How am I forced to "pretend"? As if anyone is unaware of the requirements to Use the preferred pronouns.. |
|
Title: Re: No Reason it won't work, Post by MnSpring on 05/01/18 at 08:42:07 0B2B29213C2B4E0 wrote:
That would be anyone, that works for a Government entity, (Public/Public Funded), where, ‘ gender identity,’, is the the LAW. They would most certainly loose their JOB, if they would prevent it. So if they want to keep their, government job, they are, Forced, ‘Required’, to, ‘Pretend’. In a Private place, oh say, Target Stores, if one wanted to KEEP their Job, they would NOT, stop a male from using a female bathroom or dressing room. “…Target’s policy in effect allows any customer at any time and for whatever reason to use bathrooms or fitting rooms of the opposite sex in its stores based solely upon subjective “gender identity.”…” ‘Required’, in the case of the government, their could be a fine, jail sentence, or just firing. In the case of private, (Target and Others), it would most probably be just firing. Is a, ‘requirement’, like the, ’requirement’, of lifting 50 LBs, in a UPS job, a, Requirement to get that job ? If you take that job, are you, Required to lift 50 LBs ? If you are Black Skinned, and have a Sewing Shop, and advertise, “Custom Sewing’, are you, ‘Required', to sew, a white sheet into a robe, and a white pillowcase into a pointed hat ? |
|
Title: Re: No Reason it won't work, Post by Eegore on 05/01/18 at 08:57:08 "That would be anyone, that works for a Government entity, (Public/Public Funded), where, ‘ gender identity,’, is the the LAW. They would most certainly loose their JOB, if they would prevent it. So if they want to keep their, government job, they are, Forced, ‘Required’, to, ‘Pretend’." This is incorrect, there are no federal regulations presented to staff that they must pretend or otherwise artificially modify their observations of another person. I believe there is a difference between allowing access to a restroom and pretending the man in there is a woman. I may be required to allow a man access to a woman's restroom in a government facility however they can not do anything if I acknowledge that he's a man. I can not be fired for observing accurately that a man is allowed access to a woman's restroom. |
|
Title: Re: No Reason it won't work, Post by Eegore on 05/01/18 at 09:06:21 "Is a, ‘requirement’, like the, ’requirement’, of lifting 50 LBs, in a UPS job, a, Requirement to get that job ? If you take that job, are you, Required to lift 50 LBs ?" Yes. UPS can terminate employment if you can not lift 50lbs but you request that people pretend you can. They can not terminate employment if you can lift 50lbs but they pretend you can not. "If you are Black Skinned, and have a Sewing Shop, and advertise, “Custom Sewing’, are you, ‘Required', to sew, a white sheet into a robe, and a white pillowcase into a pointed hat ?" Yes depending on law where the shop is located. They can refuse to sew but not based off the individual making the order. (Unlike the cake guys who refused to serve lesbians, not wedding cakes) They are not required to pretend they sewed anything. |
|
Title: Re: No Reason it won't work, Post by MnSpring on 05/01/18 at 09:41:15 0C2C2E263B2C490 wrote:
You asked: " Who is required to "pretend" its true? " I will state again: "... if they want to keep their, government job, they are, Forced, ‘Required’, to, ‘Pretend’." Did you, Forget: "...They would most certainly loose their JOB, if they would prevent it...." And the: "I can not be fired for observing accurately that a man is allowed access to a woman's restroom" Is Perfectly True !. (Good Deflect BTW) One can't get fired, for turning your head, the other way. How about a, private place, where employment requires that, employees DO, 'turn their head the other way', because their policy is: "... use bathrooms or fitting rooms of the opposite sex... ... based solely upon subjective “gender identity.…” What would happen if one said: "That looks like it's over 50 LBs" "That looks like a Man, going into the Ladies bathroom" |
|
Title: Re: No Reason it won't work, Post by Eegore on 05/01/18 at 10:33:19 I am using the definition of "pretend" as follows: 1. speak and act so as to make it appear that something is the case when in fact it is not Nobody said anything about "preventing" in the original post. he did not say we are required to pretend, and prevent. If a man is using a woman's restroom I am not going to be fired if I do not act like he is a woman. I am allowed in a government facility, while employed by the government to act and acknowledge as if a man is in a woman's restroom. I am not required to make it appear that he is a woman. I don't know what's so hard to understand about that. Nobody can force me to pretend a man is a woman. "What would happen if one said: "That looks like it's over 50 LBs" "That looks like a Man, going into the Ladies bathroom" Nothing. That's my point, we can't be fired for that, we can't be incarcerated for that. We also can't be forced to pretend those things aren't true. |
|
Title: Re: No Reason it won't work, Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/01/18 at 11:33:05 72,400,000 ResultsAny time NYC requires schools to use transgender students' … www.nydailynews.com/...schools-transgender-students-chosen-pronouns... Mar 02, 2017 · School staff are required to address city transgender students using the pronouns the kids prefer, according to updated guidelines. You can be fined for not calling people ‘ze’ or ‘hir,’ if ... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/05/... May 17, 2016 · The NYCHRL [New York City Human Rights Law] requires employers[, landlords, and all businesses and professionals] to use an [employee’s, tenant’s, customer’s, or client’s] preferred name, pronoun and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs.) regardless of the individual’s sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the … Preferred gender pronouns: What are they, and is the ... www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/07/10/preferred_gender_pronouns... Jul 10, 2013 · If you are not in regular contact with the LGBTQ community and haven’t been on a college campus in a while, you might be forgiven for being unfamiliar with “preferred gender pronouns,” the practice of asking individuals what pronouns they use for themselves in an effort to respect the ... [PDF]Preferred Gender Pronouns: For Faculty (Or, How to … https://www.ccsu.edu/lgbt/files/PreferredGenderPronounsForFaculty.pdf What is a “preferred gender pronoun”? ... example: If Xena's preferred pronouns are she ... Asking and correctly using someone's preferred pronoun is one of ... Not using transgender pronouns could get you fined https://nypost.com/2016/05/19/city-issues-new-guidelines-on... May 19, 2016 · Not using transgender pronouns could get ... Email (required) Comment ... that anyone who providing jobs or housing must use individuals’ preferred gender |
|
Title: Re: No Reason it won't work, Post by Eegore on 05/01/18 at 14:54:44 Our definition of pretend and its application are different. Teachers are not being required to pretend that a child is non-gender or male or female, they are required to use the term the child chooses. They can not be fired for accurately observing that a male child has chosen a female gender description. |
|
Title: Re: No Reason it won't work, Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/01/18 at 16:44:24 WHEN a person ignores facts and reality and performs AS IF Reality is NOT what Science SAYS it is, They Are PRETENDING a different Truth and Reality exist. |
|
Title: Re: No Reason it won't work, Post by Eegore on 05/02/18 at 06:03:37 Agreed. The children are pretending, or the guy in the woman's bathroom is. I believe government workers and teachers are asked to follow policy, but they are free to know and acknowledge that the persons in said policy are not what the policy may say they are. |
|
Title: Re: No Reason it won't work, Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/02/18 at 06:26:49 So, policy is You must ignore the science, say what you are told to say, in spite of the obvious TRUTH that it's a Lie. Or else. But republicans are tyrants. Got it. |
|
Title: Re: No Reason it won't work, Post by verslagen1 on 05/02/18 at 09:36:10 243B3D3A2720112111293B377C4E0 wrote:
LOL The left are science deniers when it's suits them. ;D BTW, how does that apply to sports and locker rooms? |
|
Title: Re: No Reason it won't work, Post by Eegore on 05/02/18 at 10:35:33 I don't look at company policies as being Republican or Democrat, they are just policies. As for the science portion it should specifically be called "biological" science as social science would not classify all biological males as such psychologically. The policies are being interpreted biologically in this case so it makes sense that it is indeed a man in a woman's restroom. "BTW, how does that apply to sports and locker rooms?" If a biologically male child identifies as a female and requests to be called "she" then while that child is in a male locker room the teachers are to call that child "she" when referencing gender towards that child. The locker room walls do not change the child's perception of identity. If a biologically female child is playing baseball and identifies as male and requests to be called "him" then coaches would have to reference the child as such when referencing gender towards that child. Being in baseball doesn't change the policy. |
|
Title: Re: No Reason it won't work, Post by verslagen1 on 05/02/18 at 10:56:31 And when Bubba becomes Booba and she has a distinct advantage in her chosen sport? |
|
Title: Re: No Reason it won't work, Post by MnSpring on 05/02/18 at 14:46:29 09292B233E294C0 wrote:
If a biologically male child identifies as a female and requests to be called "she" then while that child is in a male locker room the teachers are to call that child "she" when referencing gender towards that child. The locker room walls do not change the child's perception of identity. So in the above, the Coach/Teacher says: “Hey, Tom, D ick, Harry, and oh, Sue, come over here”. (To discuss some aspect of the game) Perhaps the Coach/Teacher, will keep a straight face, but the Rest ? If a biologically female child is playing baseball and identifies as male and requests to be called "him" then coaches would have to reference the child as such when referencing gender towards that child. Being in baseball doesn’t change the policy. Same thing as above, except: “Hey, Sue, Nancy, Sally, Rita, and oh, D ick, come over here” Don’t know, (in the above one), ‘which’ locker room the female, who ‘pretends’ they are a boy uses. Gee, Hope it’s not the, Boys LOLOLLOO (Won’t be a lota Baseball talked about) Oh, but remember, ANY student, (Heaven forbid a Teacher), Laughs. They would be, a BULLY !!!!!!! And will be dealt with Just like Any Other BULLY. That is, ‘A Firm Talking To '! And of course, if the Person, Being Bulled, “””FINALLY”””, Hits the Bully Back. Well then it is so Very Clear, that the ‘Bully’ is Now the Victim ! |
|
Title: Re: No Reason it won't work, Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/02/18 at 20:01:27 7454565E4354310 wrote:
Policy is not law. Stupid PC BULLSHIT isn't reason Science is He is NOT FEMALE. I don't care how He With scrotum, testicles and thingy FEELS. it's not female It's a confused male |
|
Title: Re: No Reason it won't work, Post by Matchless G11 on 05/03/18 at 03:18:30 Back in the 1980s you could get kits to make your 280z or Fiero into a Ferrari look alike. But really, no matter what you did to it, it would Never be a real Ferrari. Again if unless you were born with both or none of the parts (very rare) you just can't change. (and is it really changing?) |
|
Title: Re: No Reason it won't work, Post by Eegore on 05/03/18 at 05:55:40 I agree that a male child identifying as a female is a confused child. I also agree that biologically that child is male, however I also agree that psychologically the line isn't as clearly defined. For instance one thing I've always wondered was why psychologists are not required to look at the organ they are treating. Some psych issues are due to physical and chemical brain changes. In any case I do believe that we can psychologically believe in things that do not exist, (hallucination, voices, multiple personality, etc.) and therefore I do think that males can believe they are psychologically a woman. Just as I've seen some that think they are Jesus, King of England, and a glass of water. I don't think we should stop assessment of a person at the biological makeup of a human body. I also think its ok to have policy that reflects the values of the company, or the employees, but I have yet to see one that won't allow employees to accurately observe a person's gender. |
|
Title: Re: No Reason it won't work, Post by MnSpring on 05/03/18 at 08:19:10 2707050D1007620 wrote:
"... I don’t think we should stop assessment of a person at the biological makeup of a human body..." This statement, says Volumes ! Two different scenarios. A Male, ‘identifies’, as a Female. Because they, ‘Control’, the people who Allow them to, go into the opposite sex bathrooms/dressing rooms/locker rooms/etc. They get that, ‘control’, by subversion persuading people to ‘allow’ it. A person can be dressed as a stereotype Male in Western culture, and go into any, bathroom/dressing room/locker room, they want to. (In Gov. place or some Private places), and ALL they have to say is: “I Identify as …”. A Male, ‘identifies’, (And dresses as), as a Female. They have to use the bathroom. They go in, use the stall, do their business, then leave. No One bothers them. (Well perhaps someone thinks, ‘was that a a Adams apple’?) They do Not, think of going into a place, where their, ‘pretending’, would be exposed. Now, what is the difference, or Consensus. One, ‘pretending’, will do his/her business, and that is all they are thinking of doing. Because even if, someone, would, ’suspect’, something, they would do nothing about it. And the, ‘Pretender’ Knows this. So they will rarely, Very Rarely, do something wrong. One, ‘pretending’, will, maybe, do his/her business. However, Because, their is a LAW, saying if they, ‘identify’, they CAN. They have More opportunity, (and have), to do something, ‘wrong’. Also, a person, who is NOT, ‘Pretending’, is added to the mix, because they know, their is a LAW, ‘Allowing’ them to, ‘Pretend’. Wonder what a reason could be, for a person, who is not a pretender, but knows that they CAN pretend, to pretend, to be a pretender. "... I don’t think we should stop assessment of a person at the biological makeup of a human body..." What about a persons, ‘Mind’, makeup ? The above says clearly, that if the, “…biological makeup of a human body…” Is a Male, than, “…I don’t think we should stop assessment of a person…” OK, so given the choice: One person is, Given, a Free 18 hole round of Golf, with 3 other people that they enjoy company with, with Free golf cart, with Free (top of the line) Clubs. Another one is, Given a Free, 3 hours on a range, given free, use of a firearm, given free, ammo/targets, and has 3 other people that they enjoy company with. Admittedly, their will be more people that would choose the first, over the second. YET, if someone would choose the second over the first. They are Shunned’, ‘Despised’, they Must be, …, …, …, etc. And saying that is absolute, perfectly, all right. Now, let’s ask, what %, of people, ‘Pretend’, and have a LAW, protecting them, so they can, ‘pretend’, more? |
|
Title: Re: No Reason it won't work, Post by Serowbot on 05/03/18 at 08:41:17 Your examples are so convoluted as to be incomprehensible... Just ask the question. :-/ Are you asking,.. "What if a guy fakes it to get a peep show?"... :-? |
|
Title: Re: No Reason it won't work, Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/03/18 at 08:43:36 Just as I've seen some that think they are Jesus, King of England, and a glass of water. I don't think we should stop assessment of a person at the biological makeup of a human body. Ohhh, AbsOlutely,, Sometimes they are mentally ill.. And the environment and the hormone mimicking crap, sure, I EXPECT a few goofballs,,, But DON'T TELL ME I have to CALL a man by female pronoun. Ignernt sumbitch is gonna be the first woman ever kicked in the nads. |
|
Title: Re: No Reason it won't work, Post by Serowbot on 05/03/18 at 09:09:35 The problem here is,... with most of these people, you would be even less comfortable having them use the bathroom that their biological gender would dictate. Plus,... people being as they are,... they could be in serious physical danger. The problem here is,... it's not which bathroom they use, but that they are using either at all... The problem here is,... these people do exist,... and they will need to use a bathroom now and then. The problem here is,... You can't wish them away. |
|
Title: Re: No Reason it won't work, Post by Eegore on 05/03/18 at 12:21:20 "But DON'T TELL ME I have to CALL a man by female pronoun. Ignernt sumbitch is gonna be the first woman ever kicked in the nads." You don't have to, unless you choose to work for a company or agency that requires it. Just like any company policy I imagine. Or possibly try to get the policy changed, just like any other. Have you worked at places that allow you to kick people in the nads? |
|
Title: Re: No Reason it won't work, Post by Eegore on 05/03/18 at 12:25:21 "What about a persons, ‘Mind’, makeup ? The above says clearly, that if the, “…biological makeup of a human body…” Is a Male, than, “…I don’t think we should stop assessment of a person…” OK, so given the choice: One person is, Given, a Free 18 hole round of Golf, with 3 other people that they enjoy company with, with Free golf cart, with Free (top of the line) Clubs. Another one is, Given a Free, 3 hours on a range, given free, use of a firearm, given free, ammo/targets, and has 3 other people that they enjoy company with." This is too far off topic for me to re-connect. All I am saying is that humans are consistently assessed by both their mental capacity and their physical form. Gun control isn't part of the assessment, nor is it part of the original topic - I did not mean to imply anything of the sort with my previous comments. My intention has always been that I have not seen a requirement to pretend someone is an opposite gender, by my definition and perception of what a requirement and pretending is. |
|
Title: Re: No Reason it won't work, Post by MnSpring on 05/03/18 at 13:25:55 0F2F2D25382F4A0 wrote:
“… Gun control isn’t part of the assessment, …” No, “‘Gun Control” was, NOT part of the, ‘original’ assessment. YET, a, ‘Assessment’, of a person, (in this last post) Biased ONLY, on a Persons, CHOICE, to go Golfing or Shooting. Was made. And because, a, ‘gun’ was involved, A, ‘Assessment’, was, Made. And that ‘assessment was, ‘Control those Guns’. “… My intention has always been that I have not seen a requirement to pretend someone is an opposite gender…” And no one has, EVER, said that. What Has been said, is that, a ‘Requirement’, to ALLOW, a ‘Pretender’, should not be a, ‘Requirement’. And the Point, (which MANY others GOT), Is that, a, ‘Pretender/s’, has always been among us, and always will be. But NOW, their is a, ‘Requirement’, to ALLOW, ‘Pretending’. |
|
Title: Re: No Reason it won't work, Post by MnSpring on 05/03/18 at 13:46:01 [quote author, BOT] The problem here is,... with most of these people, you would be even less comfortable having them use the bathroom that their biological gender would dictate. What ? Why ? Plus,... people being as they are,... they could be in serious physical danger. Sure, now, WHO, are those, '...people being as they are..." People ? The problem here is,... it's not which bathroom they use, but that they are using either at all... Not my problem if they $hit in their pants ! The problem here is,... these people do exist,... and they will need to use a bathroom now and then. And, no one, that is NO ONE, has EVER Said Otherwise. The problem here is,... You can't wish them away. Would that be like, a POV, that YOU don't like ? |
|
Title: Re: No Reason it won't work, Post by Eegore on 05/08/18 at 04:19:47 “… My intention has always been that I have not seen a requirement to pretend someone is an opposite gender…” And no one has, EVER, said that. First sentence in the thread: "If a man can decide he's a woman and people are required to pretend it's true" I interpreted this line as one stating that there was a requirement that we pretend that a male is in fact a female, as in fact or "true". I have not seen that, I have seen policy stating that we allow people to use any restroom they choose, but we may still accurately assess our perceived accurate gender of said person without consequence. Thankfully this doesn't happen everywhere as it seems assaulting people for gender dysphoria is the practical solution. |
|
Title: Re: No Reason it won't work, Post by Eegore on 05/08/18 at 04:22:44 The problem here is,... with most of these people, you would be even less comfortable having them use the bathroom that their biological gender would dictate. What ? Why ? I think in some cases it is because if some lit up transvestite's appearance offends more traditional males, then they would rather he use a females restroom than be in the males restroom where they have to see him. Homophobia basically, even though a lot of cross-dressers aren't even gay these days. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |