November 6, 2015

"Why only two very similar voices for this issue. Where are the 5 or 6 perspectives that normally appear in these 'Room For Discussion' segments."

"Did the Times previous editorial advocacy result in excluding women (or men) who have a differing perspective? Surely there are more than two (almost identical) perspectives regarding the treatment of transgender persons and others with reasonable and informed but differing perspectives can easily be found. This is not a 'Room For Discussion;' this is an 'Echo Chamber' for one perspective."

Says the 4th-highest-rated comment on the NYT forum: "Transgender Students in High School Locker Rooms/Can transgender students' rights be protected while recognizing other students' concerns about privacy in a locker room?" The "debates" are from the New York Association for Gender Rights Advocacy and from the National Center for Transgender Equality.

What are the 3 higher-rated comments?
1. "Call yourself Tarzan. Call yourself Jane. I don't care. I don't know you from Adam. But I know a man when I see one. I had better not see one in my locker room."

2. "Only a 'rights' crusader would force male bodies on females in locker rooms. It takes a reasonable person to understand why this is a problem for young females. Unfortunately, crusaders are neither reasonable nor interested in compromise."

3. "Trouble is, nearly all of these 'transgendered' kids are not transgendered in any commonsense rendering of that term. 'Presenting' as female is by definition superficial; long hair and a dress. Strip down and you still have a young man. And therein lies the problem."
Remember, this is The New York Times, which, just yesterday, ran an editorial vilifying the people of Texas who voted down an equal-rights law seemingly out of resistance to male bodies in the girls' bathroom and locker room.

77 comments:

khesanh0802 said...

Here's a question: Why do so-called transgendered have "rights" and other students only have "concerns"?

The comments you included are wonderful!

West Texas Intermediate Crude said...

Men are statistically larger, stronger, and more aggressive than women.
The women's bathroom is, or at least should be, a refuge for them.
Let's call it a Sanctuary Room, where women can be free of oppression from the Patriarchy.
They can also do other things that need not be discussed in their Sanctuary Rooms.

Laslo Spatula said...

If a male identifying as a female in the girl's locker room sports an erection, is that then a Lesbian Erection?

And if a girl were to suck on that female-identifying cock would that make HER a lesbian?

We may need the Porn World to help make the proper decision.

I am Laslo.



Wince said...

Sex reassignment surgery, even today with all of its advances, cannot in fact change anyone’s sex, okay. You can define yourself as a trans man, or a trans woman, as one of these new gradations along the scale. But ultimately, every single cell in the human body, the DNA in that cell, remains coded for your biological birth.

Feminist Camille Paglia Calls Out ‘Transgender Mania’ and Says Parents Who Indulge Kids Are Committing Child Abuse (VIDEO)

khesanh0802 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
khesanh0802 said...

I have to agree with Chris Christie; : If this is all we have to worry about in this country we must be in great shape.

I am really tired of the advocacy of even the smallest, and strangest, minorities "rights". Generally I feel each one deserves Ann's BS tag. The majority has rights as well. Until someone proves to me that it is otherwise, I will consider any teenager who "identifies" as the other sex as mentally ill or a con artist.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

khesanh0802 said...

The majority has rights as well.

The majority does not have rights. Individuals ( including those in the majority ) have rights.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

In the late 70s, when the Equal Rights Amendment was circulating, opponents said that it would lead to unisex bathrooms, locker rooms, showers. Well, here we are. Took a few decades, that's all.

I too am perplexed that the only people the NYT could find to write on this were two women from advocacy organizations on the same side, one of whom thinks Palatine was vaguely sorta doing the right thing and one of whom says that any disparate impact is discriminatory. There are more positions out there than those two, but evidently they're not fit for the NYT Op-Ed pages.

Me, I say a boy or man -- i.e., someone with a penis -- doesn't belong in a girls' or womens' restroom or locker room or shower. (And vice versa, naturally, though FTM is much less common than MTF.) And I'm appalled that MTFs are being allowed on women's sports teams, given very real differences in anatomy and musculature in particular. What are people thinking? Are people thinking? At all?

Paco Wové said...

I was remarking to the spouse just this morning on how the big media organs on my Google News feed not only had essentially the same opinion* on this particular freak show, but they also shared the same voice – the same style, tone, delivery. Almost like the same group of people were churning out the copy for everyone.

*Said opinion, of course, saturating through the "news" as well.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Somewhat OT, but the other day my husband was teaching one of his classes about opera, and the subject of castrati came up. He said the usual: that they were initially introduced because Church bans on women singing precluded anyone else in female roles, but then, even after the ban was lifted, people loved the sound of a good castrato voice. I lamented that we have no real idea what they sounded like. (That one impossibly old Vatican recording gives you no clue.)

So: Imagine a really good treble in 21st c. America who wants to become a castrato. Why ever not? He can say he's a girl, and everyone now takes him at his word. Why can't he say he'd rather be a eunuch? All it takes is castration before puberty, and we're already doing that.

William said...

Many years ago on a NYC subway I saw two transvestites get into a fight. They didn't fight like ladies. One body slammed the other and started kicking her. I don't know how the fight was resolved. I got off the train at the next stop. That was an abundance of caution. Most of the other passengers moved to another car.....I don't mean to negatively stereotype transgendered people. I don't know any personally, but it does seem like the kind of imbalance that might attract some unbalanced people. I can see why a lot of women might be loathe to share a bathroom with a transgendered person. If it's unfair to label transgendered people as psychos, it is equally unfair to label people who don't want to share intimate space with them as bigots.

Roughcoat said...

If a male identifying as a female in the girl's locker room sports an erection

Old joke.

Laslo: be funnier. Be original.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Paco Wové,

I know what you mean. This and the drumbeat on "climate change" are the cases in which the media have most read from the same script, with "inequality" a close third.

JAORE said...

I think most of these outrage/"you knuckle dragging bigot" columns are missing the point. The problem is two fold. Yes, (especially) young girls may well not feel comfortable with an exposed penis in the shower area. Heck both boys and girls can feel uncomfortable with nudity in front of their own gender.

But the advocates also say you can self-identify. There is no surgery, no hormonal treatments required. Do you have to be in a dress? Of course not. That would surely be both sexist and transphobic, right? You can re-identify at any point and oscillate like the room fan of my youth. And one can not, simply can NOT question an individuals self determination.

That, friends and neighbors is a real problem. Both having individual or groups of young men invade a girls shower with no way to screen. Same with adult facilities. The best case scenario is being viewed naked. And, "What do you mean I can't bring my cell phone into the locker room?"

If you can't see that as a problem the sky may not be blue on your home planet.

Sebastian said...

"Let's call it a Sanctuary Room"

Or a Safe Space. Just to encourage Prog infighting.

@MDT: "What are people thinking? Are people thinking? At all?"

Sure they are. Prog rights fundamentalists using any opportunity to mess with bourgeois morality. Anything that serves the transvaluation of values, goes.


Scott said...

Progressivism in America has jumped the shark.

Jane the Actuary said...

So would a "transgirl" with the right combination of hormone treatments produce a castrato voice?

On the one hand, there's a lot we don't know -- apparently this student has been receiving hormones. Is this one of those cases where puberty-blocking and female hormones mean that, from all external appearances, the student no longer looks male except for a prepubescent dangly-bit? Are showers an issue? Are classmates pressured into acceptance, even in the locker room?

But the discussion is getting stranger and stranger. Slate had a piece advocating for removing sex differentiating from all sorts of restrooms, locker rooms, etc., and replacing this with wholesale retrofitting of individual "sealed" stalls. And a liberal facebook friend had a discussion in comments to a status update that said that, if a girl doesn't want to be exposed to penises in changing rooms, it's that girl that needs counseling, not protection.

Dr.D said...

Nature does not lie; anyone born with a penis is a man and does not belong in a girl's dressing room. Similarly, anyone born with a vagina is a woman and does not belong in the men's locker room. End of story.

The mental and emotional confusion of the transfolk should not be allowed to endow them with some exceptional rights, rights that normal people do not enjoy.

Birches said...

There is hope for America after all...

Jane the Actuary said...

Oh, and a commenter in that discussion praised France, where, she claimed, men and women change together in public places, pensises and boobs flying everywhere with no regard from anyone. Sounded pretty doubtful. Certainly wasn't the case in Germany, except for FKK beaches.

Wince said...

As I've said before, the purpose here is establishing the state's ability to force your a capitulation to language and to thought, as predicted by Orwell:

Do you remember writing in your diary, 'Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four'?

How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?

... And if the party says it is it is not four but five, then how many?

T J Sawyer said...

This problem is easily solved.

When asked your racial/ethnic/gender identity, choose the most outrageous, farthest-from-the-truth possible response. If we can get about a quarter of the nation to follow this guideline, the left's identity politics scheme will shortly collapse.

Just the opinion of another black/Asian lesbian.

YoungHegelian said...

Here's a deep dark secret the Left doesn't want you to know: the Left has gone gnostic. There are the doctrines for the plebes & the doctrines for the initiates. The exoteric & the esoteric.

It's the purpose of the "moderate" Left to make sure no one who's not "in the business" gets to see the "esoteric" Left as it is. The reason why: most of the world has another word for the esoteric Left, and that word is "insane".

Think I'm full of it? Then, riddle me this, Batman. Pundits will lament that young women "do not identify as feminists". They never mention how young women in college will sit in a women studies class in college & be told that all penis in vagina sex is rape, at which point 98% will make a quick beeline for the door. The insane stuff that gets said by academic feminists is never addressed as part of the problem, and they never give them a microphone on NPR.

Remember Obama & the Rashid Khalidi tape? What did the LA Times say about why it wasn't released? "The source didn't want it released". 'Cause, every time a source wants to kill a story, it gets killed, right? Just ask the Bush administration.

Remember Obama & Rev. Wright? Did any of the media go and interview Rev Wright's ideological mentor, Prof. James Cone, father of Black Liberation Theology? Nope. It just would have been too hard to find & interview him --- hiding as he was on the faculty at Union Theological Seminary! The real reason is that if someone had stuck a microphone in Prof. Cone's face, the electorate would go "Who listens to crazy religion like that?" & might have voted for the other guy.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

And a liberal facebook friend had a discussion in comments to a status update that said that, if a girl doesn't want to be exposed to penises in changing rooms, it's that girl that needs counseling, not protection.

The culture hasn't changed that much and I doubt that it ever will, but not because our betters haven't been trying.

After all, aren't some colleges trying to introduce coed showers and bathrooms? And running into issues, but soldiering on to the bright shiny egalitarian future where we all define our own gender and the concept of men and women are seen as the obsolete anachronisms they are (except when its time to accuse a man of rape that is.)

campy said...

You can't expect the Times to allow hate-filled, bigoted perspectives in their pages.

Birches said...

Oh, and a commenter in that discussion praised France, where, she claimed, men and women change together in public places, pensises and boobs flying everywhere with no regard from anyone. Sounded pretty doubtful. Certainly wasn't the case in Germany, except for FKK beaches.

I was in France in 2000 (granted that WAS 15 years ago), but there were still separate changing rooms at the pool.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Discussion and Conversation, to the Left, have very clear meanings. Sure, they're not what most people think of when they hear those words, but the Left is consistent when they say thing like "we need to have a national discussion on race (or gun control, or whatever)." The NYTimes is written by, and mostly for, the Left. It's not in the least surprising that they're applying their understanding of the term to their selection of perspectives on this topic.

Mr Wibble said...

And a liberal facebook friend had a discussion in comments to a status update that said that, if a girl doesn't want to be exposed to penises in changing rooms, it's that girl that needs counseling, not protection.

Bookworm stated it best that this is an attempt to remove the concept of bodily autonomy. Basically if you don't want members of the opposite sex to see you naked, or don't want to see members of the opposite sex naked, then you are morally wrong. The implication is that your body belongs to the collective.

Jane the Actuary said...

Would be a fun wrinkle to have a Muslim girl added to the mix, claiming that her religious freedom be accommodated, and say that moving her to a separate changing area is offensive because that singles her out and excludes her.

chuck said...

Good Lord, there is a limit to the foolishness of the NY Times' readers. Who would have thought it possible.

mpeirce said...

Egyptian pyramids actual did contain some grain in them.

They built the pyramids for the comfort of the departed pharaohs and that included providing them with all sort of nice things like jewelry, furniture, clothing, and yes, quite a bit of food.

They weren't really grain stores (like our silos), but it's actually not a stupid thing to guess they might be. Especially if one didn't study them (I doubt many medical doctors took a lot of archeology courses in college)

tim maguire said...

Just as openness was a boon for the gay community because every one of us has a close friend or relative who is gay, openness is death to the SJW community because every one of us knows or is related to a woman or girl who we don't want made to feel uncomfortable in the bathroom (of all places!). I don't think this is a 10 or 20 year thing like so many other rights battles, this is more like the bridge too far. The haters on the left will lose. And once having begun to lose, their whole house of cards will collapse. (I think this because I don't believe they have it in them to learn the right lessons.)

TWW said...

It must be tough being an editor of The Onion these days.

Rick said...

this is The New York Times, which, just yesterday, ran an editorial vilifying the people of Texas who voted down an equal-rights law seemingly out of resistance to male bodies in the girls' bathroom and locker room.

While true the NYT can't restrict commenting to left wing ideologues. So won't they just presume their prominence draws a large number of their ideological opponents who vote up bad ideas?

MayBee said...

In all of this the powers that be who wrote Obamacare decided nursing mothers needed separate rooms for privacy. Why them, and them alone?

n.n said...

The pressure must be building in high density, pro-choice population centers.

However, America's fathers and brothers speak. Progressive morality is delayed. The psychiatric "consensus" and social activists have been put on notice.

traditionalguy said...

Carson probably thinks that Evangelical Iowa corn farmers will understand Pharonic grain storage in Pyramids was directly ordered done by God.

Why, God orders them to do the same thing so the ethanol price subsidy can be scammed and given to the work of Godly farmers. God likes Christians to become wealthy from cornering the market on poor people's food.

It is an item of faith.

The Drill SGT said...

Jane the Actuary said...
Would be a fun wrinkle to have a Muslim girl added to the mix, claiming that her religious freedom be accommodated, and say that moving her to a separate changing area is offensive because that singles her out and excludes her.


So another thought experiment for Althouse...

Doesn't this whole Leftist "there are no two genders but rather a continuum" thing shot the crap out of title IX? How can Dept of Ed tell the school district that trans girls must be accommodated and still enforce an outdated bi-polar view of gender equality?

Unisex sports teams are the only legal solution.

khesanh0802 said...

@ Ignorance: Those in the majority have rights too. Better?

Levi Starks said...

I can imagine a girl/woman after a locker room encounter with someone who displayed obviously male equipment exclaiming "I couldn't believe my eyes"
To which the obvious response would be no, no you cant. We now live in a so completely postmodern world that your eyes which you once believed to be reliable arbiters of truth can no longer be trusted.

Todd said...

The Drill SGT said...

Unisex sports teams are the only legal solution.

11/6/15, 11:34 AM


Dang! I could have ruled [and gotten a SWEET scholarship] by getting on the girls track team or the unisex wrestling team!

Opportunities lost...

Bay Area Guy said...

It's funny how the Left eats its own.

There's a lotta NY mothers who have teenage daughters, swear by the NYTimes, religiously vote Democrat, and are thinking, "God no!, I don't want trannies in my daughter's locker room in gym class!"

There's a point at which Social Justice Warriors (i.e., left-wing idiots) start destroying, what they purport to be saving. (see, black unemployment and marriage rates, Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago)

lgv said...

The most leftist state in the US voted to define marriage as a man and a woman. Funny how that is when voting in secret. There is how you are supposed to think and how you really think. Can a liberal woman be allowed not to want to see naked men in their locker room?

Does the city of NY or the state of NY have the equivalent law as was proposed in Houston? Just curious.

Rick said...

Levi Starks said...
I can imagine a girl/woman after a locker room encounter with someone who displayed obviously male equipment exclaiming "I couldn't believe my eyes"


No need to imagine it:

She went to the front desk after someone who looked like a "man" entered the women's locker room while she was changing.

"I wanted to know why there was a man in the women's locker room," she told CNN. "He looked like a man, and that's what stopped me in my tracks."

She said the front desk employee told her about Planet Fitness' "no-judgment" policy, which allows people to use changing room based on "their sincere, self-reported gender identity."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/07/living/feat-planet-fitness-transgender-member/

SteveR said...

Self identification, without cutting it off, is not a ticket to the ladies room.

tim maguire said...

MayBee said...In all of this the powers that be who wrote Obamacare decided nursing mothers needed separate rooms for privacy. Why them, and them alone?

Would nursing mothers peeing get privacy for their top half but not their bottom half?

wildswan said...

if any man can say he is a woman and hang about in public restrooms:
Why should peeping toms be illegal?
Why should boring holes into women's shower rooms and taking pictures be illegal?
Why should public nudity be illegal?
Why should flashing be illegal if any man can say he is a woman and go into public bathrooms and "change his clothes"?

As for kids bathrooms I think those who advocate single-sex bathrooms must have forgotten their childhood if they think there won't be interactive extracurricular sex-ed going on.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

From what I've read of it the actual facts of the case are worse than the gloss you get from most of the discussions, by the way--apparently the school offered to create a curtained-off area just for this student (I think inside the girl's locker room) but the D of E said that wasn't good enough (it would stigmatize the person, I guess). So this talk about "just have single stalls" as though that would solve the problem really isn't correct--if the D of E though you were going to a stall system just to get around this problem they'd still probably find you to be illegally discriminating! Plus, you know, the cost.
Away, shit's fucked up, yo.

Real American said...

Trannies aren't demanding the same rights as everyone else - they're demanding special rights for themselves based on their own delusions and lifestyle choices and trying to force normal people to go along. Chromosomes don't lie. All the surgery, hormones and apparel in the world cannot turn a male into a female or vice versa. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a denier of basic human biology (akin to Holocaust deniers!) Why do these leftists hate science so much? Probably because they're just as deranged as the trannies.

Gabriel said...

@Mpierce:They weren't really grain stores (like our silos), but it's actually not a stupid thing to guess they might be.

Dr. Carson did quite a bit more than guess--he made a declarative statement which says a great deal about his sources of information.

It is a very silly idea--the interior volume of the pyramids is almost entirely stone; the chambers are a very tiny fraction of that volume. Architecturally speaking, they are rockpiles, and as suitable for storing grain as a rockpile would be. You might hide things in a rockpile, if the items are not too large, but you wouldn't put very much in there and it wouldn't be things you would need to be able to get back out again easily.

Still, it's amazing to me the straining at Republican gnats and the swallowing of Democratic camels; not because I'm surprised by it at this stage of my life, because it seems to be getting increasingly brazen.

Todd said...

SteveR said...

Self identification, without cutting it off, is not a ticket to the ladies room.

11/6/15, 12:15 PM


Steve, Steve, Steve, that is SO 2010 thinking! Get with the times, man [or woman or wam or wyman, or whatever already]!

Jason said...

Treating gender dysphoria with surgery and hormones is like treating anorexia with liposuction and diet pills.

MaxedOutMama said...

I agree with JAORE @ 9:51 - the problem with these ordinances is that they give a legal right to males to use the women's restroom. No one is really concerned with women using the males' restroom, which should tell us all something. The people who are claiming there is no real issue live in a fantasy world. Most of us cannot afford to do that.

Transvestites/transitioned transsexuals already do use the women's facilities - it is a question of passing. You have to look like you are in that category.

But if it becomes legally impossible to bar men from the women's changing and bathroom areas, then it becomes impossible to police these areas, and women will suffer for it. They will suffer crimes for it. You are placing women in danger.

The transvestites/transsexuals who are already using the women's facilities will also be more endangered, so I have lost all tolerance for the PC on this issue. It's tautological in the extreme, and I think they are the bigots.

Note - If we did have unisex facilities like some (an open sink area, a somewhat screened urinal area, and locked stalls with floor length doors), it would probably be somewhat safer for most people in good areas, and women just wouldn't use the public johns in less-safe areas and during low traffic times unless in a group.

There is less of a safety issue in high schools, because they are monitoring the students who are biologically male and want to use the women's facilities. But if the principle becomes that it is solely at the individual's discretion, then high schools will become a safety problem as well. There is already enough sexual abuse/mistreatment at that age that it is a concern, and most especially for developmentally disabled girls, who often are assaulted in high school.

We are letting individuals with profound psychological disorders set the rules for society, and the result is unsurprisingly lunatic.

Hagar said...

"No men in the Ladies'!" might be a good leading slogan for the Republicans next fall.

Nichevo said...

Fully enclosed bathroom stalls are ideal for both rape and consensual toilet sex. So win win!

The answer of course is that everything will be OK because now they will have cameras everywhere in the bathroom, and people watching them, and the video streams safely and securely residing on Google or Microsoft cloud. Won't that be nice? So that six months later the rapist can be found and prosecuted. But that's not really important, the important thing is that people will now accept cameras in the bathroom.

toady said...

Think ahead a few steps. They are eventually coming for our urinals. I refuse to be a sitzpinkler.

Unknown said...

Roughcoat, don't be a Laslo h8ter

Unknown said...

Never thought of it, but Dr D is right. If you give a male who self identifies as trans visual access to naked female bodies but not one who self identifies as hetero, isn't that discrimination based on sexual identity?

Unknown said...

Gabriel, although IMHO pyramids as a grain elevator scheme makes less sense than grain elevators as pyramid scheme I don't know how long ago he made the statement. Which is to say if it was longer than 20 years ago I'd give him the benefit of the doubt unless he is still staking the claim.

Big Mike said...

Maybe we're reaching the end of the never ending culture wars?

Fernandinande said...

Unknown said...
Which is to say if it was longer than 20 years ago I'd give him the benefit of the doubt unless he is still staking the claim.


Last Wednesday is less than 20 years ago.

But the important issue is: what kind of bathrooms did the Egyptian pyramids have, and who peed in which ones?

n.n said...

First, selective child was confirmed as a means to normalize or promote anti-native policies.

Second, planned cannibalism (PC) by the Planned Parenthood Corporation was exposed.

Third, the Playboy magazines were removed from the family table.

Fourth, the construction of congruences to carry out politically motivated discrimination and repression was highlighted with Obama's embrace of the lackluster Rainbow flag, overruling of Democrat votes by a transgender judge, selective exclusion under the "=" ruling, etc.

Finally, the misogynistic proclivities of progressive "moralists" and JournoLists is self-reported in their confused rush to deny women's and girl's dignity under the Goldberg "it's not rape-rape" philosophy.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

khesanh0802 said...

@ Ignorance: Those in the majority have rights too. Better?

Yes, much.

jono39 said...

I spent much of a decade studying the gay underworld in New York in the 1970s. The products of this research will be published in the next few years now that most of the people who could have done me in are dead (mafiois) or retired (cops mostly). Several hundred hours of video were made from concealed trucks documenting the creation of the AIDS epidemic which will revive later in this century (another subject). Anyway, I had many encounters with people labeled transsexuals, self-identified as well as labeled by others. While there is a tiny group of birth defects who survive to be mixed, the greatest majority of these self-identified Transgendered are mentally deranged. Sexual liberation so called is now coming full circle. There will be a very powerful countercurrent developing to this shameless indifference to reality.

Robt C said...

Now the NYT is upping the ante, claiming "A Vote in Houston Leaves the NFL in a bind."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/sports/football/nfl-misses-opportunity-to-make-an-important-statement.html?

From the article: "The latest example came Wednesday, when the league said unequivocally that it would plow ahead with plans to host the 2017 Super Bowl in Houston, even after voters there repealed an ordinance that outlawed discrimination based on factors like race, religion and sexual orientation.

The league, as it and other sports organizations have done in the past, seemed to let the practical matter of logistics trump any move to take a stand on a delicate social issue."

I don't think the SJWs will let this rest. And as other commenters have noted, I hope they're finally jumping the shark.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Huh. I thought the "bind" the NFL would be in would be not allowing 300 lb. female linebackers on its teams. Silly me.

Michael K said...

"But ultimately, every single cell in the human body, the DNA in that cell, remains coded for your biological birth."

Except for" testicular feminization syndrome" now known as androgen insensitivity syndrome.

A gorgeous and famous US movie star is case and she is genetically male. Those, however, are pretty rare.

The left has really scored an "own goal" on this one as they will alienate not only traditional culture individuals but gays are rethinking this already. Why should they defend trannies ?

Fen said...

These are the same people that made jokes about Texans dying in the recent flood. Fuck em. I hope they die in a fire. ISIS could nuke NYC tomorrow and I wouldn't care.

m stone said...

Liberal candidates will not be hurt by this issue. The stock response will be: "We will accommodate all people" or a variation.

(Cheers and applause)

No follow-up questions.

Unknown said...

I had a conversation with a friend an hour ago. She was convinced that the theoretical 8 or 9 dimensions that physicists predict will be discovered eventually. I disagreed with her. I told her that there are too many social manias, too many climate alarmists, and too many 16th century religious zealots abound in this world to allow for such a thing, and that we are at the pinnacle of our intellectual and technological development. She took a sip of wine and said "Yeah, you're probably right."

BN said...

"She took a sip of wine and said 'Yeah, you're probably right.'"

What happened next? This is beautiful so far.

Guildofcannonballs said...

What about the rights of rural kids to feel equal to new-fashion-wearing urban kids who, you know the type, you know, are so quick to parade in front of the unwashed others "clothes" as if the obnoxious, conspicuous status-display they wear were their own design, or something some big corporation didn't make somewhere else for profit?

Urban kids must all be made to wear uniforms, environmentally-friendly hairless shirts/skirts being the emphasis, so as to prohibit the moneyed bigots aggressively using a position of comparable extreme power and influence, influence so much so that it would make Bill Clinton blush and Monica do the unmentionable twice on Sundays--otherwise face spankings and sundry adjustments.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

androgen insensitivity syndrome

So, not only genetic, but physiological mutations occur. The question is should the individual exhibiting the condition be normalized, tolerated, or rejected? Also, how do we reconcile the interests of all affected parties?

It seems that violating the dignity and rights of other people and, in fact, the majority, is not a viable solution. And constructing politically favorable congruences as a basis for selective exclusion is also an illegitimate resolution.

Then there is other evidence of unqualified progress. Surely we can do better than normalize elective abortion for human welfare (e.g. women, environment), and planned cannibalism with dreams of delaying human mortality.

BN said...

"...planned cannibalism with dreams of delaying human mortality."

I'm putting that on my business card.

BN said...

Sometimes I just put on some AC/DC and crank it up full blast.

It's your fault.

n.n said...

BN:

Who wants to live forever!

Serving daily the choicest cuts of planned human babies.

You already have a national distribution chain and global national franchise.