Color Me Colored

Posts : 6988

edge540 wrote:: I have no problem with a transgender woman using a locker room for woman.
No I would not be comfortable with a man who is pretending (your sick perverted fantasy scenario)to be a female in a female locker room.

And, once again, the all-important question:
How do you tell the difference?

Posts : 1165

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:: I have no problem with a transgender woman using a locker room for woman.
No I would not be comfortable with a man who is pretending (your sick perverted fantasy scenario)to be a female in a female locker room.

And, once again, the all-important question:
How do you tell the difference?

Since I'm not a school administrator or the operator of a gym or heath club to me it's not important at all and I really_really don't give a shit. I don't worry it, fantasize about it and and I'm not obsessed by it like paranoid, ignorant conservatives.
Here's a suggestion, call the California state office in charge of public education and ask them how they deal with your mythical problem that does not exist. Maybe somebody there can alleviate your delusional paranoia.
Please let us know what they say.

Here ya go, knock yourself out:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/di/cd/

Oh wait...
Before you call you might want to read this so you don't sound too much like a mouth breathing, full of shit conservative moron:

California’s New Protections for Transgender Students
The opponents’ arguments have proven to be as unfounded as they are offensive. Here are five of the most frequently repeated myths, along with the realities, which are supported by research and experience.
Myth No. 1:
This law will let boys pretending to be transgender gain access to girls’ bathrooms to peep, or play on girls’ sports teams because they are not good enough for boys’ teams.
One of the most common places in which transgender individuals face discrimination, harassment, and violence is in sex-segregated facilities and programs. Opponents of basic protections for transgender students claim that this law will allow male students who pose or pretend to be transgender to gain access to different -sex facilities for nefarious reasons. This illogical argument assumes that students would impose on themselves the risk of family rejection, alienation from friends, extreme discrimination, and significant rates of bullying in order to simply gain access to a bathroom or play for a female athletic team.
Nothing about this law changes school policies related to monitoring and responding to student behavior. Invasive or harmful acts such as voyeurism and assault will be just as illegal and punishable after this law is implemented as they were prior to its passage. In fact, the largest school district in California—the Los Angeles Unified School District—has already implemented these policies with “nothing but positive outcomes,” and the California Interscholastic Federation, the statewide athletic organization, passed similar policies earlier this year, indicating its support of transgender students.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/news/2013/08/23/72800/californias-new-protections-for-transgender-students/

Are we done Dr. Happy Jack?

Posts : 6988

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:: I have no problem with a transgender woman using a locker room for woman.
No I would not be comfortable with a man who is pretending (your sick perverted fantasy scenario)to be a female in a female locker room.

And, once again, the all-important question:
How do you tell the difference?

Since I'm not a school administrator or the operator of a gym or heath club to me it's not important at all and I really_really don't give a shit. I don't worry it, fantasize about it and and I'm not obsessed by it like paranoid, ignorant conservatives.
Here's a suggestion, call the California state office in charge of public education and ask them how they deal with your mythical problem that does not exist. Maybe somebody there can alleviate your delusional paranoia.
Please let us know what they say.

Here ya go, knock yourself out:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/di/cd/

Oh wait...
Before you call you might want to read this so you don't sound too much like a mouth breathing, full of shit conservative moron:

California’s New Protections for Transgender Students
The opponents’ arguments have proven to be as unfounded as they are offensive. Here are five of the most frequently repeated myths, along with the realities, which are supported by research and experience.
Myth No. 1:
This law will let boys pretending to be transgender gain access to girls’ bathrooms to peep, or play on girls’ sports teams because they are not good enough for boys’ teams.
One of the most common places in which transgender individuals face discrimination, harassment, and violence is in sex-segregated facilities and programs. Opponents of basic protections for transgender students claim that this law will allow male students who pose or pretend to be transgender to gain access to different -sex facilities for nefarious reasons. This illogical argument assumes that students would impose on themselves the risk of family rejection, alienation from friends, extreme discrimination, and significant rates of bullying in order to simply gain access to a bathroom or play for a female athletic team.
Nothing about this law changes school policies related to monitoring and responding to student behavior. Invasive or harmful acts such as voyeurism and assault will be just as illegal and punishable after this law is implemented as they were prior to its passage. In fact, the largest school district in California—the Los Angeles Unified School District—has already implemented these policies with “nothing but positive outcomes,” and the California Interscholastic Federation, the statewide athletic organization, passed similar policies earlier this year, indicating its support of transgender students.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/news/2013/08/23/72800/californias-new-protections-for-transgender-students/

Are we done Dr. Happy Jack?

This illogical argument assumes that students would impose on themselves the risk of family rejection, alienation from friends, extreme discrimination, and significant rates of bullying in order to simply gain access to a bathroom or play for a female athletic team.

1. This is pure speculation on someone's part.
2. This would be unlikely to deter an adult impostor in a health club facility.

So, once again, edge:
How do you tell the difference?

Posts : 1165

happy jack wrote:: 1. This is pure speculation on someone's part.

No it's not, it's supported by research and experience.
See above.

happy jack wrote:: 2. This would be unlikely to deter an adult impostor in a health club facility.

Nope, pure speculation on your part supported by absolutely nothing except the voices in your the head.
It's your stupid, paranoid opinion based on nothing, sorry Dr. Happy Jack.

happy jack wrote:: So, once again, edge:
How do you tell the difference?

I already went over that and I'm not repeating myself, see previous posts above.
AGAIN, it's also not my problem, don't know, don't care, ask the operator of the health club facility.

Posts : 6988

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:: 1. This is pure speculation on someone's part.

No it's not, it's supported by research and experience.
See above.

It is not possible to use “research and experience” to accurately predict future human behavior.

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:: 2. This would be unlikely to deter an adult impostor in a health club facility.

Nope, pure speculation on someone's part supported by absolutely nothing except voices in the head.
It's your stupid, paranoid opinion based on nothing, sorry Dr. Happy Jack.

Someone determined to pose as a transgender at a health club would not face the “…. risk of family rejection, alienation from friends, extreme discrimination, and significant rates of bullying ….”, inasmuch as the bearded lady would need only say to the proprietor of the health club, “I’m a woman, I don’t have to prove it, and the law says you have to let me into the women’s locker room, no matter what, or I will sue you for everything you own.” There would be no social stigma involved whatsoever.

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:: So, once again, edge:
How do you tell the difference?

I already went over that and I'm not repeating myself, see previous posts above.
AGAIN, it's also not my problem, don't know, don't care, ask the operator of the health club facility.

Sorry, you have yet to answer my question, other than to say that you don’t care. That is most assuredly not an answer.
No, it’s not your problem. But the implementation of your proposal will become somebody else’s problem, whether it be the health club proprietor, the woman who chooses not to be ogled while showering, or the concerned father of a teen-aged girl.

Posts : 1165

happy jack wrote:: Sorry, you have yet to answer my question, other than to say that you don’t care.

Sorry, I have answered your questions. Can't help it if you don't agree with them.
Hope you have fun indulging in your perverted, twisted fantasies, see ya.

Posts : 6988

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:: Sorry, you have yet to answer my question, other than to say that you don’t care.

Sorry, I have answered your questions. Can't help it if you don't agree with them.
Hope you have fun indulging in your perverted, twisted fantasies, see ya.

I thought that Artie was the only one who would pussy out of answering straightforward questions by playing the 'Boredom Card".
Guess I was wrong.

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:: 1. This is pure speculation on someone's part.

No it's not, it's supported by research and experience.
See above.

It is not possible to use “research and experience” to accurately predict future human behavior.

Huh? Are you really saying that research and experience are irrelevant? If you could clarify, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks!

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:: 1. This is pure speculation on someone's part.

No it's not, it's supported by research and experience.
See above.

It is not possible to use “research and experience” to accurately predict future human behavior.

Huh? Are you really saying that research and experience are irrelevant? If you could clarify, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks!

I'm not sure what needs to be clarified. Human behavior is random and erratic, therefore highly unpredictable.

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:: 1. This is pure speculation on someone's part.

No it's not, it's supported by research and experience.
See above.

It is not possible to use “research and experience” to accurately predict future human behavior.

Huh? Are you really saying that research and experience are irrelevant? If you could clarify, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks!

I'm not sure what needs to be clarified. Human behavior is random and erratic, therefore highly unpredictable.

I think that you've "jumped the shark" on this point, Jack. Human behavior is certainly not "random and erratic." It would be unsafe to ever leave the house if that were true.

Now, I'm not saying that behavior is never random or erratic. But that's certainly not the "way of things." In fact, I would argue that most human behavior is highly predictable.

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: Human behavior is certainly not "random and erratic."

Scorpion wrote:: In fact, I would argue that most human behavior is highly predictable.

You're not married, are you?

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: Human behavior is certainly not "random and erratic."

Scorpion wrote:: In fact, I would argue that most human behavior is highly predictable.

You're not married, are you?

Yes, I am, and I can assure you...if I told my wife that she was "random and erratic," her reaction would be highly predictable.

Posts : 1165

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: Human behavior is certainly not "random and erratic."

Scorpion wrote:: In fact, I would argue that most human behavior is highly predictable.

You're not married, are you?

Yes, I am, and I can assure you...if I told my wife that she was "random and erratic," her reaction would be highly predictable.

Good one.

Posts : 1165

Scorpion wrote:: I think that you've "jumped the shark" on this point, Jack.

He "jumped the shark" in his first post:

happy jack wrote:: "But don’t be surprised if liberals hold her up as the poster child for a new group of victims: transracialists, or some other such nonsense."

Posts : 6988

edge540 wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: I think that you've "jumped the shark" on this point, Jack.

He "jumped the shark" in his first post:

happy jack wrote:: "But don’t be surprised if liberals hold her up as the poster child for a new group of victims: transracialists, or some other such nonsense."

Any intention of answering this?

So, once again, edge:
How do you tell the difference between a transgendered person and a person posing as transgender?

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: Human behavior is certainly not "random and erratic."

Scorpion wrote:: In fact, I would argue that most human behavior is highly predictable.

You're not married, are you?

Yes, I am, and I can assure you...if I told my wife that she was "random and erratic," her reaction would be highly predictable.

No argument there.

Posts : 1165

happy jack wrote:: Any intention of answering this?

So, once again, edge:
How do you tell the difference between a transgendered person and a person posing as transgender?

Are you illiterate, stupid or blind or do you just like nagging people?
I've told you, I don't know:

edge540 wrote:: AGAIN, it's also not my problem, don't know, don't care, ask the operator of the health club facility.

Posts : 6988

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:: Any intention of answering this?

So, once again, edge:
How do you tell the difference between a transgendered person and a person posing as transgender?

Are you illiterate, stupid or blind or do you just like nagging people?
I've told you, I don't know:

edge540 wrote:: AGAIN, it's also not my problem, don't know, don't care, ask the operator of the health club facility.

Then why did you say this?

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:: Tell me, edge - should a man, fully equipped with a penis (you know, that thing that men have hanging between their legs), be allowed to hang out in a women's locker room at the health club merely because he claims that he is a woman?

Depends if she/he is a transgender.

By saying that, it's apparent that you have some way of verifying whether or not someone is truly transgendered.
But if you don't have some way of verifying whether or not someone is truly transgendered, then it's apparent that you are in favor of a policy that allows any random guy to grab an eyeful while your wife/daughter/granddaughter takes a shower.
That's a decidedly odd position to take for someone who claims to be a man.

Posts : 1165

Further proof the right wing ~~bigots~~ fear mongers are decidedly full of shit.

15 Experts Debunk Right-Wing Transgender Bathroom Myth
Experts in 12 states -- including law enforcement officials, government employees, and advocates for victims of sexual assault -- have debunked the right-wing myth that sexual predators will exploit transgender non-discrimination laws to sneak into women's restrooms, calling the myth baseless and "beyond specious."

http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/03/20/15-experts-debunk-right-wing-transgender-bathro/198533

School Districts Debunk Right-Wing Fearmongering on Transgender Students: VIDEO
http://www.towleroad.com/2015/06/evidence-debunks-right-wing-views-on-transgender-students-video/

Right wing extremist fear mongers resort to LYING:

Eavesdrop on a right wing anti-trans training camp: teaching fear mongering and lies - See more at: http://www.transadvocate.com/eavesdrop-on-a-right-wing-anti-trans-training-camp-teaching-fear-mongering-and-lies_n_10962.htm#sthash.cKYOGomg.dpuf

Posts : 1165

Hey Dr. Happy Jack, fast forward to about the 10:30 mark, it's about your "fucked up day dream."

Posts : 6988

edge540 wrote:: Hey Dr. Happy Jack, fast forward to about the 10:30 mark, it's about your "fucked up day dream."

If the point of you emphasizing that particular portion of the video is to help drive home the fact that, yes, non-transgendered males might quite easily jump at the chance to be in a locker room full of naked women, then I must say: Well done!

Posts : 1165

happy jack wrote:: If the point of you emphasizing that particular portion of the video is to help drive home the fact that, yes, non-transgendered males might quite easily jump at the chance to be in a locker room full of naked women, then I must say: Well done!

It went over your head?
Well no that was not the point and it is not fact. Your extremist right wing fear mongering and bullshit "facts" have been thoroughly discredited and debunked. The point is that your "fucked up day dream" happens about as often as space bestiality.
I see you and Mike Huckabee have the same day dream, well done indeed.

Posts : 6988

edge540 wrote:: Your extremist right wing fear mongering and bullshit "facts" have been thoroughly discredited and debunked. The point is that your "fucked up day dream" happens about as often as space bestiality.

You have no way of knowing how often my "fucked up daydream" happens if you have no way to ascertain whether a man is genuinely transgendered or if he is merely pretending to be transgendered.

Posts : 1165

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:: Your extremist right wing fear mongering and bullshit "facts" have been thoroughly discredited and debunked. The point is that your "fucked up day dream" happens about as often as space bestiality.

You have no way of knowing how often my "fucked up daydream" happens if you have no way to ascertain whether a man is genuinely transgendered or if he is merely pretending to be transgendered.

Holy shit, then it must be a big mystery as to whether it happens or not. lol!

I guess we just don't know.

If nobody is complaining why worry about it, it's not a problem. cheers

Posts : 6988

http://nypost.com/2015/11/02/rachel-dolezal-finally-admits-she-was-born-white/

Rachel Dolezal finally admits she was born white

By Caitlyn Abber, Women's Health
November 2, 2015 | 6:35pm

You thought she had disappeared from the public sphere, but nope, Rachel Dolezal is still very much here.
The civil rights activist, who shot to infamy earlier this year after she was caught on video denying the fact that she is a white person pretending to be a black person, made what turned out to be a noteworthy appearance on Fox’s “The Real” earlier today. All of the panelists — who included Tamar Braxton, Loni Love, Jeannie Mai and Tamera Mowry Housley — asked Dolezal pointed questions about her experience with cultural appropriation, race, racism and the criminal justice system.

When asked if she felt like she had deceived anyone, Dolezal replied that, no, she certainly didn’t. “Don’t we all have the right to be exactly who we are?” she asked the audience.
Later in the interview, she tried to push her cultural interpretation of race. “I think that sometimes how we feel is more powerful than how we’re born,” she said. “And blackness can be defined as philosophical, cultural, biological. You know, it’s a lot of different things to a lot of different people.”
During the interview, Dolezal also said she was treated just as unfairly as black women and that police mark “black” on her traffic tickets.
However, after being told that her statements straight up confuse people, Dolezal finally came through, saying, “I acknowledge that I was biologically born white to white parents.” In response, the audience got on their feet and started cheering. “But I identify as black,” Dolezal continued, at which point the audience quickly sat down, shaking their heads (okay, so that part isn’t on camera — but we’re guessing that’s exactly what happened).

Glad we finally cleared up that mystery.