Support NeoGAF

[sturgboski]

Republicans are just the worst people.

 

[Steel]

Hey all! Finally got to my computer at home.

Well there were a LOT of replies, and I think I'm causing more harm than good here, so last comment and (this time for real!) I'll leave you all alone.

I've been trying to think of a way to phrase this so I'm best understood. I'm not entirely happy with the following explanation, but it's the best I've got so far:

I play a lot of "euro-trash" board games with fairly complicated rules. I do well at them because I find ways to "abuse" the rules to give myself advantages. I look for exceptions, loopholes, etc. I'm also a math teacher and like to critically analyze and logically think about outcomes. We work a lot with conditional statements (if this, then that). So when I see new (I don't know the right word here so I'm going with legislation about something, my first instinct is to pick it apart - could it be abused?

Reread my posts, and you'll see that I'm all for transgender kids using the bathroom of the gender they identify as. My entire point is that if we are going to enact rules about this we need to be careful and put thought and care into the wording so the rules DON'T get abused. I'm not sure if my word of "abuse" led some to think I meant sexual abuse (I didn't), or if people are (perhaps justifiably) really touchy about this subject, but the response from some was pretty over-the-top.

Right now if a male goes into a female bathroom, that male will get in trouble. There are rules in place that cover this. When I saw the new legislation I thought AHA! this could be a loophole for some feisty kid to go into the girls room WITHOUT BREAKING ANY RULES.

Do I think many will do this? No. But it's there, and if I were making a law (I know this isn't a law) about this situation, I would try to anticipate problems and put thought and care into the law to hopefully avoid those potential problems.

Not claiming rape. Not claiming sexual abuse. Not claiming transgender kids are going to go kill young puppies. I'm claiming that the potential for abuse is there, that there may be young males who would find it funny to use this as a method to get in the girls restroom, and maybe knowing that, we could try to come up with a way to get this done and AVOID that.

Go reread my posts. I have clearly stated that I think the preferred solution would be that students use the restroom of the gender they identify as. My only concern would be: "if you're going to write a law (I realize THIS isn't a law) you should anticipate possible loopholes, and try to write the law to avoid them."

I don't see how you can argue against that, honestly. I will say you've definitely chased me out of the room. I get it, I'm not wanted here. I am sincerely sorry I even entered into this discussion. I appreciate the people offering constructive criticism. I didn't intend to "concern troll", didn't intend to attack anyone. I'm sorry "people like me" are causing suicidal thoughts in others.

This is a discussion forum, though, and I don't think some of the replies I got were very conducive to an actual discussion here.

What you're not getting is that people have been telling you that there is no factual basis for your argument. There are real world examples of these rules being put in place and nothing like the taking advantage of BS that you're talking about happens. All it would take is a bit of effort of looking things up and you wouldn't be effectively concern trolling.

You haven't even taken the time to look at the very rule you're saying has loopholes to see if it has loopholes. And when people inform you that it accounts for loopholes you still argue that you need it to account for loopholes. You're running around in circles and shooting from the hip on something you know absolutely nothing about and when people call you out on that you feel like you're being attacked. It's not that you were misunderstood by other people, they understood you fine, it's that you misunderstand the entire subject.

 

[mercenar1e]

How does this fix the US economy?

Republicans wont be asking him that at all.

 

[GAF A60-Rim A]

Many people will die directly because of this.

 

[TenCentCoast]

Many people will die directly because of this.

We just need to work out the loopholes, is all.

 

[sturgboski]

Many people will die directly because of this.

Yep. They just released studies showing teen suicide rates dropped thanks to the marriage equality act. What do you think this will do?

 

[DangerMouse]

Trump's fucking scum. (As if that wasn't evident already.)

This.

 

[XT Vengeance]

Beaten but still. Not much to be said that hasn't been many times already.

Once again, the sign says LGBTs FOR Trump, not the other way around. They were fools to think he supported their rights.

 

[watershed]

This hateful ignorant crap is what happens when you lead with ideology instead of considering people's lives. Just like Trump's immigration ban, this will have immediate consequences for people all across the country. People will be inconvenienced, harassed, targeted, made to be fearful, and worse. Republicans always putting their fears and prejudices ahead of people's lives.

 

[spazchicken]

Yep. They just released studies showing teen suicide rates dropped thanks to the marriage equality act. What do you think this will do?

That's a pretty interesting cause of suicide.

 

[digdug2k]

2) I believe there are guidelines for "And so how do you determine who's legit or not?" this specific problem, and in the case of boys its a complete non issue, because maybe boys these days are different, but when I was a child even if I had the stupid idea of pulling something like that, I am fairly confident if confronted about it I wouldn't say to my parents I identified as a girl just so I could pull that sort of stupid shit.

Even if you did decide to lie and tell everyone you were transgender, just so you could use the girls restroom, its still illegal to peep in stalls let alone do anything more nefarious. i.e. if the only deterrent to you do this before was "its illegal", there's really no change at this point, unless you get off on the idea of just being in a stall next to a woman while she's taking a shit.

 

[Snowybreak]

That's a pretty interesting cause of suicide.

...The Marriage Equality Act didn't cause suicide, it actually created a decrease in the suicide rate.

 

[excelsiorlef]

That's a pretty interesting cause of suicide.

Not seeing a future for yourself because you don't have equal human rights is a pretty reasonable reason to feel such life ending despair.

Getting some of those human rights helped alleviate said aforementioned despair.

It makes sense

 

[MetalGearZed]

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trump.

for Trump

 

[Steel]

for Trump

Look, we have a great nation. An awesome nation. It's a nation that was built of the Trump, by the Trump, and for the Trump, and I look forward to insuring that it remains that way. #MAGA

 

[spazchicken]

...The Marriage Equality Act didn't cause suicide, it actually created a decrease in the suicide rate.

I didn't mean that the MEA caused suicides lol. The other way around or rather that the lack of MEA caused suicides.

Not seeing a future for yourself because you don't have equal human rights is a pretty reasonable reason to feel such life ending despair.

Getting some of those human rights helped alleviate said aforementioned despair.

It makes sense

Since you put it that way, it does make sense.

 

[Platy]

Reread my posts, and you'll see that I'm all for transgender kids using the bathroom of the gender they identify as. My entire point is that if we are going to enact rules about this we need to be careful and put thought and care into the wording so the rules DON'T get abused. I'm not sure if my word of "abuse" led some to think I meant sexual abuse (I didn't), or if people are (perhaps justifiably) really touchy about this subject, but the response from some was pretty over-the-top.

So you want something like the kid telling the school that he or she is trans and they will only allow that student who is using the uniform for their gender to go to said gender's bathroom ?
Like ... how it ever worked ever ?

The school needs to be notified that the kid is trans to change name on registers and other stuff, so it is not a simple "hey today I identify as a girl can I go to their bathroom and tomorrow I go back to the boy's ?" thing

 

[Micael]

I play a lot of "euro-trash" board games with fairly complicated rules. I do well at them because I find ways to "abuse" the rules to give myself advantages. I look for exceptions, loopholes, etc. I'm also a math teacher and like to critically analyze and logically think about outcomes. We work a lot with conditional statements (if this, then that). So when I see new (I don't know the right word here so I'm going with legislation about something, my first instinct is to pick it apart - could it be abused?

Reread my posts, and you'll see that I'm all for transgender kids using the bathroom of the gender they identify as. My entire point is that if we are going to enact rules about this we need to be careful and put thought and care into the wording so the rules DON'T get abused. I'm not sure if my word of "abuse" led some to think I meant sexual abuse (I didn't), or if people are (perhaps justifiably) really touchy about this subject, but the response from some was pretty over-the-top.

Right now if a male goes into a female bathroom, that male will get in trouble. There are rules in place that cover this. When I saw the new legislation I thought AHA! this could be a loophole for some feisty kid to go into the girls room WITHOUT BREAKING ANY RULES.

Do I think many will do this? No. But it's there, and if I were making a law (I know this isn't a law) about this situation, I would try to anticipate problems and put thought and care into the law to hopefully avoid those potential problems.

Not claiming rape. Not claiming sexual abuse. Not claiming transgender kids are going to go kill young puppies. I'm claiming that the potential for abuse is there, that there may be young males who would find it funny to use this as a method to get in the girls restroom, and maybe knowing that, we could try to come up with a way to get this done and AVOID that.

Go reread my posts. I have clearly stated that I think the preferred solution would be that students use the restroom of the gender they identify as. My only concern would be: "if you're going to write a law (I realize THIS isn't a law) you should anticipate possible loopholes, and try to write the law to avoid them."

I don't see how you can argue against that, honestly. I will say you've definitely chased me out of the room. I get it, I'm not wanted here. I am sincerely sorry I even entered into this discussion. I appreciate the people offering constructive criticism. I didn't intend to "concern troll", didn't intend to attack anyone. I'm sorry "people like me" are causing suicidal thoughts in others.

This is a discussion forum, though, and I don't think some of the replies I got were very conducive to an actual discussion here.

As a programmer, aka someone that deals a whole lot in the "if this then that" realm, I definitely get the impulse to analyze things that way, I do it myself, however in this case the logic you have used is flawed, for 1 very simple reason:

This would not be a new law (if it was a law), this would instead be an amendment to an existing law, so the only loophole that could be introduced by this law would be in the context of this specific law, not in the context of other laws.
In this specific case you were making examples of abuses that would be relevant to sexual abuse laws, those laws are already in place, and they would not suffer any change what so ever.

So what we have here is a change to an existing formula, that does not interfere with other independent formulas, as such the only error that can be introduced would be to this specific formula itself not others.

With all that being said while I pretty much haven't agreed with most of the points you put before, for reasons I extensively explained, I do agree with the bolded part, some of the answers you got were unfortunately not very conductive to a good debate, it is an unfortunate trend I have seen cropping up quite a bit in Trump posts (brexit before), and honestly all around left leaning subjects, that people attack the person instead of the point and automatically assume the person that holds a different view (or a different take on the same view) must be racist/misogynist/homophobe and so on, something which unfortunately I also do on occasion.
However I believe you had enough answers with enough detail to hopefully expose the error in logic (or the information on which that logic was based upon) you were applying to the problem.

Even if you did decide to lie and tell everyone you were transgender, just so you could use the girls restroom, its still illegal to peep in stalls let alone do anything more nefarious. i.e. if the only deterrent to you do this before was "its illegal", there's really no change at this point, unless you get off on the idea of just being in a stall next to a woman while she's taking a shit.

That is covered in Point 1 of my response, that regardless of something like this was passed into law or not, it would make no difference, because sexual abuses would not really be under the purview of said law, they would be (and already are) covered in other laws dealing specifically with sexual abuse.

 

[TenCentCoast]

I apologize for how...hostile some of my posts have been, but it's frustrating and tiresome to have to explain some incredibly basic things to people, especially regarding laws and rulings that will directly effect me.

 

[HotHamBoy]

I think the GOP must really hate kids.

 

[Usobuko]

Republicans are just the worst people.

I don't consider them people at this point.

I apologize for how...hostile some of my posts have been, but it's frustrating and tiresome to have to explain some incredibly basic things to people, especially regarding laws and rulings that will directly effect me.

Don't be, you have every right to call them out for their shit, especially if it affects you.

 

[RinsFury]

Fuck Trump and fuck every scumbag piece of shit that voted republican. I despise each and every one of them.

 

[Platy]

I think the GOP must really hate kids.

I take that as proof that it is only considered a kid if it is out of the womb

 

[plufim]

Ugh. Really upset about this. My best friend is trans and growing up without any support really messed with them. Something as simple as bathroom access would have done so much to make them feel supported.

I bet the republicans have same-sex marriage in their sights too.

 

[Kthulhu]

Ugh.

I bet they have same-sex marriage in their sights too.

Thanks to the SC that will be a lot harder.

 

[plufim]

Thanks to the SC that will be a lot harder.

I give it a 50/50 chance that Trump co. is looking into how to wind back power of the courts.

 

[mAcOdIn]

I find the whole thing laughable. I mean, sure, there may be a young boy who uses this as an excuse to go into the girls bathroom..... but to what fucking end? Because, unless all the girls are leaving their stalls wide open what the fuck is he going to see? He get off on watching girls wash their hands or some shit? And to see anything he'd have to cross a moral line like peeking under the stall or some shit which frankly would be offensive regardless of the genders of the people involved.

Besides, all of this is ignoring the fact that, say the boy identifies as a girl, ok, well then, do you think the boys will welcome him in their damn restroom? They'd probably accuse him of trying to peek at their junk! So what fucking bathroom can a transgendered, or gay person for that matter, use without people wanting to label them a pervert?

So really, people with nonstandard sexuality or gender identities are fucked no matter what way you slice it until society stops being so judgemental. Way I see it, if everyone's going to be offended then you might as well let them use the bathroom of their choice!

All of these issues are in people's damn heads. When I'm at a urinal next to a guy, I have no fucking idea if the guy's gay wanting to look at penises, gay but has common decency and is minding his own business, straight and minding his own business or straight and looks anyways for shits and giggles. I just assume that everyone in the restroom has a modicum of common courtesy for their fellow human but I have no way of actually knowing that to be true. Nothing changes with allowing people to use the restroom of the gender they identify with. If a girl, or a person who looked like a girl walked into the men's room I'd have no idea if she identified as a male, the women's restroom was closed, super occupied, broken, whatever, she just wasn't paying attention and made an honest mistake, couldn't give a fuck which restroom she used, was drunk or was actually a man and even after all that I'd still have no fucking idea if she wants to check out my penis or not! So what would I do? The same thing I do with everyone else, assume that person has common respect to the other people in the restroom and carry the fuck on.

In the end, as long as you're just walking into the restroom, using it, washing up and then leaving, I could not care less which one you use. If on the other hand you go in there harass the other occupants, set up cameras, peek under stalls, collect used bath tissue, or just stand in the corner staring, you're a damn pervert and I don't care if you're in the "right" restroom or not!

 

[Professor Beef]

snip

So you admit that you were intentionally being dishonest with your shaky reasoning and terrible logic.

You're an actual jackass.

I apologize for how...hostile some of my posts have been, but it's frustrating and tiresome to have to explain some incredibly basic things to people, especially regarding laws and rulings that will directly effect me.

At the very least, try and dial it down until you reach Member status so you don't run the risk of being perma-banned as a Junior for going off on someone who deserves it.

 

[Zen Aku]

I take that as proof that it is only considered a kid if it is out of the womb

Considering how so many conservatives are really just pro-birth (not pro-life) they're only considered a kid if it's still IN the womb.

They couldn't care less what happens after birth.

 

[Amalthea]

Meanwhile the persident they voted into office simply walked into the wardrobe of his beauty contest, no problem.

Make no mistake: Trumpublicans give not the slightest shit about harrassment, molestation or even rape as long as it isn't commited by a minority. They are perfectly fine if one of their white old rich two-legged pigs does all of it. They even made one of those the leader of a global superpower.

 

[Llyrwenne]

Hey all! Finally got to my computer at home.

Well there were a LOT of replies, and I think I'm causing more harm than good here, so last comment and (this time for real!) I'll leave you all alone.

I've been trying to think of a way to phrase this so I'm best understood. I'm not entirely happy with the following explanation, but it's the best I've got so far:

I play a lot of "euro-trash" board games with fairly complicated rules. I do well at them because I find ways to "abuse" the rules to give myself advantages. I look for exceptions, loopholes, etc. I'm also a math teacher and like to critically analyze and logically think about outcomes. We work a lot with conditional statements (if this, then that). So when I see new (I don't know the right word here so I'm going with legislation about something, my first instinct is to pick it apart - could it be abused?

Reread my posts, and you'll see that I'm all for transgender kids using the bathroom of the gender they identify as. My entire point is that if we are going to enact rules about this we need to be careful and put thought and care into the wording so the rules DON'T get abused. I'm not sure if my word of "abuse" led some to think I meant sexual abuse (I didn't), or if people are (perhaps justifiably) really touchy about this subject, but the response from some was pretty over-the-top.

Right now if a male goes into a female bathroom, that male will get in trouble. There are rules in place that cover this. When I saw the new legislation I thought AHA! this could be a loophole for some feisty kid to go into the girls room WITHOUT BREAKING ANY RULES.

Do I think many will do this? No. But it's there, and if I were making a law (I know this isn't a law) about this situation, I would try to anticipate problems and put thought and care into the law to hopefully avoid those potential problems.

Not claiming rape. Not claiming sexual abuse. Not claiming transgender kids are going to go kill young puppies. I'm claiming that the potential for abuse is there, that there may be young males who would find it funny to use this as a method to get in the girls restroom, and maybe knowing that, we could try to come up with a way to get this done and AVOID that.

Go reread my posts. I have clearly stated that I think the preferred solution would be that students use the restroom of the gender they identify as. My only concern would be: "if you're going to write a law (I realize THIS isn't a law) you should anticipate possible loopholes, and try to write the law to avoid them."

I don't see how you can argue against that, honestly. I will say you've definitely chased me out of the room. I get it, I'm not wanted here. I am sincerely sorry I even entered into this discussion. I appreciate the people offering constructive criticism. I didn't intend to "concern troll", didn't intend to attack anyone. I'm sorry "people like me" are causing suicidal thoughts in others.

This is a discussion forum, though, and I don't think some of the replies I got were very conducive to an actual discussion here.

I honestly just don't get your 'loophole'-spiel. What legal loopholes do you think will exist? Boys 'pretending to be transgender' to get into the girl's bathroom? Honestly it's hard for me to even unpack how stupid that idea is.

The concept of 'pretending to be transgender' is dumb, just like 'pretending to be disabled' ( to get monetary benefits / that disabled parking spot ). You don't 'pretend to be transgender' for a day. That's not how it works. You go through a process / get a diagnosis / talk to psychologists / socially ( and / or medically ) transition, etc. You can't just 'pretend' whenever you want to and then go back to regular life. That's not how it works.

Even if people would 'pretend to be transgender' for a day to get into the other bathroom for a bit, they would still be violating the rules, because they do not actually fall under the protections this law would provide. There is no 'legal loophole' as you seem to be claiming. Just like tax fraud isn't a 'legal loophole' created by the existence of tax laws - it is fraud and illegal. 'Pretending to be disabled' to claim the disabled parking spot at the supermarket isn't a 'legal loophole' created by the existence of disabled parking spots. 'Pretending to be transgender' isn't a 'legal loophole' created by the existence of laws that protect the transgender community.

If there are people that want these laws to be passed so that they can 'pretend to be transgender' so that they can get into the bathroom of the opposite sex, then why aren't those same people doing similar things in our current system? Why are they not 'pretending to be women' or 'pretending to be men' to get into those bathrooms? Why and how would that change when a law protecting the transgender community gets introduced?

And even if you can think up any number of 'legal loopholes', why would you by default assume that the lawmakers are not considering those? This is where this all just turns into blatantly unfounded 'concern'. Why assume that lawmakers do not look at possible loopholes? Why that 'concern'? Nobody is arguing that they shouldn't look at potential actual loopholes. Your need to bring it up as your primary 'concern' is just dumb for those reasons; nobody is saying that loopholes shouldn't be looked at in the process of making a new law and you are operating on the baseless assumption that lawmakers wouldn't look at potential loopholes. Your 'concern' is unfounded and quite frankly irrelevant to the subject of this thread.

You say you didn't intend to 'concern troll', but you can see why people - myself included - think you are, right?

There's more to unpack here, but I just cannot find the right words...

 

[ElectricBlanketFire]

AP.