Montana Initiative Would Limit Transgender Use of Bathrooms

Jun 23, 2017

By Bobby Caina Calvan

A conservative group wants to let Montana voters decide whether transgender people must use public restrooms and locker rooms designated for their gender at birth — a move that could thrust the state into the national debate over transgender rights.

The Montana Family Foundation launched its campaign to place the matter on next year’s fall ballot after lawmakers declined to do so.

If approved by voters, the measure would affect how public schools, universities and other government agencies accommodate transgender people. Facilities designated for use by one sex would have to exclude the opposite sex.

The foundation called the effort a necessary step to protect “the privacy, safety and dignity” of Montana children and help guard against sexual predators.

“There are active lawsuits in other states, and we wanted to take a proactive role in protecting privacy,” said Bowen Greenwood, director of government affairs for the foundation.

Continue reading by clicking the name of the source below.

263 comments on “Montana Initiative Would Limit Transgender Use of Bathrooms

  • Here’s the thing. These bigots are going to “get what they ask for”. That seems to be the writing on the wall. But, there is an adage — “be careful what you wish for”. I have a “fantasy” of sorts that I’d love to see play out. I’d like all our transgendered folks to “go on the extrovert”, here, and claim the bathrooms. I am talking a statuesque woman in a tube top and miniskirt pissing into a urinal and “showing up” the tiny dicked asshats that insist she be there.
    I would love to see our trans friends who are born female and identify male head into the ladies rooms with beard stubble and sit on the sink and have loud conversations.

    Give them exactly what they want — shove it down their throats.



    Report abuse

  • This is a privacy issue, the right to privacy most especially of the average American woman who does not want adult biological males sharing her public restroom space, and the support that the average American man has for her right to privacy in that setting.



    Report abuse

  • Stardusty Psyche #3
    Jun 24, 2017 at 5:00 pm

    This is a privacy issue, the right to privacy most especially of the average American woman who does not want adult biological males sharing her public restroom space,

    Unless silly politicians force people into the wrong wash rooms for their outward appearance, how would any of then know an XY transgender woman from an XX woman?

    http://attitude.co.uk/britains-next-top-model-star-talulah-eve-brown-opens-up-for-trans-awareness-day/

    ‘Britain’s Next Top Model’ star Talulah-Eve opens up for Trans Visibility Day:



    Report abuse

  • @Crookedshoes,

    I am talking a statuesque woman in a tube top and miniskirt pissing into a urinal and “showing up” the tiny dicked asshats that insist she be there.

    or the more logical consequence of not letting them use any bathroom, just piss on the floor of the store.



    Report abuse

  • 6
    maria melo says:

    In my work place there is one person bathroom for more privacy, one person at the time, but it is for both genders, no matter it has an urinol and a male sign at the door because as there are fewer men (no man as judge) women made it a women´s bathroom as far as woman are the large number), but as some male colleagyes don´r agree, they use it to, so one just has to just knock at the before entering for more privacy.Simple it seems the privacy matter.
    Sometimes



    Report abuse

  • maria melo #5
    Jun 24, 2017 at 7:42 pm
    “In my work place there is one person bathroom for more privacy, one person at the time”

    That is not where the privacy issue arises. The issue is regarding multiple occupancy public restrooms.

    In general the left is light years ahead of the right on a whole range of issues, but on this issue, BLM, pernicious feminism, and Islam the left has defeated itself by wallowing in PC foolishness that is out of touch with reality and out of touch with ordinary Americans.



    Report abuse

  • Stardusty Psyche #3
    Jun 24, 2017 at 5:00 pm

    This is a privacy issue, the right to privacy most especially of the average American woman who does not want adult biological males sharing her public restroom space, and the support that the average American man has for her right to privacy in that setting.

    How would they even know they were genetically male, unless some media or political bigot had said so?

    Stardusty Psyche #8
    the left has defeated itself by wallowing in PC foolishness that is out of touch with reality and out of touch with ordinary Americans.

    Perhaps its “ordinary Americans who are out of touch with basic biology and the range phenotypic expressions of gender!

    http://attitude.co.uk/britains-next-top-model-star-talulah-eve-brown-opens-up-for-trans-awareness-day/

    ‘Britain’s Next Top Model’ star Talulah-Eve opens up for Trans Visibility Day:

    Do you seriously suggest that this person and others like her, should be urinating in the GENTS toilets because some opinionated ignorant and bigoted politicians, are too feckless to educate themselves!



    Report abuse

  • @#9 – Do you seriously suggest that this person and others like her, should be urinating in the GENTS toilets

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/transgender-model-wins-hollands-next-top-model_us_562fb47ae4b0c66bae59ab27

    Loiza Lamers, a transgender model, won “Holland’s Next Top Model” on Monday, making her the first transgender winner of the “Top Model” franchise.

    Lamers, a 20-year-old former hairdresser, reportedly kept her gender identity a secret from the show’s producers until she had been cast as one of the competitors on the show, according to Dutch news outlet De Gelderlander.

    So how would the bigots know without acccess to birth certificates or medical records?



    Report abuse

  • maria melo #6
    Jun 24, 2017 at 7:42 pm

    In my work place there is one person bathroom for more privacy,

    Single person UNISEX – Disabled access washroom/toilets, are often provided in civilised countries.

    However, I suppose in bigot-land there could be rows of doors each with a separate sign!

    Hetro-Ladies, Hetro Gents, Female Trans-Male, Male Trans-Female, Homosexual Male, Lesbians, Females and male baby-change, Females and female baby-change, Females and trans baby-change, Males and male baby change, Males and female baby change, Males and trans-baby change, male wheelchair users, female wheelchair users, trans-wheelchair users etc. –
    and of course government grant money to build all these long rows of duplicated, legislatively, sexually obsessed bigot compliant, facilities! 🙂



    Report abuse

  • Alan4discussion #9 Jun 25, 2017 at 4:53 am Perhaps its “ordinary
    Americans who are out of touch with basic biology and the range
    phenotypic expressions of gender!

    No, basic biology is not so very complicated. Got adult penis->boy’s room.



    Report abuse

  • Stardusty Psyche #12
    Jun 25, 2017 at 4:05 pm

    @#9 – Perhaps its “ordinary Americans” who are out of touch with basic biology and the range phenotypic expressions of gender!

    No, basic biology is not so very complicated.

    Really??? That is not what the medical and biological literature says!
    Gender phenotypes do not come clear cut in black and white male/female thinking, so it is not that simplistic.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

    Intersex people are born with any of several variations in sex characteristics including chromosomes, gonads, sex hormones, or genitals that, according to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, “do not fit the typical definitions for male or female bodies”.[1][2]
    Such variations may involve genital ambiguity, and combinations of chromosomal genotype and sexual phenotype other than XY-male and XX-female.

    Anyone who is familiar with the biology of sex and gender in other species, knows that genders come in more variations than just fixed-for-life male or female!

    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/fishtree_07

    Clownfish, wrasses, moray eels, gobies and other fish species are known to change sex, including reproductive functions.
    A school of clownfish is always built into a hierarchy with a female fish at the top.
    When she dies, the most dominant male changes sex and takes her place.

    Got adult penis->boy’s room.

    That definition would of course include sex-reassignment female-to-males! – Who under silly legislation would be forced to use the LADIES rooms!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalloplasty#Flap_from_the_leg

    The whole issue of transgender and intersex individuals is the intermediate stages between a penis and a clitoris and other sex-related bodily features, – often as a result of hormone imbalance during gestation, and the various forms of hormone therapy and plastic surgery.

    So coming back to my question:

    Do you think that the transexual glamour models (on the links) who look like women, and who the judges in beauty modelling contests, had accepted as women before they were told they were trans, should be forced by legislation to use the gents facilities? – and for that matter who would be in a position to recognise them as transexuals/intersex, if they did not?



    Report abuse

  • Alan4discussion #13
    Jun 25, 2017 at 6:14 pm

    SP No, basic biology is not so very complicated.

    “Really??? That is not what the medical and biological literature says!”
    –That doesn’t sound basic.

    “Gender phenotypes do not come clear cut in black and white male/female thinking, so it is not that simplistic.”
    –That also isn’t basic.

    “Intersex people are born with any of several variations in sex characteristics including chromosomes, gonads, sex hormones, or genitals that, according to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, “do not fit the typical definitions for male or female bodies”.[1][2]”
    –Not basic.

    “Such variations may involve genital ambiguity, and combinations of chromosomal genotype and sexual phenotype other than XY-male and XX-female.”
    –Very much not basic.

    “Anyone who is familiar with the biology of sex and gender in other species, knows that genders come in more variations than just fixed-for-life male or female!”
    –And yet all these exceptional individuals have managed to relieve themselves for all history without passing a law that allows people with adult penises to enter public multi-occupancy restrooms designated for women in violation of the basic privacy of American women and girls.

    “A school of clownfish ”
    –…that would be too easy…I’ll just bite my tongue now…



    Report abuse

  • Here’s another case of someone who “speaks for the masses”. I AM a Biologist. I have the degrees, the experience, the life’s lessons….. you have looked on the internet to find shit that supports your opinion. There is nothing, NOTHING, about your argument that is cogent or in line with what biologists recognize and understand about gender and sexuality. I sincerely hope you are taking a shit in the next couple days and a woman with beautiful tits and a miniskirt opens the door of your stall and whips out a 9 inch cock and pisses on your lap.
    Again, BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH.

    More importantly than educating an idiot, my trans friends…. fucking DO IT. PISS ON THESE IGNORANT BIGOTS.



    Report abuse

  • Stardusty Psyche #14
    Jun 25, 2017 at 7:42 pm

    –And yet all these exceptional individuals have managed to relieve themselves for all history without passing a law that allows people with adult penises to enter public multi-occupancy restrooms designated for women in violation of the basic privacy of American women and girls.

    –And yet all these XY phenotypically female models (linked @#4. #9, and #10), have managed to use communal changing rooms for all competitions, {without fools passing a law that forces gorgeous models or female appearance, with (or previously possessing), adult penises to use men’s facilities}, when they have entered multi-occupancy models’ changing rooms designated for women and changed costumes, *without anyone even noticing they were trans-sexuals!

    without passing a law that allows people with adult penises . . . .

    There is no such thing as a “standard adult penis”.
    As I explained and linked earlier, they come in a range or sizes, with forms transitioning with clitorises, and with cosmetic reconstructions where surgical attempts have been made to accommodate the black and white thinking of the male-female dichotomy!

    https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2008/09/04/the-phall-o-meter/

    In the U.S. today, when infants are born with ambiguous genitalia, surgeons often operate in order to bring the child’s body into accordance with our expectations for “correct” male or female genitalia, even when the actual morphology of their bodies causes no dysfunction or harm.

    Some activists, such as those involved with the Intersex Society of North America, are trying to stop these surgeries.



    Report abuse

  • crookedshoes #15
    Jun 25, 2017 at 7:53 pm

    Here’s another case of someone who “speaks for the masses”.

    Apparently using “Bible-Biology” in place of medical data!

    I AM a Biologist. – There is nothing, NOTHING, about your argument that is cogent or in line with what biologists recognize and understand about gender and sexuality.

    Perhaps providing some reference material for study, COULD help those who are inclined to learn!

    http://www.isna.org/book/print/716

    Intersex conditions

    The following is a list of disorders of sex development that sometimes involve “intersex anatomy”:/faq/what_is_intersex.

    ISNA is working to create a world free of shame, secrecy, and unwanted sexual surgeries for children born with anatomy that someone decided is not standard male or female.
    This is different from, for example, having a feeling that your identity is different from most women (or men).
    People with intersex conditions generally don’t have to search for evidence that they are intersexed; the evidence is in their own bodies.
    For instance, women who do not have ovaries, men who don’t have testes, women who have no clitoris or inner labia, people who remember multiple genital surgeries during childhood and scars in their genital area and abdomen, people who have ambiguous genitalia.




    Report abuse

  • 18
    maria melo says:

    “That is not where the privacy issue arises. The issue is regarding multiple occupancy public restrooms.”

    Stardusty Psyche

    I wonder about the definition of restroom, but concerning toilets at laest (no turinols) ir is always private, I mean with a door, so even if a man would come in a Women´s toilets, that is always private (with a door).



    Report abuse

  • 19
    maria melo says:

    “That is not where the privacy issue arises. The issue is regarding
    multiple occupancy public restrooms.”

    Stardusty Psyche

    I wonder about the definition of restroom, but concerning toilets at least (not urinols) it is always private, I mean with a door, so even if a man would come in a Women´s toilet, that is always private (with a door).



    Report abuse

  • 20
    maria melo says:

    Stardusty Psyche,
    Besides, if it´s a privacy issue, transgenders by definition won´t accept their birth gender, it would be a violence towards them if their are obliged to use a toilet for “their biological gender at birth” (not to mention that not all of them have penises, nor vaginas), and if one wants to be more peaceful, why to oblige trangenders to use not a “neutral” toilet, not to say the toilet for the gender they identify with? (Oh yes, it doesn´t have a palusible justification other tham bigotry). Well, if they would have a trangender “restroom” why to worry with “adult penises” in woman´s in public “restrooms” for women, because if there were a transgender “restroom” they would NEVER had the necessity of using a Gents “restroom”.
    Why do think you are worried with Women´s privacy, when you are not in fact? Your problem is perhaps that you need to know yourself better.



    Report abuse

  • 21
    maria melo says:

    Stardusty Psyche,

    Forgot to mention that there are a few people that are born with no genitália whatsoever, while, others are born with female genitalia when they have a “y” chromossome… and others are born with both genders genitália, and health issues are a private matter too, so aren´t you being too simplistic (not to say bigot)?
    I myself would like to use this kind of “restroom” displayed in the above photo (never seen one), only to say it doesn´t matter, I only want to pee in peace.



    Report abuse

  • crookedshoes #15 Jun 25, 2017 at 7:53 pm

    There is nothing, NOTHING, about your argument that is cogent…whips out a 9 inch cock and pisses on your lap.
    …fucking DO IT. PISS ON THESE IGNORANT BIGOTS.

    I am indeed persuaded by the overwhelming cogency of your argument.



    Report abuse

  • maria melo #18 Jun 26, 2017 at 11:34 am I mean with a door, so even if
    a man would come in a Women´s toilets, that is always private (with a
    door).

    You have a notion of privacy that would seem very odd to the average American woman.



    Report abuse

  • Stardusty Psyche #23
    Jun 26, 2017 at 11:59 pm

    Your replies to my detailed information and links on intersex conditions, gender reassignment surgery, actual examples of intersex models in female changing rooms, and questions about the incompatibility of this information with your views :- are notable by their absence!

    maria melo #18 Jun 26, 2017 at 11:34 am I mean with a door, so even ifa man would come in a Women´s toilets, that is always private (with a door).

    You have a notion of privacy that would seem very odd to the average American woman.

    How would you know? Fox News?

    Some people do seem to have difficulty living in the 21st century and have antiquated problems with prudery, which many modern people lack when visiting sports centres and swimming pools!
    (Some even feel obliged to wear burkinis!)

    https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/she-said/2014/apr/17/unisex-changing-rooms-are-depriving-me-of-getting-naked-with-my-fellow-women

    You can argue that feminists should have no issue with unisex changing rooms. We should be reveling in the liberté and egalité that has broken down the barriers of plasterboard and hospital tiles, and allowed us to stand locker-to-locker with our fellow man. We should rejoice that we are free to embrace our mutual humanity, and share our shampoo.

    After all, it’s not like we’re expected to get naked in front of anyone: the etiquette of these new, communal changing areas are strictly and repeatedly stated. Appropriate clothing must be worn in public, and all actual changing activity is confined to individual cubicles. So what’s the harm?

    I have no problem standing next to my wife in a communal swimming pool locker-room, or (when they were younger) jointly supervising the children as they changed.



    Report abuse

  • 25
    maria melo says:

    Reply to comment 23:

    Do women have to ask for birth certificates or inspect at close doors whether other “women” in toilets have “adult” penises”, how would they do that? Perhaps a police officer near every WC door/toilet asking for birth certificates, and even inspecting genitalia to see if every person could in fact be a transgender, have an “adult penis”? They could come unoticed (dressed and looking as a woman), so how would women know?
    I believe, from my experience-observation, even tv observation-, that even men, and boys are not safe from sexual predators, why would you be only worried with women? (and notice that not all sex predators are men with an “adult penis” for I knew a girl violated by lesbians girls.



    Report abuse

  • maria melo #21
    Jun 26, 2017 at 2:49 pm

    I myself would like to use this kind of “restroom” displayed in the above photo (never seen one),

    I don’t think the signs are usually like that! More like these!

    only to say it does n´t matter, I only want to pee in peace.

    I think these sorts of issues illustrate a different approach in some backward states in the US, when compared to European standards!

    While the simple-minded uneducated US legislators, are using polarised black and white thinking, to aggressively exclude certain sections of the community whose reality does not conform with the ignorant legislators simplistic views, European legislators pass requirements for architects’ designs of public buildings to accommodate everyone, including parents with children, trans-sexuals, intersex, the blind, the deaf, and the disabled.



    Report abuse

  • maria melo #20
    Jun 26, 2017 at 2:26 pm

    Do women have to ask for birth certificates or inspect at close doors whether other “women” in toilets have “adult” penises”, how would they do that?

    This does illustrate the ridiculous nature of this sort of legislation, as not only do ladies toilets have private cubicles, but gents toilets also have cubicles with doors in addition to urinals – and nobody asks other people why they choose to use them!!



    Report abuse

  • Alan4discussion #24 Jun 27, 2017 at 4:47 am

    Your replies to my detailed information and links on intersex
    conditions, gender reassignment surgery, actual examples of intersex
    models in female changing rooms, and questions about the
    incompatibility of this information with your views :- are notable by
    their absence!

    Already done. You didn’t get the point, rather you just keep listing off more of your biological exception cases.

    Here’s a bit of newsflash for you, nobody cares about all your exception cases. Women don’t want adult penises in the same multi occupancy public restroom and men don’t want it for the women and girls in their lives.

    Republicans are laughing their way to a clean sweep of both houses, the presidency, and the supreme court. While pointy head liberals prattle on about XY phenotypically female models and ambiguous genitalia Republicans are winning and if Kennedy retires before the senate is recaptured we could lose our last line of defense, so congrats on making your little technical points, nobody gives a damn.



    Report abuse

  • Stardusty Psyche #28
    Jun 27, 2017 at 10:04 am

    Here’s a bit of newsflash for you, *nobody cares about all your exception cases**.

    People in the civilised countries of the world are well aware that many Republicans don’t care about significant minorities of US citizens – whether the issue is health insurance, working conditions, toxic environments, or callousness about of those with medical abnormalities or disabilities!
    Those Republicans are proud of their ignorance, bigotry, and science illiteracy!

    Women don’t want adult penises in the same multi occupancy public restroom and men don’t want it for the women and girls in their lives.

    So you keep asserting, but I have been using unisex locker rooms for decades, and I have yet to encounter this supposed problem!

    You still have not answered the Maria” or my question: ” How would anyone know the details of other people’s genitals?”
    Have another look at the photos of the models I linked?

    Do you go around in public asking people to show you their genitals to determine which changing rooms or wash-rooms they should use? – Or could we all just mind our own business, and let other people have some privacy to get on with their lives and their medical conditions?

    While pointy head liberals prattle on about XY phenotypically female models and ambiguous genitalia

    I have to say I am really impressed with the quality of your argument! 🙂 (Award yourself minus 200 out of 10 for evidence based reasoning skills!)

    so congrats on making your little technical points, nobody gives a damn.

    I see you qualify for “the creationist school of (pseudo)science and Trumpology”, where “nobody gives a damn” about scientific evidence, actual facts, or consideration for other people!

    Republicans are laughing their way to a clean sweep of both houses, the presidency, and the supreme court.

    Don’t ask a DOCTOR – Ask a REPUBLICAN to elect know-it-all ignoramuses to power where they pronounce on “alternative facts”! 🙂 !

    Perhaps at some time in the future, YOU will have some medical condition about which “nobody gives a damn”- and takes collective pride in not giving a damn!

    People with the medical condition of having ambiguous genitalia exist and are citizens like everyone else! Get over it!

    http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency

    Here’s what we do know: If you ask experts at medical centers how often a child is born so noticeably atypical in terms of genitalia that a specialist in sex differentiation is called in, the number comes out to about 1 in 1500 to 1 in 2000 births. But a lot more people than that are born with subtler forms of sex anatomy variations, some of which won’t show up until later in life.

    Not XX and not XY one in 1,666 births

    Klinefelter (XXY) one in 1,000 births

    Androgen insensitivity syndrome one in 13,000 births

    Partial androgen insensitivity syndrome one in 130,000 births

    Classical congenital adrenal hyperplasia one in 13,000 births

    Late onset adrenal hyperplasia one in 66 individuals

    Vaginal agenesis one in 6,000 births

    Ovotestes one in 83,000 births

    Idiopathic (no discernable medical cause) one in 110,000 births

    Iatrogenic (caused by medical treatment, for instance progestin administered to pregnant mother) no estimate

    5 alpha reductase deficiency no estimate

    Mixed gonadal dysgenesis no estimate

    Complete gonadal dysgenesis one in 150,000 births

    Hypospadias (urethral opening in perineum or along penile shaft) one in 2,000 births

    Hypospadias (urethral opening between corona and tip of glans penis) one in 770 births

    Total number of people whose bodies differ from standard male or female one in 100 births

    Total number of people receiving surgery to “normalize” genital appearance one or two in 1,000 births



    Report abuse

  • Stardusty Psyche #28
    Jun 27, 2017 at 10:04 am

    Women don’t want adult penises in the same multi occupancy public restroom and men don’t want it for the women and girls in their lives.

    I don’t know if the models in the photos I linked have penises or not! Neither do you, and neither does anyone they are likely to encounter in wash-rooms, or toilet blocks!
    However, legislating to force those obviously phenotypically female people to use gents toilet facilities on the basis of a birth certificate, is abusive and very stupid!



    Report abuse

  • 31
    maria melo says:

    men don’t want it for the women and girls in their lives. Stardusty
    Psyche #28

    Women shall speak for themselves, they don´t need to be patronized.



    Report abuse

  • 32
    maria melo says:

    ISNA is working to create a world free of shame, secrecy, and unwanted
    sexual surgeries for children born with anatomy that someone decided
    is not standard male or female. alan 4 discussion

    I understand this from a tv documentary i´ve watched about someome with Swyer syndrome and she (a feminine name she had), was married with a man with adoptive children, mentioned that had ovaries when was born, a clitoris and sexual pleasure. So, why would someone want to change the whole life and history of a person, what for?)



    Report abuse

  • maria melo #32
    Jun 27, 2017 at 12:51 pm

    I’m sure that from population figures, and the information @#29, approximate numbers of people with these conditions could be worked out for the US population, but it seems that hateful know-it-all Republicans aren’t interested in statistics, actual cases, medical information, or addressing real issues!
    They have rhetoric and “Republican pseudo-facts” so if minorities can be found where abuse can be directed, this shows that there are people below these insecure assertive low-lifes in the pecking order, and that can that elevate their status above bottom of the stack – at least in their own eyes anyway!



    Report abuse

  • 35
    maria melo says:

    Republicans are laughing their way to a clean sweep of both houses,
    the presidency, and the supreme court. While pointy head liberals
    prattle on about XY phenotypically female models and ambiguous
    genitalia Republicans are winning and if Kennedy retires before the
    senate is recaptured we could lose our last line of defense, so
    congrats on making your little technical points, nobody gives a damn.
    Starduty Psyche

    You seem to have the psychological profile of a bully (they are always coward), I can even imagine you as a leader of a gang of marginal youngsters (unfortunally this can be related with an anti-social personality that tend to dominate others as “leaders” (even with gaze)-from my experience at work- with teenagers with criminal behaviour and the psychologists or relatories I am used to deal with, hearings……..
    Again, don´t speak for all republicans (or do feel as a leader of republicans?).



    Report abuse

  • maria melo #35 Jun 27, 2017 at 5:13 pm

    I can even imagine you as a leader of a gang of marginal youngsters…my experience … the psychologists

    You quite apparently have an overactive imagination. Do you really suppose you are capable of an internet psychoanalysis of me?

    Has it occurred to you that a skeptical atheist can have bases for positions on this issue that lead to conclusions different from yours, without being a bully, a coward, or a gang leader?



    Report abuse

  • Stardusty Psyche #36
    Jun 27, 2017 at 10:57 pm

    Has it occurred to you that a skeptical atheist can have bases for positions on this issue that lead to conclusions different from yours, without being a bully, a coward, or a gang leader?

    I think you are misusing the term “skeptical” in a similar way to AGW deniers! Ignoring evidence, credible explanations and reasoning, to persistently assert mistaken simplistic preconceptions, is denial, not skepticism!

    a skeptical atheist can have bases for positions on this issue that lead to conclusions different from yours,

    That is possible, but there is no indication of addressing real issues, informed scepticism, or evidence based reasoning in your comments!

    REASONED conclusions start with evidence and logically apply it to a working mechanism which deals with the real world situation!

    Hint: Making an effort to understand not so “little technical points”, phenotypical expressions in bodies, historical gender reassignment in babies, and the non- standard forms of your undefined term “penis”, would be good starting points.

    without being a bully, a coward, or a gang leader?

    Being a cheerleader for bullying bigoted incompetents, does not make you a gang leader! – Just a stooge cheerleader, for the “couldn’t give a damn gang leaders” and their ignorant mob of bigoted supporters!

    Of course under this silly legislation, those female to male trans-sexuals with penises, male torsos and beards, would be forced to use the ladies toilets and changing facilities! (If anyone knew they were reassigned male trans-sexuals!)

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3312187/

    If you have an evidenced rational argument, please start to present it!



    Report abuse

  • It seems that bigotry against transgender individuals who are trying to make a basic honest living, is a world-wide problem.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-40427937

    A metro service in India has stepped in to provide accommodation for 23 transgender women it employed, after they could not find permanent housing.

    Nine transgender women employed with the Cochin metro had quit as they said no-one was willing to rent to them.

    A senior spokesperson for Cochin Metro told the BBC that they had decided to provide hostel accommodation and transport at a nominal fee.

    It is the first government agency to allot roles for transgender people.

    Cochin Metro’s Reshmi CR told the BBC that the company had asked the nine women who resigned to reconsider their decision, giving them until 5 July to decide.

    If they decided not to rejoin, she said that their positions would be filled by other members of the transgender community.

    The plight of the employees touched a chord in India, especially given that Cochin Metro employed them in the hope that it would pave the way for other firms to begin employing transgender people.

    Amritha, one of the transgender women working with the metro, earlier described the struggle to get accommodation to BBC Tamil’s Sivakumar Ulaganathan.

    ”Many of us have stayed in private lodges and hotels so far, where we had to pay around 600 rupees [£7; $9] a day.
    That was unaffordable for us, given we only make around 9,000 rupees [£108; $139] every month,” she said.

    The resignations came less than two weeks after the service was inaugurated.

    The new employees were ticket agents and cleaning staff.



    Report abuse

  • 39
    maria melo says:

    I´ll rewrite

    so congrats on making your little technical points, nobody gives a
    damn. Starduty Psyche

    quoting the news:
    “The Montana Family Foundation launched its campaign to place the matter on next year’s fall ballot after lawmakers declined to do so.

    If approved by voters, the measure would affect how public schools, universities and other government agencies accommodate transgender people. Facilities designated for use by one sex would have to exclude the opposite sex.

    The foundation called the effort a necessary step to protect “the privacy, safety and dignity” of Montana children and help guard against sexual predators.”
    end of quote

    Figures like this are important and if you don´t feel sorry for the discrimination of trangenders as sexual predators, the figures of sexual abuse of children point out that the largest number occur within family, not in a toilet perpertrated by transgenders, so this is odd that the proponents of such measures came from an association that aims to protect children against sexual predators?

    http://www.childsafeeducation.com/statistics.html

    I sometimes overreact for being too emotional, but I would never be indifferent concerning discrimination.

    Concerning technical issues, as far as Stardusty Psyche didn´t answer to my questions, I don´t see how one could execute such measures, besides, basic rights -the right not to be discriminated- should be written in constitutional law, subjective rights are not up to others vote against, but must be reassured by Democrats or Republicans as a basic principle.



    Report abuse

  • maria melo #39
    Jun 28, 2017 at 11:25 am

    If approved by voters, the measure would affect how public schools, universities and other government agencies accommodate transgender people.

    Like the UK brexit vote :- “Let’s ask lots of people who have no idea what is being discussed” – with media input from ideological, story telling, “Emperor’s New Clothes award winning”, would-be leaders, – who also have no idea what is being discussed!

    Facilities designated for use by one sex would have to exclude the opposite sex.

    This is based on the simplistic thinking or the discontinuous mind, that there are only “Two opposite sexes”, – which is a denial of trans-gender and intersex issues.

    It is a classic defence of incompetent design, followed by legislating to try to force the population to put up with using inadequate facilities, on the directions from assertively incompetent bigots and politicians!

    The European models mentioned @#26 are there for all to see, but of course know-it-all Republicans “are the greatest”, and don’t need to learn anything from “those darned scientists and experts”!

    There would also be the issue (which has sailed right past the bigots), of defining what these “opposite sexes” are supposed to be! – Genotype? Phenotype? Appearance? Secondary sexual characteristics?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Secondary_sexual_characteristics



    Report abuse

  • maria melo #39
    Jun 28, 2017 at 11:25 am

    Facilities designated for use by one sex would have to exclude the opposite sex.

    This is laughably clueless!
    It reminds me of when my daughter was a toddler, and I had to take her into the gents toilets in places where there were to single unisex cubicle disabled, or baby-change facilities!

    The foundation called the effort
    a necessary step to protect “the privacy, safety and dignity” of Montana children and help guard against sexual predators.” –
    end of quote

    Yep! Having only two separate-sex communal facilities works wonderfully for fathers with young daughters or mothers with young boys! 🙂
    Only prudish faith-thinkers could come up with a claim like that about “protecting the privacy and dignity of children”!



    Report abuse

  • @OP – A conservative group wants to let Montana voters decide whether
    transgender people must use public restrooms and locker rooms designated for their gender at birth

    Of course this type of legislation would give no protection whatever from this lesbian sexual predator, but it would cause a lot of inconvenience to other innocent people!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-40446396

    A woman has been convicted of impersonating a man for more than two years in an “astonishing deception” to trick her female friend into sex.

    Gayle Newland, 27, of Willaston, Cheshire, created a “disturbingly complex” online persona to achieve her own “bizarre sexual satisfaction”.

    A retrial jury at Manchester Crown Court found her guilty of committing sexual assault by using a prosthetic penis without her victim’s consent.

    Newland was found guilty of three counts of sexual assault and cleared of a fourth count.

    The jury reached majority verdicts of 11-1 after deliberating for 17 hours and 25 minutes.

    Newland said she created the Facebook profile of Kye Fortune – using an American man’s photographs and videos – at the age of 15, because she found it difficult to talk to girls in person.



    Report abuse

  • Hey I wasn’t making an argument. i was making statements. I do not owe you an argument. i don’t know you don’t need your approval or agreement. I didn’t address you nor do I plan on it. You are wrong. All these awesome, patient people are schooling you. Giving their time and expertise to directing you to current research and scientific thought. I am not them. I am a hammer. I do not reflect upon the nail’s feelings.

    Many are here to discuss and process (and i am too on many many different topics). However, on this one, I am fine to read what is being bandied about and hammer the posts that are wrong and support the posts that are right. This has ceased to be about opinion. We are talking about facts. BIOLOGICAL FACTS. I am a biologist. I am qualified and capable of digesting, processing, and assessing these facts. Then, it is much much fun to be told that I am wrong.



    Report abuse

  • maria melo #39
    Jun 28, 2017 at 11:25 am

    Concerning technical issues, as far as Stardusty Psyche didn´t answer to my questions,

    Like wise my unanswered questions,

    @#24 – Your replies to my detailed information and links on intersex conditions, gender reassignment surgery, actual examples of intersex models in female changing rooms, and questions about the incompatibility of this information with your views :- are notable by their absence!

    and further request @#37:-

    @#37 – If you have an evidenced rational argument, please start to present it!

    I don´t see how one could execute such measures,

    I note that Stardusty has however, posted more recently on other discussions, so perhaps has nothing to offer here apart from simplistic disjointed, random assertions of ill considered “Republican” preconceptions!



    Report abuse

  • crookedshoes #43
    Jun 29, 2017 at 1:01 pm

    We are talking about facts. BIOLOGICAL FACTS. I am a biologist. I am qualified and capable of digesting, processing, and assessing these facts.

    Ah! But you are not using those GREAT Trumpist “Republican alternative facts”, with which his cheerleaders are over-awed 🙂



    Report abuse

  • 46
    maria melo says:

    It seems that someone kind of answered to my questions, and I couldn´t help but smiling at the photo depicting a police officer near the doors of bathrooms after a stressful day at work it was really good to smile., besides I felt positive about the functioning of legal institutions as far as searching in google I´ve aknowledged that from year 2016 to now North Carolina repealed the strange law of bathrooms (and from 2012 to 2015 all american states legalized same gender marriage).

    I aknowledge that in 2016 Trump critized the North Carolina bathrooms law for the same “economy reasons”, while Ted Cruz was in favour with the ridiculous nonsense argument that:
    “We shouldn’t be facilitating putting little girls alone in a bathroom w/ grown men. That’s just a bad, bad, bad idea,” Cruz said in a separate Twitter post.
    http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-ted-cruz-transgender-bathroom-law-north-carolina-caitlyn-jenner-450999

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/04/north-carolina-lgbt-bathrooms-hb2-enforcement/

    North Carolina repeals ‘bathroom bill’
    http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/30/politics/north-carolina-hb2-agreement/index.html



    Report abuse

  • crookedshoes #43 Jun 29, 2017 at 1:01 pm Hey I wasn’t making an
    argument. …. I didn’t address you nor do I plan on it. You are
    wrong.

    You just contradicted yourself in the space of a few words.

    Giving their time and expertise to directing you .

    There you go again, addressing me.

    ” We are talking about facts. BIOLOGICAL FACTS. I am a biologist. I am
    qualified and capable of digesting, processing, and assessing these
    facts.

    Are you qualified to identify an adult penis when you see one? Hint: it is a thing the vast majority of American women do not want in a multiple occupancy public restroom designated for women and girls, nor do the vast majority of American men want this identifiable object in that restroom.



    Report abuse

  • Stardusty Psyche #47
    Jun 29, 2017 at 11:19 pm

    TO – crookedshoes – Are you qualified to identify an adult penis when you see one?

    Actually, biologists who have studied human anatomy are very well qualified.
    As I explained @#13 and #16, you on the other hand have failed to produce even a definition of the term “adult penis” which you are using without understanding, despite being given medical links to information describing the range of anatomical structures and reconstructions involved!

    Hint: it is a thing the vast majority of American women do not want in a multiple occupancy public restroom designated for women and girls, nor do the vast majority of American men want this identifiable object in that restroom.

    Hint:- Repeatedly parroting this unevidenced assertion of a bandwagon-fallacy, does not constitute “making a reasoned argument”!

    Nor does it relate to the issue of the ridiculous nature of the legislation which would direct people who appear male or female to the wrong changing rooms and toilets on the basis of their underlying genetics or (mistaken?) sex diagnosis at birth.

    Giving their time and expertise to directing you.

    There you go again, addressing me.

    Directing you to the links providing the information you are lacking, – but only producing trivial superficial rhetoric from you about who is being addressed, when you need to think about WHAT is being addressed! –

    Namely:
    “How can public facilities be designed to provide appropriate services for everyone”,
    rather than,
    “How can bigotry and asserted ignorance be applied to make life difficult for a minority of citizens”, who are already coping with physical abnormalities.

    As I previously linked @#13 This genetically female to male transgender individual – WITH A PENIS, would be required by YOUR requirements to use the gents toilets, whereas under the silly legislation, “he” would be required to use the ladies!

    You really do need to read the links and think this through!



    Report abuse

  • Alan4discussion #48 Jun 30, 2017 at 6:29 am …he vast majority of
    American women do not want in a multiple occupancy public restroom
    designated for women and girls, nor do the vast majority of American
    men want this identifiable object in that restroom. …

    … this unevidenced assertion …

    We keep losing because our leaders, like you, are effete technocrats who seriously believe this is an “unevidenced assertion”.

    “How can public facilities be designed to provide appropriate services
    for everyone”,

    The installed base can’t. The buildings in America are already built. Put your vast analytical capacities to work on that obvious fact.

    You, like our leaders, are in a bubble.
    The Republicans keep winning because they know how to travel this country and connect with the realities of the people they intend to steal from.
    We keep losing because we don’t know how to travel this country and connect with the realities of the people we intend to advocate for.



    Report abuse

  • Stardusty Psyche #49
    Jun 30, 2017 at 11:48 am

    You, like our leaders, are in a bubble.

    Nope! It is American Republicans who are in their own uneducated delusion bubble!

    The Republicans keep winning because they know how to travel this country and connect with the realities of the people they intend to steal from.

    Nope! They win because they have pet media who help them con the uneducated gullible, play on their ignorance, encourage divisive bigotry to seek out scapegoats, and distract from their politicians’ incompetence and neglect of the public interests!

    We keep losing because we don’t know how to travel this country and connect with the realities of the people we intend to advocate for.

    Those who know how to travel the world, connect with the realities of the people, and use independent information sources, know the difference from practical examples from countries where these things are dealt with much more competently – with male, female and unisex/disability facilities routinely provided.

    .. .and I don’t mean just by public service establishments.
    Major commercial enterprises such as shopping malls and service motorway stations, also provide proper facilities for all, in Europe.

    http://intu.co.uk/metrocentre/centre-information/services-and-facilities

    Our clean, spacious toilets (and disabled toilets) can be found on:

    Lower Exhibition Square near Primark
    Upper Blue Mall Public Transport Interchange entrance
    Upper Green mall near Boots
    Upper red mall near Debenhams




    Report abuse

  • Stardusty Psyche #49
    Jun 30, 2017 at 11:48 am

    The installed base can’t. The buildings in America are already built. Put your vast analytical capacities to work on that obvious fact.

    Up-dating the inside fittings of locker-rooms to have lockers and sufficient cubicles, really is NOT a major structural enterprise!
    People refurbish the interiors of buildings all the time!

    As I pointed out earlier, my wife and I were using unisex locker-rooms with changing cubicles, at swimming pools, 30 years ago!
    How backward are these US politicians?

    They need either individual cubicles for changing in unisex rooms, or separate individual disability, family rooms, etc. for those who are uncomfortable changing in front of others in single sex communal areas, or who need special aids, baby change etc. Any competent architect should be able to design these!



    Report abuse

  • Stardusty Psyche #49
    Jun 30, 2017 at 11:48 am

    The buildings in America are already built.

    See #51 on buildings.

    Put your vast analytical capacities to work on that obvious fact.

    For the benefit of those who need the benefit of my “vast analytical capacities”, to work on that obvious facts of how to use a unisex locker room, – it is quite simple!

    First you enter the locker-room with your kit.
    You go into the cubicle, close the door, undress and put on a swimming costume (or other kit for other sports).
    You take your clothes to the locker and put them inside it.
    You give the numbered key to an attendant, or wear it on a band on your wrist.
    You then go and have a shower and proceed to the pool!

    After swimming, you have a shower to wash off the chlorine from your body and your costume.
    You then open your locker and take out a towel and start to dry your self.
    When your hands and arms are dry enough, you take your clothes, shoes, and the towel, to a cubicle, finish drying, and change.

    Other family or group members, can use other cubicles and other lockers, at the same time. Some may wish to use hair-dryers etc.

    It really does not take a genius to work this out!



    Report abuse

  • Alan4discussion #52 Jun 30, 2017 at 1:59 pm

    You go into the cubicle,

    There are no cubicles in almost all of the installed base of American multi occupancy public restrooms, except in your imagination.

    Until my fellow anti-Republicans learn to deal with simple realities the vast majority of Americans find obvious we will continue to lose.



    Report abuse

  • Moderator message

    Can we have less gratuitous insult and fewer personal digs in the comments, please.

    Section 14 at the foot of the very long Terms & Conditions document at http://www.www.richarddawkins.net/tcp should give a good sense of the kind of discussion we are aiming for here. There’s a link to it at the foot of every page, so please take a look. In a nutshell: Disagreement is fine, arguing other points of view is fine. But we do ask users to approach discussions and disagreements constructively and courteously. There is no reason why rational adults cannot disagree robustly without rudeness or insult towards those who disagree with them.

    Thank you.

    The mods



    Report abuse

  • I think we need to get Stardust a lesson in biology and genetic diversity with Crookedshoes.
    He obviously doesn’t consider reality in his decision making process.
    The “masses” do not determine reality.



    Report abuse

  • The “masses” do not determine reality.

    Actually, they do. They determine the reality of who governs the United States of America, and thus the deep and vast impact on the whole of humanity that follows.

    Right now we are facing a very ugly reality indeed.

    Donald Trump.

    Is that real enough for you? For me it is like stepping on a big stinking dog turd. It’s ugly. It’s disgusting. But there it is, it happened, so not I gotta deal with it.

    Here are a few things that the left did to help elect Donald Trump.

    Wring their hands about “Islamophobia” while turning a blind eye to the debauchery that is fundamentalist Islam.
    Side with Black Lives Matter while that organization was actively promoting violence against law enforcement officers.
    Fail to repudiate what Richard Dawkins has characterized as the “pernicious” sort of feminism.
    Be all for the establishment clause but suffer from selective memory loss with respect to the free exercise clause.
    Ignore the fact that the vast majority of women in America are repulsed by the notion of an adult penis in their multiple occupancy public restroom, and the vast majority of American men are even more repulsed on their behalf.

    Nobody cares about your hermaphrodite and your genetic ambiguity lessons. The average American knows what an adult penis looks like, and they don’t want any in the multi occupancy public restrooms with the women and girls designation.

    You can pretend that the opinion of the masses doesn’t matter, but then comes that ugly fact, Trump won.

    Donald Trump, part laughable clown, part buffoon, part man baby wrecking machine is in fact the President of the United States of America. And oh by the way, the Republicans have a majority in the senate, and the Republicans have a majority in the house, and the conservatives are about to get a strong majority in the Supreme Court if Kennedy retires.

    Isn’t that some kind of gut check for the lefties who apparently don’t give a damn what the average American thinks?

    [First section removed by moderator. Please go to http://www.www.richarddawkins.net/tcp and scroll down to section 14 to get a feel for the approach we take here: it goes beyond the standard rules you’re likely to have encountered elsewhere.]



    Report abuse

  • I just can’t believe how some of the comments here read. This is not about gender but about inclusion. About putting in ramps and widening doors or in this case providing toilets and changing rooms that do not discriminate. Lessons we learned long time ago. Flabbergasted!!!!



    Report abuse

  • Stardusty Psyche #53
    Jun 30, 2017 at 8:16 pm

    Alan4discussion #52 Jun 30, 2017 at 1:59 pm – You go into the cubicle,

    There are no cubicles in almost all of the installed base of American multi occupancy public restrooms, except in your imagination.

    Until Republican administrations learn to care about providing properly designed facilities for all their citizens, and move away from:-
    “Nothing is too cheap and nasty for use as public services, – and if some people lose out, – blame and abuse the victims”, facilities will remain unfit for purpose!

    Cubicles or separate disabled/family changing rooms could be provided, IF legislators passed laws regulating buildings so as they were a legal requirement, but Republicans don’t “do” regulated competent planning! They prefer decisions to be taken by opinionated pseudo-science faith-head ignoramuses, rather than competent professional designers – with scape-goats then identified to cover-up the tracks of their blunderings!
    A responsible press and media educating the public to expect decent design standards, would also help.

    Until my fellow anti-Republicans learn to deal with simple realities the vast majority of Americans find obvious we will continue to lose.

    You seem to have it backwards!
    The majority of Americans will continue to lose for as long as they elect Republican politicians who are only concerned with preserving the privileges and wealth of the rich minority, to the neglect of most of the population!

    I have made the point before, that only the conned ignorant, or the stupid, would vote for paying twice the going OECD rate for a more limited, poorer, health care service to facilitate profiteering! – as just one example!

    https://thesocietypages.org/graphicsociology/2011/04/26/cost-of-health-care-by-country-national-geographic/



    Report abuse

  • alf1200 #55
    Jul 1, 2017 at 3:26 am

    The “masses” do not determine reality.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

    This type of argument is known by several names, including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to popularity, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy . . . . . .

    This fallacy is sometimes committed while trying to convince a person that a widely popular thought is true, based solely on the fact that it is a widely popular thought.
    In the argumentum ad populum, the population’s experience, expertise or authority is not taken into consideration by the author:

    The US politicians and faux media do regularly coach the US population in fallacious thinking as a means of manipulating support for the uncaring elite!



    Report abuse

  • Stardusty Psyche #53
    Jun 30, 2017 at 8:16 pm

    You go into the cubicle,

    There are no cubicles in almost all of the installed base of American multi occupancy public restrooms, except in your imagination.

    NO CUBICLES??
    I knew that Republican administrations were backward and behind the times, but I did not realise that they were still in the Roman era in the design of toilet blocks! 🙂

    https://followinghadrian.com/2013/05/09/how-the-romans-did-their-business-images-of-latrines-throughout-the-roman-world/

    In Roman times, toilets used to be a public and convivial place. An epigram from Martial reveals just how public privies were among the most frequented places in the city for socializing:

    To modern readers, this can sound rather shocking as for us, going to the toilet is most definitely a private matter. However, public latrines were perfectly acceptable in Ancient Rome.

    Toilets are to be found at many archaeological sites. They vary in sizes and shapes from the large semi-circular or rectangular ones to the smaller private ones with up to 10 seats.



    Report abuse

  • 61
    maria melo says:

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3FileLcJVlw/UtAp2xmCF2I/AAAAAAAALEE/oAbd1d-aAm0/s1600/VANESSA+(4385).JPG

    Roman restrooms or “latrinae”, what it would look like if there were no cublcles, as Alan4discussion said, even in gents toilets there are cubicles besides urinals, not in ladies toilets where there are no urinals, except individual cubicles, (unless you are talking about showers at schools where there use to have no cubicles, or if there were it had no doors (many girls indeed don´t like it and sometimes used to be obliged to have a shower and leave aside shame- that happend when I was 11 and our “physical education” teacher threaten girls that she would go there to check the shower time).

    “There are no cubicles in almost all of the installed base of American multi occupancy public restrooms, except in your imagination.” Stardusty Psyche

    So for the sake of public “privacy” in public restrooms it would need a structural change, but what do transgender people have to do with it?



    Report abuse

  • 62
    maria melo says:

    Are you qualified to identify an adult penis when you see one? Hint:
    it is a thing the vast majority of American women do not want in a
    multiple occupancy public restroom designated for women and girls, nor
    do the vast majority of American men want this identifiable object in
    that restroom. Stardusty Psyche

    And as republicans seem to be making bills for the women in their lives, the bill would be designated ONLY for:

    a) Transgender karyotipe male XY with “adult real penises” (not all men with XY kariotype were born with penis but some with a normal vagina, despite the fact that a rare number of men may have actually a real adult penis despite the fact that they were born with a normal vagina, so perhaps this rare number of men would need to go to women´s toilets according to their birth´s certifcate spoling women´s privacy anyway);

    b) It would exclude transgender XX Karyotype too which will never have “real adult penis” (but women anyway would panic with their “penis” and call out for a biologist to recognize if it was a “real adult biological penis”;

    c) Unisex bathrooms would be forbidden too (for obvious reasons).

    I´m just wondering about technical details.



    Report abuse

  • 63
    maria melo says:

    It seems the subject is complex enough from a biology and medical point of view (it seems difficult enough for me to akknowledge all the abnormalities people may born with, neither am I a biologist nor a doctor as some biologists here may aknowledge from my ignorance), while, it seems quite clear and simple for ignorant people, I mean in all aspects, considering the point of view of politics too, as far as it requires some expertise/ethics to make laws too, for laws are made to aim general public interest-that´s what the definition of politics stands for in Aristotle.



    Report abuse

  • Stardusty Psyche #47
    Jun 29, 2017 at 11:19 pm

    TO – crookedshoes – Are you qualified to identify an adult penis when you see one?

    Alan4 – Actually, biologists who have studied human anatomy are very well qualified.
    As I explained @#13 and #16, you on the other hand have failed to produce even a definition of the term “adult penis” which you are using without understanding, despite being given medical links to information describing the range of anatomical structures and reconstructions involved!

    Hint:

    Stardusty – it is a thing the vast majority of American women do not want in a multiple occupancy public restroom designated for women and girls, nor do the vast majority of American men want this identifiable object in that restroom.

    So – still lacking a coherent definition of this “ideological penis”, as with the need for definition of theists vague undefined gods:-

    Ignosticism goes one step further than agnosticism; while agnosticism states that “you can’t really know either way” regarding the existence or non-existence of God, ignosticism posits that you haven’t even agreed on what you’re discussing

    Stardusty Psyche #56
    Jul 1, 2017 at 4:40 am

    The “masses” do not determine reality.

    Actually, they do. They determine the reality of who governs the United States of America, and thus the deep and vast impact on the whole of humanity that follows.

    Right now we are facing a very ugly reality indeed.

    In the USA it is – but that is a Republican “alternative fact” political reality, based on propaganda conning gullible masses – not a real world objective reality.

    Ignore the fact that the vast majority of women in America are repulsed by the notion of an adult penis in their multiple occupancy public restroom, and the vast majority of American men are even more repulsed on their behalf.

    This is only a vague strawman notion in your imagination, combined with the bandwagon fallacy explained #59.

    Nobody cares about your hermaphrodite and your genetic ambiguity lessons.

    Actually all the thousands of intersex and transgender people and their families care, – along with their doctors and other humans who have empathy for their fellow humans.

    The average American knows what an adult penis looks like, and they don’t want any in the multi occupancy public restrooms with the women and girls designation.

    So you keep parroting after the style of Faux News, but repetition does not make it so.
    The evidence from your denials of biology and anatomy, along with the failure to address the issues and information you have been given in this discussion; is that you have no idea what you are talking about.

    You can pretend that the opinion of the masses doesn’t matter, but then comes that ugly fact, Trump won.

    Trump is a problematic reckless liar, who foolish people elected.
    That does nothing to justify support for bigotry against transgender people, intersex people, or particular races.
    Your country has been hi-jacked by ignorant, incompetent, greedy elitists! – Fix the problem at the next election!

    Isn’t that some kind of gut check for the lefties who apparently don’t give a damn what the average American thinks?

    Competent designs of buildings, and functioning services, do not arise from massed opinionated ignorance, bigotry, or denials of science.

    Do I think large gatherings of ignorant opinionated Americans are dangerous to each other and the world? – YES!

    Do I think we should be pandering to their ignorant opinions? NO!

    THE USA needs to dump the ignorant, selfish, idiots, and restore REPRESENTATIVE democracy, where elected representatives seek, and act on, the best expert advice they can find, – in the interests of ALL their electors!



    Report abuse

  • Stardusty

    Are you qualified to identify an adult penis when you see one?

    Sure I am. But why would I see one in a women’s restroom, even if one were there?



    Report abuse

  • 66
    maria melo says:

    So the Devil must be leftish and liberal, isn´t? How can one figure out a psychological profile from distance, which thinks is a conservative?
    Actually all my friends laugh when I say after a psychology examination the psychologist told me I was a “conservative” person.
    I m used to listen to politics commenters on tv who actually say that Trump is not coherent with nothing, perhaps only coherent with ignorance and of course, someone who does not really shows coherence with being empatic, who dares to say I don´t care about the others is not really a “conservative” of course.



    Report abuse

  • Olgun #57 Jul 1, 2017 at 5:47 am

    I just can’t believe how some of the comments here read. This is not
    about gender but about inclusion.

    Right. The majority of Americans do not want adult penises included in multi occupancy public restrooms designated for women and girls.

    Liberal advocacy against this longstanding American position is one reason we keep losing.

    Flabbergasted!!!!

    Perhaps if you were more in touch with the American electorate you would not be so flabbergasted.



    Report abuse

  • Stardusty Psyche #67
    Jul 1, 2017 at 5:49 pm

    Right. The majority of Americans do not want adult penises included in multi occupancy public restrooms designated for women and girls.

    I’m sure they are all happy that you have carried out such an exhaustive survey of their views to provide this data! 🙂
    It’s just a pity that you have no idea about the questions you would need to ask them in order to seek informed opinions from them on the subject!

    Liberal advocacy against this longstanding American position is one reason we keep losing.

    Are you going to read the information on the links and make some reasoned coherent comment, or are you just going to keep vacuously asserting and parroting this fallacious and strawman nonsense, in the wishful hope that someone is eventually going think it has some credibility?

    Hint:-
    The issue of appropriate provision of facilities for transgender and intersex individuals, is NOT about XY normal males who have normally developed penises.
    It is about the minority, but still large number of citizens, who are different – as has already been explained at some length!



    Report abuse

  • Stardusty

    If you read the link below, you will see there is confusion about ‘communal’ and ‘ unisex’ changing areas. There are also silly sexist comments about men behaving like animals and pissing all over the place. If I take my young daughter, of an age not be be able to come into the men’s with me, then I would not use that facility. Having said that, I have had to use such places, as I have had no choice, and stood anxiously asking women going in and out to check on her. Our local pool has unisex changing cubicles where I have none of those worries. And no penises to worry about either. Mothers don’t lose sight of their sons and fathers of their daughters. It’s all very grown up and civilised. No one is naked outside the cubicles and everyone, regardless of gender, is included. No one is forced to make a decision about which changing room they should change in and children are safely looked after by their parents. You argument, whether you have the numbers right or not, doesn’t come into it. It is a non argument and I don’t have to entrust my daughter to anyone.

    My daughter is all grown up now, by the way, and I am playing with time to make a point.

    If you do look at the comments on the link and start taking out the silly ones, like the ones about Jimmy Saville for one, you will end up with a sensible CIVILISED version for adult discussion. A more serious surveyed number to come up with is, how many fathers/mothers don’t use their local facility because there are no unisex cubicals in them?

    https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/1785437-Communal-Changing-Rooms



    Report abuse

  • Olgun #69 Jul 1, 2017 at 8:35 pm

    https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/1785437-Communal-Changing-Rooms

    That’s a UK site. Are you a UK resident? If so, fine, but changing rooms in the UK are not multi occupancy restrooms in the USA.

    You say you are flabbergasted by the postings here. My takeaway is how insular the average liberal is, at least on this site, and how unable to focus on the issue as it presents itself to the American public the liberals here have shown themselves to be.

    For the American public this is simple, it is abhorrent to have adult penises in the multi occupancy American public restrooms designated for women and girls. That is not a complicated presentation of the issue, yet merely stating it triggers a litany of citations about single occupancy cubicles, and phenotypes plus invocations about my supposed inability to deal with reality and something about argumentum ad populum.

    One guy here got so mad at me he advocated here that transvestites should urinate on me in public.

    Thus, we continue to lose. Liberals of a certain type can’t even process a statement of the problem that is obvious and simple to most Americans, and unfortunately we nominated just such a liberal to run for president, so she lost.



    Report abuse

  • Re: comment #70

    For the American public this is simple, it is abhorrent to have adult penises in the multi occupancy American public restrooms designated for women and girls.

    Speak for yourself. They are women. For all intents and purposes, people like Caitlin Jenner are women. It’s abhorrent to me to force someone like that to use the men’s room. If the children have good and enlightened parents, and a kid should happen to catch sight of something, they can ask their parents to explain. If the parents are not enlightened and are in fact bigots, they will do tremendous psychic harm to that confused kid by telling them that the transgender people are freaks or perverts, which I am sure happens quite often. That is where the real damage comes in.

    The same concern being raised by some was made in the past about homosexuals displaying affection publicly. I remember seeing two men kissing – before I knew that homosexuality existed – when I was about seven. I asked my father why they were doing that. He explained. I was fine.

    Liberals of a certain type…

    People of a certain type. There are obtuse liberals and obtuse conservatives. This has nothing to do with being right or wrong. Find a liberal who is not obtuse and argue your point. Otherwise what’s the point of arguing? I’ll do the same with conservatives.



    Report abuse

  • 72
    Garrick says:

    Stardusty Psyche #70

    You write of the “American public” as though it were some unchangeable monolith. It is nothing of the sort. What you have been saying about it indicates that the American public, or at least significant segments of it, could do with some enlightenment from other parts of the free world, and particularly from other parts of the USA, on how to provide all-inclusive public bathrooms and changing-rooms. After all, public services are for everyone, else they would not be public.



    Report abuse

  • Garrick #72 Jul 2, 2017 at 2:04 am

    You write of the “American public” as though it were some unchangeable
    monolith.

    In the time frame of an election cycle, it is. Slowly, leaders of great skill can change public opinion.

    What you have been saying about it indicates that the American
    public, or at least significant segments of it, could do with some
    enlightenment from other parts of the free world

    Hence Republican victories. Wishful thinking does not win elections.



    Report abuse

  • 74
    Garrick says:

    Stardusty Psyche #73
    Wishful thinking does not win elections.

    Quite so!

    But bear in mind that, despite Hillary Clinton’s unsavory connections and associations, she still actually won the popular majority by some two or three million votes. If the Democratic Party can clean itself up and stop treating politics as a feeding-trough for the servants of Big Business and Big Money, if it can return to its traditional democratic concerns and communicate policies that are clearly just and right for all the country’s citizens, and if it can bring itself to select candidates, including presidential candidates, who, like Bernie Sanders, are not compromised by obligations to plutocrats, they would win easily, even with such scandalous handicaps as gerrymandering and the Electoral College. Just as there is too much sugar in the average American diet, so there is too much money in the American political system. Americans need some political candidates who know when to say no to money for the sake of their integrity and that of the political process.



    Report abuse

  • Garrick #72
    Jul 2, 2017 at 2:04 am

    the American public, or at least significant segments of it,
    could do with some enlightenment from other parts of the free world,
    and particularly from other parts of the USA,
    on how to provide all-inclusive public bathrooms and changing-rooms.
    After all, public services are for everyone, else they would not be public.

    Both yourself and Olgun make the very valid point about the required INCLUSIVITY of public services.

    However! – Republicans and Trumpoids, are heavily in elitist and pseudo-elitist EXCLUSIVITY, so while the enlightened people are proposing designs to include everyone, the fanatical right are running campaigns to promote pretexts for EXCLUDING various groups of people and various citizen’s interests, from numerous services and investments, so that money, control and resources, can be diverted to the uncaring, greedy, elitist, (spoiled brat?) wealthy, and their bought stooges!

    Parts of these campaigns involve psychological projection, with scape-goating, demonising their targeted victims as evil, threatening, or undeserving, along with other forms of strawman imaging and fallacious labelling.

    One of the classics, is the labelling of objective scientific evidence as “left-wing science” by unthinking right-wing pseudo-science duffers, who wish to casually dismiss it – as they have been trained to do, by the propaganda from Faux News, DimBart, InfoWhores, Trump-tweets etc.!



    Report abuse

  • Stardusty ##47, 53, 56, 67:
    “The majority / vast majority of Americans do not want …”

    Research published in March 2017:
    Americans oppose bathroom laws limiting transgender rights: poll

    “The majority of respondents to a new U.S. poll opposed laws barring transgender people from using bathrooms consistent with their gender identities and indicated growing acceptance for gay rights, a nonpartisan research group said on Friday.

    “Fifty-three percent of the Americans surveyed oppose laws requiring transgender people to use bathrooms that correspond to their sex at birth, according to the national poll by the Public Religion Research Institute.”

    Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-lgbt-poll-idUSKBN16H1A4



    Report abuse

  • Stardusty Psyche #73
    Jul 2, 2017 at 3:03 am

    What you have been saying about it indicates that the American
    public, or at least significant segments of it, could do with some
    enlightenment from other parts of the free world

    Hence Republican victories. Wishful thinking does not win elections.

    What you are illustrating with comments like #28 – “Here’s a bit of newsflash for you, nobody cares about all your exception cases”, is that those who have bought into right wing propaganda, indeed don’t care about anybody except the elite, the spoon fed propaganda, and they don’t care about real facts or real evidence!
    They keep their minds closed, and happily keep parrot-chanting the propaganda slogans and “alternative facts”, which are regularly fed to them by the corrupt stooge media!

    However your own buying into this junk approach to citizenship, and junk information, does nothing to address the real issue of providing appropriate toilet and changing facilities for transgender and intersex individuals!

    Do you also insist – with the same level of insight, that wheelchair users go to toilets up flights of stairs?



    Report abuse

  • We now know that Stardusty’s claims to know the preferences of the vast majority of Americans have no basis. But even if he were right on that point:

    Back in apartheid South Africa, the majority of white South Africans did not want to have to share their facilities with black South Africans.

    Back before women’s suffrage, the majority of men (and indeed, many women) did not want women to have the vote.

    Back just a decade or two, the majority of heterosexuals did not want gays to be allowed to marry. (Indeed, it was only in June 2003 that a Supreme Court ruling made sexual activity between consenting adults of the same sex as well as same-sex adolescents of a close age legal nationwide across the US.)

    The thing about rights for minorities (and/or the powerless) is that if they were dependent on simply waiting until the majority (and/or the powerful) wanted them, they’d never happen. Not necessarily because the majority actively oppose them, but because the majority are blind to the injustice caused by their non-existence simply because they personally aren’t affected by it. But the injustice remains all the same.

    Social attitudes change, not because the majority suddenly wake up one morning seeing the world differently, but precisely because of campaigns to challenge and change them and because of progressive regulations introduced by enlightened legislatures, with which public attitudes then catch up. Greater inclusion has never happened any other way.

    Just one year before the poll I linked to above, another poll showed a 46:43 split in favour of only permitting people to use public restrooms corresponding to their gender at birth (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/20/us/politics/transgender-public-bathroom-poll.html?mcubz=2&_r=0). Not a majority of Americans, much less a “vast” one, but a slight lead for the conservative position. So there has been a shift to acceptance even in the space of 12 months. As campaigns make more and more people aware of a form of discrimination to which they had previously given little or no thought, so that trend to acceptance will continue to grow – and all the evidence is that such changes happen quickly, too: certainly not at a glacial pace. Until at some point the “vast majority” don’t simply accept them, but cannot comprehend why they were ever controversial in the first place.



    Report abuse

  • 80
    maria melo says:

    Comment 76 by Marco, and 74 by Garrick

    Glad to know that american people are civilised, despite someone here attempt to speak on their behalf (well women, republicans, american people, who knows what follows?), when in fact dared to confess that doesn´t care in fact.

    I´m well aware that bulies may have charisma, what strkes me, but bullies are not true leaders in a political sense (nor can be a narcissist with anti-social personality), despite the charisma that helps them to manipulate others.
    Well I´m familiar with.



    Report abuse

  • 81
    Garrick says:

    Alan4discussion #75
    . . . Republicans and Trumpoids, are heavily in elitist and pseudo-elitist EXCLUSIVITY, so while the enlightened people are proposing designs to include everyone, the fanatical right are running campaigns to promote pretexts for EXCLUDING various groups of people and various citizen’s interests, from numerous services and investments, . . .

    You analyse rather clearly why these people need to be defeated in the next elections, whereas our fellow human Stardusty Psyche seems to be gloating (with a vacuity of mind that rivals Donald Trump’s) that Trump and the Republicans keep winning and their opponents keep losing. Raising our attention from this mundane concern about public bathrooms in Montana to the greater concerns of maintaining the nation’s constitutional integrity, it has to be recognized that the United States is at the crossroads, where its future as either a constitutional democracy or a totalitarian plutocracy will be decided in the next few years. Stardusty seems already to have resigned himself to the latter outcome, but the former option is still open and seems, according to Marco’s information, to be the way most Americans will want to go.



    Report abuse

  • 82
    maria melo says:

    Marco on comment 79.

    We now know that Stardusty’s claims to know the preferences of the
    vast majority of Americans have no basis. But even if he were right on
    that point: Back in apartheid South Africa, the majority of white
    South Africans did not want to have to share their facilities with
    black South Africans. Back before women’s suffrage, the majority of
    men (and indeed, many women) did not want women to have the vote.

    Indeed, there could be no dictatorship of the majority that subtracts a person´s subjective basic human rights (human rights are subjective rights, this means they belong to a person individually, hope this defintion is enough to understand that the large number of people cannot vote against one person´s basic human rights).

    Universal Declaration of Human rights assumed in Portuguese Constitutional Law:

    Article 13
    (Principle of equality)
    1. All citizens have the same social dignity and are equal before the law.
    2. No one may be privileged, benefited, harmed, deprived of any right or exempt from any duty on the grounds of descent, sex, race, language, territory of origin, religion, political or ideological beliefs, education, economic Sexual orientation.

    ARTICLE 16
    (Scope and meaning of fundamental rights)
    1. The fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution do not exclude any others contained in the applicable laws and rules of international law.
    2. The constitutional and legal provisions relating to fundamental rights must be interpreted and integrated in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    Reasons pointed out by President Cavaco Silva when sending the bill that enables marriage of same gender people, for the Constitutional Court before approval, he was not certain the bill was in accordance with the text of law (but of course did NOT KNOW about “the spirit of the law” :
    Article 36/1 of the CRP (“Everyone has the right to establish a family and to enter into full equality”) referred only to the right of a man and a woman to constitute marriage; On the other, that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) conceives of marriage as an institution formed by man and woman – and this Declaration, by virtue of art. 16/2 of the CRP, is decisive for the interpretation and analysis of the Portuguese constitutional text.

    Decision of the Constitutional Court and CLARIFICATION (it cannot serve to decrease rights, but to increase):

    It should also be borne in mind that the provisions of the UDHR can
    serve as a tool for understanding and analyzing the Portuguese
    constitutional text only in cases where there is an increase in
    citizens’ rights – in this case, the UDHR implies the Citizens of the
    same sex who wish to marry, and this Declaration can not serve as a
    basis for the unconstitutionality of Decree No. 9 / XI.



    Report abuse

  • 83
    maria melo says:

    Repeating the conclusion/lesson (if you have a good memory, just forgive me for repeating it):

    It belongs to political state and it´s functioning to reassure it´s citizens their citizenship rights (human rights are citizenship rights), so, if governments calls out population for referenda (popular opinion on citizen´s rights) there´s something REALLY WRONG about IT´S FUNCTIONING, once such rights-civil rights as marriage, equality really belong to those category of rights that should be polically reassured to all citizens by political state. That´s not my original view of course, but I assume that´s correct (even if the referenda wouldn´t be binding, only the idea that some might decide about my private life and can decide wheter I can have the same rights is outrageous for those that are being “judged”, for instance the minority of gay people knowing that others, the vast majority could give their opinion on their intimate private life is enough to stress people with no need.
    Here it seems a call out for some to decide if they should be discriminated, because it really is discrimination, everything on the machiavellian grounds that straight men could dress up as transgenders do, enter into womens toilets and spoil their privacy with a “real biological adult pénis”, the “object” of terror in Stardusty Psyche words.



    Report abuse

  • Marco #76 Jul 2, 2017 at 4:38 am

    Fifty-three percent of the Americans surveyed oppose laws requiring
    transgender people to use bathrooms that correspond to their sex at
    birth,

    How was the question worded? Did it specifically ask if the respondent was ok with allowing adult penises into multi occupancy public restrooms designated for women and girls?

    “transgender” means different things to different people.

    If you don’t understand that this issue, along with others such as here
    http://nypost.com/2017/06/30/the-tolerant-left-has-no-problem-bashing-those-who-speak-out-against-muslim-extremists/
    are self inflicted wounds by Democrats then you do not know much about the average American.



    Report abuse

  • Marco #79 Jul 2, 2017 at 5:22 am

    … Stardusty’s claims to know the preferences of the vast majority of
    Americans have no basis. …

    …apartheid South Africa,…

    … women’s suffrage,..

    It is this sort of overblown comparison that makes liberals into laughing stocks and election losers.

    Somehow people have found ways to relieve themselves. Equating a bathroom bill with apartheid South Africa is preposterous.



    Report abuse

  • Stardusty #85

    It is this sort of overblown comparison that makes liberals into
    laughing stocks and election losers.

    I’m sorry you were unable to follow the line of reasoning, Stardusty. The point was about minority vs majority rights and the fact that minority rights are never achieved by waiting for majority support.

    Stardusty #84

    How was the question worded? Did it specifically ask if the respondent
    was ok with allowing adult penises into multi occupancy public
    restrooms designated for women and girls?

    Stardusty, I have never encountered anyone so unhealthily obsessed with adult penises as you appear to be.

    Just out of interest, which public bathrooms do you suppose transgender people have been using to date? Do you really think that someone who identifies as female in all aspects of their lives has been using the Gents all these years? So where are all the women who have been discombobulated by transgender people using their facilities? It is a non-issue, for the simple reason that privacy in women’s public toilets is guaranteed by virtue of the fact that all the private bits happen in cubicles, behind locked doors. There is no more reason to be upset by the presence of an “adult penis” in the women’s toilets than there is to be by its presence on a bus. Indeed, I’d go further. The invasion of privacy is entirely on the part of the person scrutinising people coming in and speculating about their genitalia.



    Report abuse

  • A comment on future and past elections:

    Several people on this thread mentioned the democrats’ affiliations with Big Business. I think people who keep complaining, fulminating, about the Democrats serving the interests of big business, are not being reasonable, have no sense of proportion; they sound like shame-ridden latent Republicans at worst and arrogant and unencumbered at best, looking for something to blame other than their own politics, poor judgment and unfettered egos. Quantity changes quality. The present administration is not only seeking to establish an oligarchy; it is seeking (and it might not succeed; but this is its ultimate direction) to establish a dictatorship. It IS the status quo, in the worst sense. This is an administration from hell, and it should have been avoided.

    All the so called liberals (the critics of “neo-liberalism”) who like to attack the Democrats and Obama and Hillary like they are more discerning, are visionaries and idealists (more like ideologues) who want a perfect party, a perfect system, and perfect candidates, probably voted for Stein or didn’t vote. Some actually voted for Trump. And a vote for Stein or no vote was a vote for Trump.

    Give me one concrete example, Garrick, of how Hillary taking money when she spoke at Goldman’s or her “affiliation with big money” affected an actual decision that she made while in public office. I want facts.

    Get over your misogyny (and I am not addressing any one person) and off your soap box, and your high and mighty condemnation of both parties and your insistence upon establishing a very false equivalent. You’re not fooling anyone. Hillary, and I will keep saying this, would have made a good president: steady, pragmatic, imperfect; but we would have moved in the right direction – slowly, gradually, incrementally. Her positions were much better than Trump’s on every issue I can think of. She is smarter (is enormously intelligent) and more of a real change agent than Sanders. He is a better orator, and a very decent man. You are the cause of this devastating loss.

    These critics of Hillary (and they never stop) need to explain why she was so horrible, but now that its too late, they can’t. Trump is a gazillion times worse! They made a terrible, terrible, terrible mistake by voting against her. People who voted for Johnson (who was cut from the same cloth as Rand Paul who wants to abolish federal spending for insurance altogether, along with all “entitlements”) or Stein, out of symbolic protest, are not likely to ever impress me; that was neither smart nor responsible; I resent them. They are worse than non-voters.

    Part 2

    What is this argument about? Trans-gender people need a place to use the bathroom; so let them use the damned bathroom of their choice. Listen to what they have to say; they identify themselves as women or men and in my book that’s good enough for me, as I said above. (71) (Do a few thing need to be ironed out? Perhaps. They can be; with empathy, freedom from prejudice and politicization, and sound judgment, these minor problems can be ironed out.)

    No one can prevent an imposter or “predator” from doing what they want to do; so let them try to capitalize on this new opportunity, as it were; they’ll get caught, interrogated and punished. A non issue.



    Report abuse

  • Marco #86
    Jul 2, 2017 at 1:10 pm

    Stardusty, I have never encountered anyone so unhealthily obsessed
    with adult penises as you appear to be.

    That is the subject of this thread. That is why this is controversial. American women don’t want them in their bathrooms and American men don’t either.

    Phyllis Schlafly defeated the ERA largely by capitalizing on this fact of the American public. Republicans are still defeating Democrats for their inability to get out of their insular bubbles on bathrooms, Islam, BLM, and similar hot button issues.

    Feminists of that time went to great lengths to claim that would never happen because it is a privacy issue. Feminists long insisted that women have the right to privacy in the space of the public restroom.

    Schlafly was prophetic, as it turns out.



    Report abuse

  • No. The subject of this thread is the rights of transgender people to use public toilets in line with their gender identification.

    Despite your repeated assertions, you cannot provide any evidence that the American public objects; I have provided evidence that the majority, in fact, do not.

    Nor have you explained, despite being repeatedly asked, HOW ANYONE WOULD EVEN KNOW.

    Frankly, in the absence of evidence or even any kind of reasoned argument, you are simply projecting your own hang-ups onto the rest of us. The good news is that it’s you and others like you who are in the minority. It’s a shame that greater inclusiveness always has to be achieved in the teeth of hostility from people like you, Stardusty, but make no mistake: that’s where we’re headed, and a good thing too.



    Report abuse

  • Stardusty,

    Schlafly!

    It is long overdue for parents to realize they have the right and duty to protect our children against the intolerant evolutionists. Phyllis Schlafly

    Sexual harassment on the job is not a problem for virtuous women. Phyllis Schlafly

    Many more where those came from. Out of context? You find the context and put it back in. I’m going to take a walk and get some fresh air.

    Perhaps (and I say perhaps) Marco is in to something (Hi, Marco.); this does give one a convenient excuse to think about men’s penises. That fact cannot be denied.



    Report abuse

  • Stardusty Psyche #88
    Jul 2, 2017 at 1:59 pm

    Marco #86 – Jul 2, 2017 at 1:10 pm – Stardusty, I have never encountered anyone so unhealthily obsessed with adult penises as you appear to be.

    That is the subject of this thread.

    It maybe in your mind looking through your bias blinkers, but that is not what the OP says!

    Perhaps you could point out and paste a quote of the text WHERE IN THE OP ARTICLE OR LINK the words “adult penis” appear – or stop parroting nonsense!

    You have also made no attempt to define the distinctions between an “adult penis” and an intersex enlarged clitoris or ambiguous genitalia!

    So once again I refer you to the medical experts rather than pretending to know the opinions of the ignorant!

    https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001669.htm

    XY INTERSEX

    The person has the chromosomes of a man, but the external genitals are incompletely formed, ambiguous, or clearly female.
    Internally, testes may be normal, malformed, or absent. This condition is also called 46, XY with undervirilization.
    It used to be called male pseudohermaphroditism.
    Formation of normal male external genitals depends on the appropriate balance between male and female hormones.
    Therefore, it requires the adequate production and function of male hormones. 46, XY intersex has many possible causes:

    People with 5-alpha-reductase deficiency lack the enzyme needed to convert testosterone to dihydrotestosterone (DHT).
    There are at least 5 different types of 5-alpha-reductase deficiency.
    Some of the babies have normal male genitalia, some have normal female genitalia, and many have something in between.
    Most change to external male genitalia around the time of puberty.

    AIS is the most common cause of 46, XY intersex. It has also been called testicular feminization. Here, the hormones are all normal, but the receptors to male hormones don’t function properly.
    There are over 150 different defects that have been identified so far, and each causes a different type of AIS.

    That is why this is controversial. American women don’t want them in their bathrooms and American men don’t either.

    As has been pointed out many times, you have no idea what they want, and have yet to explain how these supposed American women would find out if penises were present or not, given that most transgender and intersex people are discrete, use cubicles, and value their own privacy!

    These citizens are walking the streets and need access to public toilets like everyone else, so perhaps you could make some constructive proposals on what sort of facilities should be provided for them!



    Report abuse

  • Marco #89 Jul 2, 2017 at 2:07 pm

    No. The subject of this thread is the rights of transgender people to
    use public toilets in line with their gender identification.

    …which is controversial when it means a person with an adult penis has the legal right to enter and use a multi occupancy restroom designated for women and girls.

    Hence my assertion that some liberals are so insular in their bubble that they cannot even process a controversy that is simple and obvious to the average American.

    This effect is closely related to the inability of the insular left to process the glaring truth about Islam. This problem is sometimes called the regressive left, or the effete liberals, or political correctness.

    This sort of liberal just does not get that the average American woman has rights too, for example, the right to privacy in the form of a female only space when getting partially naked.



    Report abuse

  • the right to privacy in the form of a female only space when getting
    partially naked.

    Privacy is not affected.

    Either the existence of a lockable cubicle provides privacy … or it does not.

    The gender identification of a person in another lockable cubicle affects that not. one. jot.

    And … to come back to the question you seem intent on ignoring: how would anyone know the gender identification of the person in another lockable cubicle in any case?



    Report abuse

  • Stardusty Psyche #92
    Jul 2, 2017 at 4:36 pm

    Marco #89 Jul 2, 2017 at 2:07 pm – No. The subject of this thread is the rights of transgender people to use public toilets in line with their gender identification.

    …which is controversial when it means a person with an adult penis has the legal right to enter and use a multi occupancy restroom designated for women and girls.

    Oh dear oh dear! Still obsessed with your own fanciful undefined notion of “an adult penis”, despite my clear medical explanation in the previous comment to your own!

    Hence my assertion that some liberals are so insular in their bubble that they cannot even process a controversy that is simple and obvious to the average American.

    Hence it is obvious that some pro-Trumpists are so insular in their Republican bubble, that they cannot even process a medical and social reality, that is contrary to the simplistic and fantasy misconceptions obvious to the unthinking mind of average American ignoramus!

    Hence my assertion that some liberals are so insular in their bubble that they cannot even process a controversy that is simple and obvious to the average American.

    Hence some liberals are so internationally well informed, that they recognise the self-deluding bubble of insular ignorance of a pseudo-controversy, that is so simplistically and obvious to the average medically illiterate, junk-media fed, ignorant American.

    @#91 – These citizens are walking the streets and need access to public toilets like everyone else, so perhaps you could make some constructive proposals on what sort of facilities should be provided for them!



    Report abuse

  • Dan #90 Jul 2, 2017 at 2:44 pm

    Schlafly! …intolerant evolutionists. Phyllis Schlafly Sexual
    harassment on the job is not a problem for virtuous women. Phyllis
    Schlafly

    Out of context?

    No, you could go on and on, I realize you know well. Those are accurate portrayals of her views

    But, it pains me to say, not even the likes of Phyllis Schlafly are always wrong about everything. Her prediction has come to pass, not by the ERA, but by related social changes.

    I was one of those crying foul at her scare tactics, striking below the belt, predicting a future invasion of privacy against American women. How wrong I was and how right she was about this particular prediction.

    “The notion that the ERA would mandate unisex bathrooms became known as the “potty problem.” People got very agitated about this. “Fear Of Unisex Bathrooms Doomed ERA,” one headline from the Orlando Sentinel read years later.”
    http://www.salon.com/2015/11/04/the_secret_history_of_bathroom_panic_inside_the_right_wing_campaign_paved_the_houstons_anti_lgbt_vote/

    Schlafly successfully used this against liberals a generation ago and the Republicans successfully used this and other social issues to gain a clean sweep in 2016.

    So the folks here can keep on talking about phenotypes and polls and my asserted bigotry and just keep on losing. Or, learn how get out of your bubble and figure out the average American to battle back to winning.



    Report abuse

  • Stardusty Psyche #92
    Jul 2, 2017 at 4:36 pm

    Marco #89 Jul 2, 2017 at 2:07 pm – No. The subject of this thread is the rights of transgender people to use public toilets in line with their gender identification.

    So the issue is people with a female phenotype, and female breasts, living and dressed as women (as with the models linked earlier @#9 and #10), are forced by legislation to use male toilets!

    which is controversial when it means a person with an adult female breasts, and possibly also ambiguous genitalia, is forced by legislation to enter and use a multi occupancy restroom and toilets designated for men!

    Still no coherent answers????

    @#88 – That is the subject of this thread.
    …which is controversial when it means a person with an adult penis has the legal right to enter . . . . .

    @#91 – Perhaps you could point out and paste a quote of the text WHERE IN THE OP ARTICLE OR LINK the words “adult penis” appear – or stop parroting nonsense!



    Report abuse

  • Stardusty Psyche #95
    Jul 2, 2017 at 5:08 pm

    This is simply an example of the stupididty of taking decisions on the basis of referenda based on scaremongering the ignorant!

    Schlafly successfully used this against liberals a generation ago and the Republicans successfully used this and other social issues to gain a clean sweep in 2016.

    @ your link:-

    My wife and I have four daughters. Proposition 1, the bathroom ordinance, would allow troubled men to enter women’s public bathrooms, showers and locker rooms. This would violate their privacy and put them in harm’s way.”

    Ah! “Troubled men”! I don’t think any doctors would be describing intersex individuals with bigoted ignorant babbling terminology such as “Troubled men”!

    @ your link – The proponents of HERO found that, despite their celebrity backing and financial muscle, they could not overcome such scaremongering. The bathroom line was the single most potent one in getting people to oppose the measure.

    Yep! The ignorant are easily manipulated by scaremongering and scapegoating! – especially on subjects such a sex!

    Then Schlafly got involved. She shrewdly twisted the seemingly straightforward text of the amendment into a supposed nightmare scenario for American women (there was also some nice homophobia thrown in, too).

    The gullibles are easily swayed by liars, twisters, and con men/women! – Especially in the USA where the diet served up by the media is full of them!

    The stupidity and incompetence of Trump, is a reflection of the stupidity of those who elected him!

    Democracy is a system where the majority get the politicians they DESERVE – whether they like it or not!



    Report abuse

  • Stardusty P #95

    That’s true; sick people like Schlafley and Mike Huckabee and Pat Robertson can be right once in a while just like anyone else. Decent point.

    Anyway…

    Unisex bathrooms? Not a good idea. I agree. I didn’t know that that was being debated, as I have not been following this issue too closely. But there should be bathrooms available for transgender people or transexuals, right? This is what I think: let the people who identify as women use the women’s room! Why not? Who is advocating co-ed bathrooms? Q: Are unisex bathrooms the same as co-ed bathrooms and open to anyone and everyone, even the curious? If they are then I agree with you: that’s loony leftist crap. (I am a leftist, but not a loony leftist.) Requiring people to use the public bathroom matching their gender assigned at birth is just as bad (and is also cruel) as co-ed bathrooms. That’s the other extreme.

    So what do you say to that?



    Report abuse

  • Stardusty Psyche #95
    Jul 2, 2017 at 5:08 pm

    So the folks here can keep on talking about phenotypes and polls and my asserted bigotry and just keep on losing.

    Those of us who live in civilised educated countries already know about winning on these issues. We win regularly, and on many of the issues won years ago!

    Or, learn how get out of your bubble and figure out the average American to battle back to winning.

    I think we need to get people like you who have surrendered to the liars and charlatans out of their bubble, so that all the caring and educated people can expose and debunk the liars and charlatans who make up “alternative facts” and scare stories!
    Educating the public in evidence based rational thinking on biological realities, is a key part of this, as is dealing constructively about real design issues in providing working facilities for real people!

    Making up and parroting scare stories, about undefined fantasy penises has no part in this – just as chanting “Drain the swamp”! will do nothing about remedying the extensive corruption, clandestine vested interests, and foreign manipulation in the Trump administration!

    If large crowds of gullibles are determined to shoot themselves in the foot, they will probably succeed in doing so!



    Report abuse

  • Dan #99
    Jul 2, 2017 at 5:53 pm

    These silly bits of legislation are not about intersex or transgender people at all!
    They are about prudery and nudity!

    Apparently single sex nudity in multi occupancy changing rooms, is claimed to be OK but, making provisions for personal privacy with cubicles is not!

    There are complaints about unisex changing rooms in the UK but these are usually about people disregarding codes on nudity, – such as individuals or couples showering in the nude in the view of others.

    This has NOTHING to do with transgender or intersex people!
    It is about management, and possibly a lack of cubicles or a lack of clear signage!

    Of course there are also nudist pools and beaches where nobody gives a damn!



    Report abuse

  • @Alan4Discussion

    Alan, help me out: do you think that unisex bathrooms is a good idea. I had to admit that that is not something I would wholeheartedly endorse, but I shouldn’t have called it “loony leftist crap”. I do think it might open the door to mischief: drunken college boys on a spree might go in there and harass women, for example. Apart from that I think it might be okay.

    I think there should be public bathrooms for transgender people and transexuals and they should also be able to use bathrooms that correspond to the gender that they identify with, even if some people are, for whatever reasons, not comfortable with that. That’s a no-brainer.

    Is there something I am not getting? What is this debate really about?



    Report abuse

  • Alan, I wasn’t talking about the UK’s facilities, or about gyms, or fitting rooms. In NY there are unisex public bathrooms. I wasn’t aware of that till today; just saying that that seems somewhat problematic. (My comment above was posted before I read your last one. I agree with everything you’ve said.)



    Report abuse

  • Dan #103
    Jul 2, 2017 at 6:43 pm

    Alan, help me out: do you think that unisex bathrooms is a good idea.

    I think there are a whole load of issues being confused here.

    First of all, most of us have unisex bathrooms and toilets at home – They are used individually by members of the family, or sometimes baths or showers are used by couples or bathing several young children.

    Then there are the unisex changing locker rooms at swimming pools, as I described earlier @#52 – where the sensitive changing is done in cubicles.

    I think some people are deliberately conflating these with the sort of open locker-rooms used by single sex sports teams, where there are no cubicles.

    As for unisex toilets, these are frequently used at festivals etc. where individual portaloo cabins are set up in rows in fields to be used by anyone.
    There are also individual toilets with disability facilities and wheelchair access, in many shopping malls, large motorway service stations, and public buildings.

    There are also cultural issues, which vary from the “woman in a bag with a veil” in some Arab states, to some the Mediterranean beaches where people strip off to varying degrees without embarrassment.



    Report abuse

  • I think there are a whole load of issues being confused here.

    Thanks for the above comment (105), Alan. I think you’re at least 95 percent right about this issue. I am just not entirely comfortable with the idea of a bathroom in a mall or a store that in effect says “everyone”. But that’s probably a straw-man; I haven’t seen these unisex bathrooms that we have here in New York City. Maybe I’ll check one out; hell, they’re open for anyone – including non-transgender heterosexual males, right? (Not being flippant; one should investigate if one is interested or confused.)



    Report abuse

  • Dan

    Also check out the ‘regular’ bathrooms. Usually, you walk through one door to be presented by another two doors with a gender sign on each and you go through whichever one suits. They are usually separated by a wall and that’s all. The only communal area is the urinals. I think it only polite that a ‘gentleman’ does not hear a ‘lady’ fart. ????



    Report abuse

  • Trav Mamone #100 Jul 2, 2017 at 5:56 pm

    Hi, everyone! I’m Trav, the person who shares news articles on this
    website. I seem to have stirred the pot on this one. Good!

    See folks, it’s Trav who’s the real troublemaker here!

    Tell you what, Trav, share some articles on BLM, gun control, abortion, pipelines, and illegal immigration and I will see if I can help you really get this party started 🙂

    But seriously folks, we lefties/liberals/skeptics/atheists need to learn a few things about how the Republicans can capitalize on stances of the left that the average American finds somewhere between silly and revolting.

    Folks like Dawkins, Harris, Hirsi Ali, and Maher are already there on Islam.
    https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/881049539137982464?t=1&cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjcw%3D%3D&refsrc=email&iid=46240220a601490e84cd57bd6eb92275&uid=3186696648&nid=244+272699393

    While so many lefties from Obama to Clinton and out across America are failing to condemn fundamentalist Islam the Republicans are hammering us with this issue when it is obvious to most Americans that Islam is the problem, not so called Islamophobia. Trump got his margin on that issue alone. Clinton just handed it to him while Dawkins and company are telling those regressive lefties to wake up and smell the coffee, it’s Islam, duh.

    So, that’s the model folks. Take those issues away from the Republicans and we take their margin away.



    Report abuse

  • alf1200 #111 Jul 2, 2017 at 11:34 pm

    If you make your moral decisions based on popularity, you are part of
    the problem. Like

    Ok, then I’ll give you another example where Dawkins is ahead of the liberal curve, feminism.

    He’s for equality but against the “pernicious sort” of feminism. That’s how to do it, how to take a reasonable position. An articulate left candidate can use that approach to take that issue away from Republicans. It’s not a problem of compromising morality, rather, of not sounding like an ideologue who lives in a bubble that is foreign to the average American.



    Report abuse

  • The “average american” believes in a god who controls everything for them specifically.
    The morality that I choose doesn’t change when a political party demands it. Or for a better
    way of putting it, I will not be a part of both political parties tug of war. I choose each
    issue for what it is.
    No one get sacrificed.



    Report abuse

  • Stardusty Psyche #95
    Jul 2, 2017 at 5:08 pm

    So the folks here can keep on talking about phenotypes and polls and my asserted bigotry and just keep on losing.

    So let’s look at “your solution” to the problem of citizens being born intersex or developing as transgender people!

    First buy into the strawman scaremongering threat of “penis presence obsession” with real or imaginary penises on intersex people.

    Then join in scare-mongering about fantasy threats concocted by charlatans, and promoted by the closed minded uneducable delusional, who have been inoculated against real facts and real educators.

    Next join in demonising those living in a “reality bubble” unimpressed by charlatan scare-mongering, and unpersuaded by the chantings and parrotings those living in a strawman fear bubble.

    Disparage the efforts to fight the deceptive scaremongering, or educate the bigoted ignorant, using real facts about actual threats, real medical information, to expose the lies of manipulative charlatans.

    Badge demonise the educated “lefties” who are spreading “Liberal reality science”, and repeat the big lie that intersex people are a threat to women and children, so that these women and children can be taught “protective morality” by philandering right wing Christian politicians, and the children can be “protected” by those sexually repressed, “trustworthy” priests and preachers!

    When these imaginary threats have been used for scapegoat minorities, everyone can then feel and well cared for and safe, once the policing and regulation of the state is in the hands of greedy manipulative, gun-toting, philandering, right-wing politicians and preachers, with the “scientific lefties” told to shut-up!

    So educators and doctors! 🙂
    Come out of your sciencey reality bubble, ignore population statistics on actual threats, embrace alternative facts, abandon that demonic “lefty science”, scapegoat those with unusual sexual features and deny them the use of public facilities, respect the mob-rule of the chanting ignorant, and elect manipulative greedy rich Republicans, as instructed by their stooge media! 🙂

    Moan about the consequences and blame other people, – but keep shouting for more of the same!



    Report abuse

  • Stardusty Psyche #110
    Jul 2, 2017 at 11:30 pm

    While so many lefties from Obama to Clinton and out across America are failing to condemn fundamentalist Islam the Republicans are hammering us with this issue

    Your discontinuous black and white thinking and badge-fallacy dismissals of evidence, are only too obvious in your posts!

    Islamic terrorism is widely condemned by these people despite your denials!

    You don’t see any irony in irrational, gun-toting, homophobic, fundamentalist Christians, demonising fundamentalist Islam, and bundling all Muslins in with the fundamentalists and terrorists?

    when it is obvious to most Americans that Islam is the problem, not so called Islamophobia.

    when it is obvious to most junk-media-fed ignoramuses that Islam is the problem, not so called Islamophobia.

    . . . .and when it is obvious to most well informed people that both Islam AND Islamophobia are the problems – also there is a problem with the use of media oil-money-bias propagandist information filter-specs, which make people blind to real threats from places like Saudi Arabia, while promoting fantasy threats from rival Shia countries for political purposes!



    Report abuse

  • Trav Mamone #100
    Jul 2, 2017 at 5:56 pm

    Hi, everyone! I’m Trav, the person who shares news articles on this website. I seem to have stirred the pot on this one.
    Good!

    I think there is a second issue here which I have mentioned before.

    If some of the moderation was a bit less rigorous, we could see more of the commonly found practical examples of closed minded denials of evidence and reasoning, – with the usual psychological projections and fallacious thinking, becoming available for readers of this site to recognise and study.

    Media and preacher coaching in these forms of irrational thinking, is one source of the problems with fundamentalism and polarised American politics.

    PS. I hope you find some of the news items I link from time to time, helpful.



    Report abuse

  • Your arguments are full of contradictions, Stardusty:

    You claim the majority of Americans are so hostile to the transgender bathroom issue that, by supporting transgender rights, we’ve pushed them into voting for Trump. Now you’ve claimed that Trump won on the Islam issue alone. In which case the transgender bathrooms were irrelevant.

    You dismiss the evidence that, actually, the majority of Americans do not favour legislation to ban transgender people from using the public toilets of their choice, on the grounds that the question – despite being quite clear in its meaning – did not refer to adult penises in public spaces designated for women and girls. You don’t seem to realise that this is in itself an acknowledgement that people will only get upset about the issue if it’s framed in the most inflammatory terms. (So here’s an idea: just don’t.)

    You claim you are driven by dislike of Trump, rather than by bigotry. Yet you have repeatedly made it clear that you don’t take transgender rights seriously, that you don’t think they’re important, and that you personally are deeply squeamish about the whole issue. You have repeatedly framed the issue in terms that, by your own implicit admission (see previous para) are a deliberate attempt to inflame opposition. That is not opposing Trump: it’s doing his dirty work for him.

    Furthermore, even though you clearly have stronger feelings on the question of transgender use of public toilets than the majority of the American public do, this presumably did not lead you personally to vote for Trump, given your stated opposition to him. (Do correct me if I’m wrong on this.) And yet you claim that other Americans, the majority of whom do not share your feelings on the subject of transgender rights, voted for Trump on the strength of them. Another mere assertion on your part, that’s not even borne out by your own voting behaviour.

    You claim that women don’t want “adult penises” in their public toilets – yet have consistently failed to answer the question as to how they would even know they were there.

    You claim that the presence of an adult penis would invade women’s privacy, even though a) they wouldn’t know it was there and b) in women’s facilities all the private aspects of going to the loo take place in lockable cubicles, which confer precisely the same degree of privacy regardless of the gender identification of the person using them.

    You hint at some kind of sexual threat posed by the presence of transgender individuals in women’s facilities; but have not provided any evidence to support that notion. What proportion of sexual assaults on women are carried out by transgender individuals, or individuals pretending to be transgender? Nor have you answered Olgun’s question as to whether lesbians also pose a threat to other women’s safety and/or privacy in public toilet facilities. There is a slightly more defensible argument to be made that unisex toilet facilities make it easier for heterosexual men to assault women – but a) unisex facilities are not the subject of the OP, b) heterosexual males are not the subject of the OP, c) sexual assault is already a crime, whoever commits it and wherever it occurs and d) a man hell-bent on raping is unlikely to be deterred by a Women Only sign on a toilet door (quite possibly the reverse, wouldn’t you think?).

    You also talk as though the presence of transgender individuals in women’s facilities were a new thing that needs to be prevented, and have ignored the question as to which public loos you think such individuals have been using until now. The notion that someone who in all other aspects of their lives identifies as female goes and uses the Gents when out in public is just laughable. Which means that your objections are an absolute nonsense. It has been happening for years, for decades, without women even noticing. There is not the slightest evidence that the presence of transgender individuals has resulted in an increase in any kind of assault or other unpleasantness in women’s toilets. On this basis you could perhaps argue that legislation to enshrine the right of transgender individuals to use the toilets of their choice is unnecessary (though I’d still disagree: why should anyone have to feel they’re being sneaky and underhand when they’re using a loo? Why should anyone have to fear exposure and prosecution for it?); but legislation to actively prevent it is patently unnecessary – little more than spiteful bullying.

    Look, no one’s going to deny that Trump got the bigot vote. It’s an easy matter to inflame bigots when they feel socially and economically excluded and a Bigotmeister comes along and promises them that’s all going to change. The solution is not more bigotry, but a genuinely transformative social and economic program that gets to the roots of people’s dissatisfaction and insecurities and the resulting fear of anyone who’s not like them in all respects. And you can certainly argue that the Democrats need to make a better job of that. But it’s not an either/or, and you do not overcome bigotry by pandering to bigots.

    And that is in all likelihood going to be my final comment on the subject, because so far you have not provided either evidence or meaningful argument to support your position, and it doesn’t become stronger or more convincing by mere repetition.



    Report abuse

  • Trav doesn’t do the moderating, Alan. We do!

    And although there’s no particular reason why you should have noticed, we have been deliberately holding back on several of the discussions of late. That said, there are certain standards of discussion that are non-negotiable, so there will always be limits. They are, however, rather more stretchy just now than they have been in the past.

    The mods



    Report abuse

  • 120
    Garrick says:

    Dan #87
    Give me one concrete example, Garrick, of how Hillary taking money when she spoke at Goldman’s or her “affiliation with big money” affected an actual decision that she made while in public office. I want facts.

    If you want facts about accusations made against Hillary Clinton, I suggest you seek them from those who have made such accusations. The point of my reference to Mrs Clinton was that she was a longstanding representative of the political establishment and was regarded by voters as such, when a significant proportion of voters were anxious to support a candidate who was not identified with the establishment. Despite that handicap, however, Mrs Clinton still won the majority of the popular vote, for just enough of those fed up with the systemic corruption of the political establishment were perceptive enough to see that Mrs Clinton had the necessary qualities for the office and the other candidate did not.



    Report abuse

  • Mod #119

    we have been deliberately holding back on several of the discussions of late.

    Appreciated!

    Nearly everywhere I go to start a discussion involving folks I disagree with, they get blocked or banned and discouraged.

    I hope this may encourage a few more who want to test their faith here. These folk often come out of the gate too fast for their own good. Some I’ve found are more aggressive seemingly because they are less certain.



    Report abuse

  • Moderator #119
    Jul 3, 2017 at 6:29 am

    And although there’s no particular reason why you should have noticed, we have been deliberately holding back on several of the discussions of late.

    Thanks for that! I think it helps with creating more lively discussions.

    That said, there are certain standards of discussion that are non-negotiable, so there will always be limits.

    Absolutely on standards of courtesy, honesty, and avoiding gratuitous insults, should be required for civilised discussions.

    They are, however, rather more stretchy just now than they have been in the past.

    I think the length of certain threads is an indication.
    While the standard of debate on this site is high compared to many, there is certainly scope for those who still need to learn the basics of science, reasoning and debate, to be included in discussions at their level, if THEY are to learn.

    Limited numbers of those who can’t or won’t learn, help provide examples of reasoned replies to, and analysis of, the closed minded asserted irrational thinking, which other visiting readers may find useful elsewhere.



    Report abuse

  • Stardusty Psyche #113
    Jul 3, 2017 at 2:38 am

    It’s not a problem of compromising morality, rather, of not sounding like an ideologue who lives in a bubble that is foreign to the average American.

    Anyone who deals with statistical evidence or scientific realities, “sounds like an ideologue” to the spoon-fed on the assertive propagandist irrationality from Faux News, DimBart, trump tweets and InfoWhores!

    The problem, is with the know-it-all ignoramuses and propagandists feeding them manipulative junk information, – not with the scientists and reputable reporters giving honest information!

    It is the failure of many Americans to recognise this, that is making America a laughing stock, abroad in the wider world!



    Report abuse

  • I’ll come back to Dan’s question to Garrick of HC’s “crimes” later when I can. I think they are politically real, though not in any sense criminal.

    In the meantime I want to post one of the few moral presidents in my lifetime. An exemplary moral author (abortion excepted) and pushing aside his faith when it gets it wrong….

    Why Trump? Why now?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhebmG148Zo



    Report abuse

  • You’ll need to speak nicely to Trav, Phil.

    In the meantime, this thread is well advanced now, so there’s no problem letting it branch out a little into other, broadly relevant areas.

    The mods



    Report abuse

  • Garrick 120
    Phil 124

    “The point of my reference to Mrs Clinton was that she was a longstanding representative of the political establishment and was regarded by voters as such, when a significant proportion of voters were anxious to support a candidate who was not identified with the establishment.”

    My point was about the label “Being an Outsider” and about a politician being affiliated with, or colluding with, big money, big business (which is clearly implied by the phrase “unsavory connections”): the former is a ploy used by reactionaries and despots (or right wing populists) to gain the support of ignorant and under-informed voters. Trump was an outsider and had no political experience. Monsters are outsiders too, and monsters have no political experience; I want the people to learn the lesson that claiming to be outside the establishment can be, is often, misleading. Trump is a ha highly dangerous and destructive hypocrite. The latter is also a lie in so far as Trump has shown himself to be colluding – to an unprecedented degree! – with big business and big banks at the expense of environmental and financial regulations, and now wants to cut medicaid and give tax breaks to those at the top. So when I hear this crap about outsiders (and they do it in the UK too) I need to point out the absurdity, the hypocrisy of that – and the manipulative aspect of this argument that so many people (in this past election here in the beleaguered US) responded to.

    Conversely, being a part of the establishment does not make one a terrible or unacceptable candidate; moreover, “part of the establishment” is equally misleading, was used as a term it’s a term of abuse; this was part of an effort to delegitimize and vilify Ms. Clinton, who, in my opinion and in the opinion of most smart and right-minded people, would have been much, much, much better. Since when is experience a bad thing? Some of Trump’s sick surrogates went so far as to say that no experience is a good thing in itself. (So I guess they’s have to quit as soon as they gain some experience! Morons!)

    But bear in mind that, despite Hillary Clinton’s unsavory connections and associations…

    So I was wondering why you had to repeat this; and what were the actual consequences of Clinton’s connections and association, Garrick? And if that was the perception merely, that was not made clear. And as I said, where’s the sense of proportion or the regret and where are the facts? (Her emails were nothing. The Foundation business, etc., was nothing or exaggerated at best. That was a sustained attack waged by her enemies and I think Russia. Remember when she was supposed to be sick?

    Nothing she ever did can compared to what is actually being done now! Look what’s going on now with Pruitt, and Price and Bannon! The people got screwed big time!

    So that’s my reply, Garrick. Perhaps we agree. And yes, she still won the popular vote. (All these comments and questions are designed to establish some truth or expose error, not to antagonize or undermine other people’s views.)

    Happy 4th (if you’re “celebrating”.)

    Phil, you can fill me in on HC’s long history of “malfeasance” (real or not) if you want to, but if it is not comparable to Trump’s (which is most definitely real) then it’ll only raise my blood pressure.



    Report abuse

  • Thanks for the NRA ad, Phil. Made me sick! Straight out of the fascist handbook. Who’s the freak with the sour puss?

    (It does illustrate just how sick they are, so I guess you were right to post it.)



    Report abuse

  • Stardusty Psyche #110
    Jul 2, 2017 at 11:30 pm

    While so many lefties from Obama to Clinton and out across America are failing to condemn fundamentalist Islam the Republicans are hammering us with this issue

    Mmmm!
    As with big liar Trump “hammering Sadiq Kahn” with made-up twisted garbage? – while the Muslim mayor of London simply delegated the issue to his staff, who politely dismissed Trump’s nonsense as the perverse irrelevant rubbish it is, while the Mayor got on with the job of fighting terrorism!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40152637

    The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has dismissed criticism from US President Donald Trump over his response to Saturday’s terror attack.

    The attack in London Bridge and Borough Market killed seven and injured 48.

    Mr Trump accused Mr Khan of downplaying the attack by telling Londoners there was “no reason to be alarmed”.

    Mr Khan’s team said he had “more important things to do than respond to Mr Trump”, who had “deliberately” taken his remarks “out of context”.

    “The Mayor is busy working with the police, emergency services and the government to co-ordinate the response to this horrific and cowardly terrorist attack and provide leadership and reassurance to Londoners and visitors to our city,” Mr Khan’s spokesperson added.

    On Saturday night, following the attack, Mr Trump tweeted a message of support to the UK, but also sparked controversy after he called for his travel ban on visitors from six predominantly Muslim countries to be upheld by US courts.

    On Sunday, he criticised Mr Khan, writing: “At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack and Mayor of London says there is ‘no reason to be alarmed!'”

    His tweet angered many in the UK, who pointed out Mr Khan had been referring to increased police numbers on the streets.

    During an interview earlier on Sunday, Mr Khan had said: “Londoners will see an increased police presence today and over the course of the next few days. No reason to be alarmed.”

    There were however, probably some gullible Trumpists, who bought into Trump’s petty twisted babblings without bothering to check what was actually said, and who would probably fail to recognise a statesman like response to petty infantile jibes!

    During the US presidential campaign last year, Mr Trump first proposed the ban on Muslims entering the US, but suggested he could make an exception for Mr Khan, who is London’s first Muslim mayor.

    Mr Khan rejected the offer, saying: “It’s not about me, it’s about my friends, family and others from all around the world.”



    Report abuse

  • Phil 124

    Hillary is not “a robot”. More sexist crap. More denigration of hillary as opposed to placing the blame on propaganda, the duped voters, poor education in the red states led by Republicans (not democrats), and Trump’s campaign staff and helpmates: all thugs and establishment types. Carter does not single out the Republicans who are the problem. The Democrats are better, for the most part. Are people just too stupid to see that? That guy in the video must have not voted or voted for Stein or even Trump. The establishment! Give me some examples of malfeasance and corruption on the part of Hillary or any Democrat. There’s been some, of course. But I will keep defending Hillary. You know why I defend her? Because I am smart and because I am a good judge of character and ability! The commentator just stated what I said, but without knowing it! “People were willing to vote for anything other than an establishment president.”
    Hillary was not that much less progressive than our Messiah Sanders. She was not as corrupt as Trump who fooled us, claimed to be anti-establishment. This can happen again.
    I am sick of all this talk about the establishment. The establishment is defined as a closed social group which selects its own members or specific entrenched elite structures, either in government or in specific institutions. That’s Trump! That’s every Republican in Congress, and every Republican President since before Reagan. This is turning reality on its head for the sake of justifying complicity in the election of a monster. All bullshit, talking points for people who need something to talk about. And it’s misleading and black and white. Meaningless. There is no nuance, no sense of proportion, no accuracy in these discussions, and that’s what leads to people voting for psychotics like Trump. Are we going to keep getting fooled again?
    Hillary was not the real “establishment” candidate. Trump was.
    Easy to say how great Carter is. He is a very fine man, but he was not a good president. My late father, a man of impeccable judgment, said he was the worst president we’ve ever had. (He said that in the 70s when Carter was in office.)
    Beware of political candidates who place themselves infinitely above the establishment or boast of being outsiders.



    Report abuse

  • @74

    if it [the Democratic party] can return to its traditional democratic concerns and communicate policies that are clearly just and right for all the country’s citizens, and if it can bring itself to select candidates, including presidential candidates, who, like Bernie Sanders, are not compromised by obligations to plutocrats, they would win easily, even with such scandalous handicaps as gerrymandering and the Electoral College.

    Not necessarily true. Most Republicans will not vote for a Democrat under any circumstances. Look what happened in Georgia. The districts that are conservative (whatever the fuck that means) stay that way at all costs and remain loyal. They are impervious to facts and in addition to that, there is now a newer, more sophisticated, pervasive, and far-reaching mechanism at work called propaganda; it is being enhanced and accelerated as we speak. It’s a numbers game. Undecided voters are, from what I’ve observed, to the right of center, or libertarians. Hard to win them over. Young people are a mixed bag, can be arrogant and malleable. It is not at all clear how someone like Sanders or Warren would do in 2020. If a candidate could really get the message out and really reach enough people and really influence them or get the apathetic or uneducated to care and to participate it would be great. How likely is that now in this climate of “fake news” and Fox News? And even democrats might not vote in 2020 if the same thing happens then what happened to Hillary. (She was maligned, and had tons of enemies and adversaries, but was a good candidate.) We could have the best candidate in the world, but once people start hearing the word “establishment” or “corrupt” and once the ruthless operatives here and abroad start spreading the lies, the capricious supporters turn agains that candidate without taking the time to investigate. I’d rather not see that happen again. Once again, Hillary should have gotten every single vote of every single registered democrat; but life is not always about what should be.

    (Let me ask you this: if Hillary really was so corrupt, and really was colluding and cooperating with Big Business, why didn’t the republicans support her? They were afraid of her, and of her brain, because she is and has always been a fearless change agent, in spite of her shortcomings and weaknesses.)

    First we need to win back the white house and the Congress. So that’s the Catch 22, as it were. Or that’s what has to happen first. And then it’ll take several generations of Democratic leadership to actually make progress in the areas of inequality vis-a-vis wealth and income, and in improving our system of education now under attack like never before. (And there is voter suppression in addition to the other obstacles you did mention.) Until then a large majority of poor, uneducated people will continue to proudly and willingly vote against their own interests or not vote at all, and we remain in a most precarious situation. Luck is what we need.

    I wish they can declare this election null and void and have another election: Pence (assuming he had no part in any collusion with Russia) vs Clinton.



    Report abuse

  • Dan.

    Stop thinking rationally and think like an Average American voter with an Average American IQ of 98.

    Bill Clinton presided over the end of Glass Steagall. This was the legislation that made the Wall Street crash a thing of the past and lifted the US economy to its longest period of stability and growth (despite a world war and a cold war) and its lowest ever level of economic inequality. After the monstrosity of Reaganomics and the start of “market liberalisation” to improve access to people’s savings, the Clintons did nothing to stall or reverse the erosion of its powers. Inappropriate mergers like that creating Citigroup (exactly the sort of Bank GS was designed to stop) were allowed to proceed because Democrats in Washington had become the Bankers’ best funding friends. Bill Clinton finally killed GS to finish the whole concept of opposition to casino banking with people’s savings. He claimed this had nothing to do with the 2007/8 crash and sort of technically he was right. The growing neglect of economic oversight was a long string of actions that he willingly continued to enable The repeal of GS now toothless was a tidying up exercise, but highly symbolic. Have at it guys…

    Hilary earned a huge amount of money by delivering highly encouraging speeches to the Citigroup for large amounts of cash, this after 2007/8 when their folly crashed the economy massively to the cost only of the 99% and most of all to the poorest.

    This biggest theft OF ALL TIME (fuck, you need to get this, so CAPs then look at the graphs and think how in the US with least welfare provision the poorest took the biggest hit) went unpunished, uncriticised even and seemingly endorsed by the people’s champion Hilary. Obama’s failure to punish for reasons of political expediency fueled dismay at Hilary once the texts of her speeches to Citigroup were released.

    She improved her message after that, but way too late. The impression had been formed.

    Hilary’s economic policies only got tightened up after Sanders intervention with the inclusion of taxing of all trades to disincentivise short term (always zero sum, i.e. gambling type) “investments”. Etc.

    Forget how Trump turned out. The stupid couldn’t see this prospect (I know, amazing, but that is the power of the nakedly manipulative on stupid and desperate folk). They couldn’t see he was part of a bigger conspiracy to defraud. They saw no friend of the people in the patrician Clinton. They did in Sanders, who was plain and honest, then they saw a trickery to subvert Sanders.

    I only talked of Carter’s morality. Not his competence. But I think it interesting how they may be connected and who’s fault that may be…..



    Report abuse

  • phil rimmer #133
    Jul 3, 2017 at 4:27 pm

    Some need to be reminded, that by world standards, there is no such thing as a “left-wing” in US politics!

    There is only the (Democratic) right and the |(Republican) ultra-right!

    The whole system is based on funding from vested interests, to support political campaigns, in the expectation of pay-backs to sponsors from successful candidates and ruling parties.

    Trump has just taken this one stage further with what is effectively a takeover of the country by his private empire, with orchestrated applause from his “alternative facts” pet media!



    Report abuse

  • Alan

    Yes the US is stunningly right wing, purchased power centered on serving the savvy individual and not her less competent sister, who is mere voting fodder to be kept poor anxious and biddable.

    Dan,

    I am always gob-smacked by your inability to see someone like Hilary Clinton through the eyes of a poor southerner, say. There is a patrician hiding in there I feel. I ask for action from you. In fact, I think you need to help the poorest somehow to see a reality that still eludes you. I know I harass you endlessly, (because I care) but at root it is about this…



    Report abuse

  • Phil

    I just lost my comment after accidentally leaving the page. Aaarrrrgh!

    I don’t know why Bill Clinton signed the Leach-Biley Act into law. Why don’t you ask him? I don’t care if Hillary spoke at Goldman Sachs or at Citigroup and took their money, and no one cares about that either. What did she say to them? That’s not why the rural poor, that huge block of perennial non-voters who came out of the weeds to support Trump the fascist, didn’t like her. They were fooled!

    We live in a commercial society; she’s a pragmatist and maybe has one foot in the political establishment. I think it’s exaggerated. Her record indicates, at the very least, a complex and evolving and at times contradictory political philosophy. I still would like you or someone to give me one example of how the great crime of speaking at Citicorp led to one bad decision or made her adopt a bad policy.

    Sanders got mad when Planned parenthood endorsed her and he then called them part of the political establishment. And he supported Obama, who is just as much a part of the big bad “political establishment” as she was. Does that make sense? No. It’s all a game, and even Sanders was playing. Condemning someone as the establishment candidate was too black and white and he knew it. And had he never won would have whole heartedly endorsed Hillary from Day 1 too. No saints to be found in politics, ever.

    I love Hillary. (Do I have Haidt’s loyalty gene or whatever it is? No, I don’t think so. Loyal yes, but not at the expense of reason.)

    Most of the poor would-be Democratic Southerners you speak of, many of whom are black Southerners, have Stockholm Syndrome and will continue to keep themselves and each other down. Hillary would have helped them I am sure. But their politicization requires better education, healthcare and so much more. We are now heading in the opposite direction.

    She made mistakes, and was the victim of interference and vicious propaganda and a vicious campaign waged by criminals and psychopaths; but she was the best we had and it was a devastating loss.



    Report abuse

  • Phil

    And had he never won would have whole heartedly endorsed Hillary from Day 1 too.

    Had he never RUN, that is. And I’m right about that.

    One more thing, many people liked Sanders for the same reason they liked Trump. An “outsider”, neither a democrat or a republican. Some Sanders supporters voted for trump or didn’t vote. I don’t have much faith in your Sanders supporters in their totality.

    They saw no friend of the people in the patrician Clinton.

    Who is “they”? The stupid? You were talking about the stupid. Perhaps they did like Sanders more. Okay…

    That whole election was a disaster in so many ways. I wish Sanders had never run; it was her time; she had earned it, and he helped derail her candidacy.

    I just reread your comment. Citigroup. Hmmm. If that’s from Clinton Cash it’s not true. Or only partly true. If it was from the fucked up Russian-backed (?) WikiLeaks people it’s distorted. They exposed emails but took dialogue out of context and didn’t indicate who said what! I don’t believe it. I looked up Citigroup and saw a bunch of vile anti-Hillary comments posted on what looked like an old bogus Sanders site with a link to a Citigroup article and others. That may have been from Russia. There was a report on Rachael Maddow about that). Needless to say, I didn’t read that article. What makes you sure you’re not unwittingly spouting fake news, Phil? There was a massive infiltration of the online news media, you know. Every article I looked at about Hillary and Citigroup is from right wing newspapers or suspicious looking Sanders websites. You say that Obama never punished anyone. You’re right, although Hillary supported Dodd-Frank. Reinstating GS? I don’t recall. Sanders did strenuously support that. But why didn’t Sanders ever withdraw his support of Obama even though he was more than willing to level severe criticism of Obama’s colleague and underling Ms. Clinton? Politics? It’s all so confusing and inconsistent. I myself can’t say absolutely that Hillary would have been another Teddy Roosevelt, and go after the robber-barons, the crooks; nor am I convinced that she was beholden to them. Maybe she does have a strange and dark side. People do weird things. And people make bad decisions; but she’s basically good; it would have been interesting to see what she would have done had she won. I think she’s more good than bad and may even have greatness in her.

    Trump made a pact with the devil. And Bannon and Miller are white supremacists. The alt-right. No one talks about that anymore. Evil? We’re talking about racism, sexism, greed, violence, and dishonesty. Choose a word you like.

    Why is there so much hatred of Hillary? Why hatred?

    This annoying comment (below) was on that (possibly fake) Sanders website. (By the way, Putin hates Hillary. I am NOT a conspiracy theorist. But something tells me that we will be learning a lot more about this election as the months and years go by.)

    “It wasn’t the Russians: Hillary lost because she blew off Sanders and his voters.”

    They’re still going at it. Fuck them.



    Report abuse

  • Alan4discussion #130 Jul 3, 2017 at 1:31 pm

    While so many lefties from Obama to Clinton and out across America are failing to condemn fundamentalist Islam the Republicans are hammering us with this issue

    Mmmm! As with big liar Trump “hammering Sadiq Kahn” with made-up
    twisted garbage?

    No, as with the repeated calls by Richard Dawkins, among others, denouncing the “disgraceful” regressive left on the issue of Islam:
    https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/881049539137982464?t=1&cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjcw%3D%3D&refsrc=email&iid=46240220a601490e84cd57bd6eb92275&uid=3186696648&nid=244+272699409

    If you can’t hear it from me maybe you can hear it from him.



    Report abuse

  • Phil,

    I owe you a better reply. Let me at least try.

    “There is a patrician hiding in there I feel.”

    I assume you mean me, although you also used this appellation to describe Ms. Clinton.

    Very astute. I have always had an affinity with (intellectual, natural) aristocracy, refinement, delicacy. That which is defined by birth interests me less. But like Goethe and Proust, Leopardi, and others, I am very much a man of the people. (Invidious comparisons? Who should I compare myself to, my heroes or my doorman who thinks all politicians are the same? And I don’t agree with Alan about that. The two parties are starting to resemble each other more and less at the very same time!)

    “I ask for action from you. In fact, I think you need to help the poorest somehow to see a reality that still eludes you.”

    If there is some vital element that has eluded me it eludes me still; and therefore I must assume that I cannot act unimpededly. I do not know what to do, in a political sense, except expose the truth and the lies in my own way and try to influence as many people as I can – even if it’s one person or several people or a handful of people – so that we can get the most effective and the most progressive and the least corrupt people elected. Then, if there are enough of these people, and we can control the white house and both houses of Congress, we can at long last start to turn things around and create a great system of public education through massive spending, especially in the poor, red states. I can, at this moment, think of no better long-term solution to the problem of the current state of decadence and inequality that now threatens the very life blood of American civilization.

    And in this life, I’d like to try to encourage people to the best of my ability, either through words or some other form of expression, to free themselves from habit and prejudice and error, to become complete human beings, and individuals – individuals in the best sense. As someone who has yet to be convinced that the moral disposition is not innate and as a pessimist I have no wish to somehow make people more empathetic; that quality is already there or not there. Oftentimes it is there but the mind is preoccupied, as it were, by error, indoctrination. One can change only a mind; and then it appears that the heart has been changed; but it is the mind that keeps the heart stifled. The heart is easily subdued and is prone to atrophy.

    Compassion and love of others is a mystical experience. The human brain at this point of its development can only hope to grasp a small percentage of it. But I feel quite confident that the brain is not the seat of compassion; in fact, it often plays the role of antagonist in relation to the part of the self that feels compassion (or empathy, if you prefer). That is one of many reasons why I have become almost evangelical about the philosopher Schopenhauer, whose teaching can be characterized as consisting in the removal of mental obstacles that bar the way to self-realization. He taught me, along with Saint-Exupéry, that “it is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye.”

    (Sorry to wax; it’s very late and I am all alone in the mountains now. Yes, there is wi-fi here. I wouldn’t lie.)

    I suspect that there is – and I speak only for myself – no greater pleasure than the pleasure of knowing that you have affected someone in a deep and profound way, and that you have helped someone, made that person’s life better or easier or richer.



    Report abuse

  • If you remember I was very unhappy about HC and entertained many doubts about her. As things got desperate, the least bad needed support and I generated as many plus points for her as I could with passing idiots declaring for the libertarian joker or Trump.

    If you remember all my earlier posts were livid about bankers and livid about zero-tolerance policing in poor communities.

    It took quite some digging to find signs of shift from HC’s disgraceful starting position on these.

    Poor folk only needed a few quotes from HC at Goldman Sachs (I said Citigroup by mistake the second time) in the mouth of a Fox News commentator to swing it.

    I notice never once do you mention or acknowledge inequality. I think there is our difference.



    Report abuse

  • @ Stardusty Psyche

    So – again coming back to may unanswered questions @#9 and @#13

    @#13 So coming back to my question:

    Do you think that the transexual glamour models (on the links) who look like women, and who the judges in beauty modelling contests, had accepted as women before they were told they were trans, should be forced by legislation to use the gents facilities? – and for that matter who would be in a position to recognise them as transexuals/intersex, if they did not?

    @#91 and repeated @#94

    – @#91 – These citizens are walking the streets and need access to public toilets like everyone else, so perhaps you could make some constructive proposals on what sort of facilities should be provided for them!

    Olgun #97 – Jul 2, 2017 at 5:43 pm

    To – Stardusty – Would these same women be offended and therefore ask for privacy from lesbian women?

    Some coherent replies which actually address the real world issues, would be helpful!



    Report abuse

  • 143
    maria melo says:

    To the previous comment by Allan4discussion:

    1. To – Stardusty – Would these same women be offended and therefore
    ask for privacy from lesbian women?

    Are you trying to heat more the the discussion, and begin with another sort of discrimination Allan?

    2. – @#91 – These citizens are walking the streets and need access to public toilets like everyone else, so perhaps you could make some constructive proposals on what sort of facilities should be provided for them!

    I think that´s irrelevant, even a ridiculous thought that within a 10 million population- like the portuguese- we should spread across the country “special facilities for transgengers”, aknowleging that registred number of transgenders according to the National Health services is 150. would it be a productive thing to spread toilets across the country , wouldn´t it be more simple not to discriminate and be inclusive?

    Using men toilets exposes a transgender women to a greater risk when comparing with the risk of being raped by women/lesbians (the risk of being raped by men is much more significant), think of this.

    We should not need a specific situation of extreme violence to improve transgender ´s lives and rights, or anyone else, that´s the point, not to feed the arguments Stardusty Psyche keeps offering as if repetion would change people´s minds.

    Congratulations, Portugal! Just 8 days until Legal Gender Recognition
    http://tgeu.org/portugal-adopts-trans-law-8-days-for-legal-gender-recognition/



    Report abuse

  • 144
    maria melo says:

    The arguments presented by SP that women don´t want adult penises in their toilets for the sake of their privacy, don´t make sense to me, for some transgenders with masculine birth certificate don´t even have penises, besides if they acquired the right to have a feminine name in their ID, were subjected to a change in urinary system by the National Health Services, how the hell would someone oblige them to go to gents toilets?
    (it doesn´t make sense in portuguese context, does it in EU)



    Report abuse

  • Hi Maria

    Would these same women be offended and therefore
    ask for privacy from lesbian women?

    I don’t think he’s starting something with that comment. He’s pointing out that women share public bathrooms with individuals who are sexually attracted to us but that doesn’t mean we will be raped or otherwise assaulted by these individuals. There are very few incidents of any trouble in public bathrooms.

    When my kids were young I never sent them into public bathrooms alone (as Olgun discussed above) but went in with them to keep an eye on the situation. I brought my son in the women’s room for as long as I could get away with it. No one ever objected to that. I’ve had guys ask me to keep an eye on their daughters that they sent into bathrooms too.

    I’ve gone into mens’ public bathrooms on occasion when the line to the ladies’ room was a mile long and there was no line to the mens’ room. I went over to the door and shouted in, ” Hey you guys, ok if some women use this bathroom?” They shouted back “Ya, whatever.” At that point some of the women in the ladies’ room line went over to the mens’ room – these must have been the women who weren’t worried about being molested by men just because they were using the same facilities. The women who stayed in the women’s room line must have been the ones who wanted a women only (as far as they knew) facility.

    This has happened a couple times and I thought it was a practical on the spot solution.

    Kids aside, when I go into a public bathroom anywhere, I’m on heightened vigilance. Aren’t we all? When I enter I do scan the situation for anything unusual especially if the bathroom appears to be empty. I look quickly under the stall doors to see if there is someone else in the bathroom. If there were people in the bathroom that made me uneasy I’d leave immediately. If I’m carrying a purse I never leave it on the floor of the stall where it can be grabbed from outside and stolen. I’m much more worried about being robbed than raped in these places but in my fifties I’m statistically more likely to be mugged for cash than raped but young women have different stats for these crimes.

    Rape is a tough topic to discuss with all of the fear and angst all around it. Although I identify as a second wave feminist, I feel that we’ve been off the mark on the topic of rape. Evo sciences have changed my mind on the topic years ago. I now have a data based understanding of rape. According to stats, we know what factors are usually in place for a rape to be more likely to happen. Public bathrooms are not on that list of factors.

    Off topic: Last night on Anthony Bourdain’s show he did a piece on food and travel in Portugal. Though of you. 🙂

    I agree with your comment 144. This whole topic is so ridiculous. As if we should waste one minute of time wondering about the configuration of the genitals of the person in the next stall of a public bathroom. It’s indicative of puritanical paranoid fixation. I feel pity for people who waste their brain space on this garbage but at the same time they annoy me too.



    Report abuse

  • Stardusty Psyche #138
    Jul 4, 2017 at 12:38 am

    Mmmm! As with big liar Trump “hammering Sadiq Kahn” with made-up twisted garbage?

    No, as with the repeated calls by Richard Dawkins, among others, denouncing the “disgraceful” regressive left on the issue of Islam:

    If you can’t hear it from me maybe you can hear it from him. (@ your link?)

    So – looking at your link and going to the further link which you would appear to be quoting – as a further evasive diversion from answering the basic questions you have been asked about toilet and changing facilities for everyone:-

    http://nypost.com/2017/06/30/the-tolerant-left-has-no-problem-bashing-those-who-speak-out-against-muslim-extremists/

    Citing what he calls “the poverty of low expectations,” Nawaz argues that Islam, like any other religion, should not only field criticism but withstand it. Why, he asks, does the Western world — and liberals, in particular — refuse to condemn what they otherwise find abhorrent?

    The SPLC, he says, fights against the oppressions of Christian fundamentalism, yet “the same causes they fight for within America are somehow deemed illegitimate for people like me to fight for within our own communities.”

    To wit: The current case in Michigan — the first federal case of its kind — over female genital mutilation, practiced among a Shiite Muslim sect there. The New York Times, incredibly, has framed this as a potentially legitimate custom “Michigan Case Adds US Dimension to Debate on Genital Mutilation,” ran a June 10 headline.

    Debate? Really? An estimated 100 girls have been brutalized in this specific community since 2005 — yet because this barbarism is contextualized as Islamic, far too many liberals seek to justify what is plainly child abuse, a gross violation of human rights.

    YES! A small minority of postmodernist thinking left wingers pander to some perverse form of religious political correctness, – and have been thoroughly hammered and debunked for their callous self-deluding stupidity on this RDFS site AND BY ME, for several years!

    https://www.richarddawkins.net/2016/10/nigeria-20-million-women-and-girls-have-undergone-fgm/

    https://www.richarddawkins.net/2016/02/unicef-report-finds-female-genital-cutting-to-be-common-in-indonesia/#li-comment-196825

    https://www.richarddawkins.net/2014/11/fighting-female-genital-mutilation/

    https://www.richarddawkins.net/2012/10/un-set-to-ban-female-genital-cutting/#li-comment-59350

    So badge thinkers:- like the Islamophics, who try to bunch all Muslims together with terrorists, the ultra-right self-delusionists try to bunch together all reasoning socially responsible thinkers, with the small minority of “politically correct” postmodernist leftists, while of course the YEC pseudoscience creationists, dismiss that objective “atheist” evidence based science stuff – “which nobody cares about” – even if it does run all the technology of the modern world!

    So having dealt with the irrelevant made-up side-tracking diversions, shall we get back to the key issues of the OP article and this discussion, which I remind you of @#142.



    Report abuse

  • maria melo #143
    Jul 4, 2017 at 8:16 am

    The question about lesbians from Olgun, was presented to try to get Stardusty to think through the issues as to why women should feel threatened by male to female transgender people, but not by the lesbians they share facilities with – all the time.

    To Stardusty – a#142 and – @#91 – These citizens are walking the streets and need access to public toilets like everyone else, so perhaps you could make some constructive proposals on what sort of facilities should be provided for them!

    I think that´s irrelevant, even a ridiculous thought that within a 10 million population- like the portuguese- we should spread across the country “special facilities for transgengers”, aknowleging that registred number of transgenders according to the National Health services is 150.

    For economic reasons, I don’t think customised facilities are appropriate.

    The question is about providing inclusive facilities rather than perverse ones or none.

    I would suggest the use of toilets of choice, with cubicles, or specialised individual disability facilities, shared with wheelchair users etc.
    Obviously in changing rooms, a transgender person with some sort of penis and female breasts, is likely to want some privacy, and this should be considered, rather than the perverse focus on the views of bigots to the exclusion of practicalities!



    Report abuse

  • 148
    Garrick says:

    Dan #128
    So I was wondering why you had to repeat this; and what were the actual consequences of Clinton’s connections and association, Garrick?

    I repeated those words because they refer to what I was clarifying, and the actual consequences of what they refer to is something we have all known since the results of the election were revealed.

    I notice you declare your love for Hillary Clinton — not a reassurance of your reasonable, unbiased view concerning a politician.

    My own opinion of Mrs Clinton has, despite some reservations about some policy areas, long been fairly positive, given that she was an American politician. I considered her to be one of the saner, more progressive politicians in that troubled country, where only half a political spectrum exists (the rightwing half). The United States would certainly not be going through the current administrative turmoil if Mrs Clinton had been elected president.

    About the current presidential incumbent I prefer to say nothing. Not being American and living in the relative safety of the South Pacific, I will leave it to Americans to decide what to do about that terrible embarrassment. But they must also decide what to do about that party of politicians in Congress that most avidly and shamelessly serves the true overlords of their nation, the Unimaginably Wealthy Few. There is the real problem you Americans have to sort out — how to reclaim your government from the plutocratic usurpers, assuming, that is, that you really do want to live in a free and open and just society.

    One hope of doing so is for the Democratic Party to regain voters’ trust by distancing themselves sufficiently from Big Money and returning to traditional Democratic values in time for the mid-term elections that will be upon you all too soon, and for the next presidential elections. That actually seems to be the only hope, while your electoral system remains so stunted and allows voters so few options. Hopefully, by the mid-term elections, ordinary Americans will have had a sufficient taste of life under the neofeudal régime now being arranged for them that they will throng to the voting-booths and cast the oligarchs’ servants out; provided, of course, that there are candidates for them to vote for who are not servants of the oligarchs.



    Report abuse

  • maria melo #143
    Jul 4, 2017 at 8:16 am

    Congratulations, Portugal! Just 8 days until Legal Gender Recognition

    @ link – After the president had vetoed the parliament’s decision last year, he now signed the law coming into force on March 15th.
    Thus, Portugal has finally a law regulating the legal gender recognition.
    It is filling a legal gap human rights activists have been pointing out for a long time.
    With the new law, the preferred gender can be obtained using a standardized administrative procedure within 8 days.
    Besides the application a certificate from a medical multi-disciplinary team is necessary to fullfil the pre-conditions.
    The procedure is only open to individuals of Portuguese nationality and above 18 years of age.

    TGEU welcomes this legislative step as it ends a long period of legal uncertainty for trans people in Portugal.
    Portugal joins also the progessive club of Spain and the Uk, the only countries in the European Union, where sterilisation is not mandatory in legal gender recognition legislation.

    Progress is being made, with those who value medical and scientific knowledge as a basis for decision making, setting examples for others to follow, and gradually making in-roads into the superstitious backwardness which still pervades some countries.



    Report abuse

  • LaurieB #145
    Jul 4, 2017 at 9:54 am

    Rape is a tough topic to discuss with all of the fear and angst all around it.
    Although I identify as a second wave feminist, I feel that we’ve been off the mark on the topic of rape.
    Evo sciences have changed my mind on the topic years ago.
    I now have a data based understanding of rape.
    According to stats, we know what factors are usually in place for a rape to be more likely to happen.
    Public bathrooms are not on that list of factors.

    As we discussed earlier, – homosexuals and transexuals are much more likely to viciously attacked by religious bigots, (with victim blaming and the blessing of their establishment political bigots), rather than them presenting a risk of a threat to others!

    https://www.richarddawkins.net/2017/05/students-want-apology-from-missouri-administrator-who-preached-christianity-at-graduation/#li-comment-221740

    The sentence is due to be carried out next week.

    While the judges did not give the maximum punishment of 100 lashes, the sentence is heavier than the 80 lashes asked for by the prosecution.

    The men will be caned during a public ceremony on 23 May in the provincial capital of Banda Aceh – where they were found by vigilantes.

    The neighbourhood group filmed themselves kicking and beating the pair and the video was shared widely in Indonesia.



    Report abuse

  • Alan

    As we discussed earlier, – homosexuals and transexuals are much more likely to viciously attacked by religious bigots, (with victim blaming and the blessing of their establishment political bigots), rather than them presenting a risk of a threat to others!

    Right, agree. The risk of gays and trans individuals being beaten, killed and abused must be higher than the risk of them raping women in public bathrooms. It’s not just Indonesia and Muslim majority countries. I remember the days of groups of young hetero guys in the States here that drove around looking for gay guys who would serve as targets for their wrath. No shortage of these types of beatings/murders.

    I think the trans crowd needs to use the women’s room for their own protection!



    Report abuse

  • Alan4discussion #142 Jul 4, 2017 at 6:52 am

    … transexual glamour models.. privacy from lesbian women?

    Some coherent replies which actually address the real world issues,
    would be helpful!

    Those are real important issues, along with phenotypes and hermaphrodites, in the far left bubble.

    That is not where average Americans live. Until our candidates stop pandering to the bubble they will continue to lose.

    Dawkins, Hirsi Ali, Maher, and others have taken very constructive public stands against pandering to the bubble on the subjects of Islam and feminism. That job, however, is incomplete. I have no delusions of grandeur that I will be the one to effect that completion generally, but I can cast a vote here.



    Report abuse

  • 154
    maria melo says:

    Dawkins, Hirsi Ali, Maher, and others have taken very constructive
    public stands against pandering to the bubble on the subjects of Islam
    and feminism.

    Stardusty Psyche,

    Can we hear more from you on this? That´s a too short sentence to understand how you feel about “feminism” and Islam, to be exact, perhaps how Prof Dawkins was positive about feminism (when you´ve made reference to an anti-feminist woman and linked to an article about islamists I guess what your views are), but I am curious about Prof Dawkins being positive about feminism (you seem to have made an assumption about Professor Dawkins and a certain kind of feminism and that one seemed negative actually, so perhaps you are assuming Prof that Prof Dawkins and the anti-feminist Woman you´ve mentioned have something in common?).



    Report abuse

  • Stardusty Psyche #153
    Jul 4, 2017 at 2:52 pm

    Alan4discussion #142 Jul 4, 2017 at 6:52 am

    … transexual glamour models.. privacy from lesbian women?

    Some coherent replies which actually address the real world issues, would be helpful!

    Those are real important issues, along with phenotypes and hermaphrodites, in the far left bubble.

    Oh dear! back to the badge label fallacy as an excuse for an ignorant closed mind which is in denial!

    Some coherent replies which actually address the real world issues, would be helpful!

    Do I take it, that this is confirmation that you are a troll who is incapable of giving a coherent reply to simple straightforward questions?

    Where are these transexual glamour models and others, supposed to go to use a public toilet?

    HINT:- I already answered this question for Maria @#147!

    That is not where average Americans live.

    That is not where ignorant fake-news media fed Americans live.
    They live in Faux News and Trump-tweet, delusion land!

    Until our candidates stop pandering to the bubble they will continue to lose.

    Until someone educates the ignoramuses and teaches them to tell Trump tweets and made-up nonsense, from reputable information, all honest rational candidates will continue to lose.
    America will be governed by selfish greedy lying plutocrats, who don’t give a damn about the ordinary citizens, but kid the gullible that they do, so as to keep getting themselves re-elected on false promises, fake scare stories and contrived lies!

    Let’s hope the “average American” can learn quicker than you do!

    Those are real important issues, along with phenotypes and hermaphrodites, in the far left bubble.

    Apparently this “far left bubble” includes the information on the medical database which I linked earlier.

    The link I gave is the simpler version for patients and the public, of the global MEDLINE database which is used by doctors, surgeons, and medical staff, looking up details of medical conditions and giving guidance and training on conducting treatments and operations! – But what would they know about human anatomy – when compared to your “brilliant” perceptions? 🙂

    https://medlineplus.gov/
    MedlinePlus – Health Information from the National Library of Medicine



    Report abuse

  • 156
    maria melo says:

    He’s pointing out that women share public bathrooms with individuals
    who are sexually attracted to us

    LaurieB,

    I don´t think men actually find every woman seducing, neither does every woman find every man seducing /or available sexually or emotionally, but the chances of a reciprocal feeling/atraction is not a gratuitous thing.
    So why would that be a threat? Do people need a license to co-exist? Ask the Women in republicans lives who they allow entrance in public bathrooms.
    I go to bathroom only to pee , not to feel, as most women i guess, there are other place to find people available sexually I guess.



    Report abuse

  • maria melo #154 Jul 4, 2017 at 4:00 pm

    Dawkins, Hirsi Ali, Maher, and others have taken very constructive
    public stands against pandering to the bubble on the subjects of Islam
    and feminism.

    Can we hear more from you on this?

    an anti-feminist woman

    I think you mean Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

    linked to an article about islamists

    It think you mean the NY Post article.

    I guess what your views are

    You guessed I am a bully and a gang leader, so your guesses are not particularly valuable in my view.

    you seem to have made an assumption about Professor Dawkins and
    certain kind of feminism and that one seemed negative actually,

    Not a guess, all you have to do is listen to his talks and answers on the subject.

    so perhaps you are assuming Prof that Prof Dawkins and the
    anti-feminist Woman you´ve mentioned have something in common?

    If you are not aware of their association, well, you just have not been following Dawkins all that long.

    For one, Dawkins once introduced her as a potential horseman, or horse woman, in the aftermath of the Hitchens death. Dawkins and Hirsi Ali have a long and positive association with each other.

    As for the article I linked, I got that link from Dawkins as he provided it in a recent tweet of his, which I also linked, but perhaps you did not see that particular post so I will link my source again.
    https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/881049539137982464?t=1&cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjcw%3D%3D&refsrc=email&iid=46240220a601490e84cd57bd6eb92275&uid=3186696648&nid=244+272699409

    Richard Dawkins‏Verified account @RichardDawkins
    OK, it’s the NY Post: http://nyp.st/2snhb5L But it happens to be true. Sadly, very true. And utterly disgraceful.
    12:19 AM – 1 Jul 2017

    On the the twitter page of Dawkins under “who to follow” you will find
    Neil deGrasse Tyson
    Bill Nye
    Sam Harris

    Here are some more names I will provide for you
    Ayaan Hirsi Ali
    Christopher Hitchens
    Richard Dawkins
    Maajid Nawaz
    Bill Maher

    That’s a lot of names and I am not suggesting you engage in some sort of cult of personalities or something but if you care to you can find a very great many associations between them.

    They don’t all say or do the same things, and one isn’t even an atheist, rather, a Muslim, but that Muslim man, Maajid Nawaz, besides appearing in a photo along side Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the link provided by Richard Dawkins recently co-authored a book with Sam Harris. They have all appeared on Bill Maher’s show and in the Venn diagram of positions and views it is safe to say there is a great deal of overlap between them.

    As for Dawkins on feminism he is for equality and in that sense he will say he is of course in favor of feminism but he will also say he is against the “pernicious” sort of feminism.

    Not that the mere fact some well known person holds a view means it is either right or wrong, but there is a bit of an overview of a few associations you seem to be asking about.



    Report abuse

  • 161
    maria melo says:

    Obviously in changing rooms, a transgender person with some sort of
    penis and female breasts, is likely to want some privacy, and this
    should be considered, rather than the perverse focus on the views of
    bigots to the exclusion of practicalities!

    My 25 old daughter goes to the gym everyday, sometimes even 3 times a day, she goes dressed, and comes dressed in the same way, when I ask her to go to the supermarked in her way to bring some bread she refuses for being sweaty (she is extremely shameful of dressing near other people, as a sister I have), despite of course the fact that gyms facilities have enough privacy for everyone to dress and take a shower, but there´s no use, she likes to dress at home and take a shower at home and finds her own way. That´s not difficult to find privacy in those places, FOR everyone (just have to adapt, there´s no other way, not every public places as restaurants etc have enough room for one ladies and one gents toilets, so they have a a unisex toilet and everyne has to adapt). I guess this is more of the same, someone told here already.
    My autist niece was so ashamed of using school toilets that it become a huge concern to her mother-my sister.
    My mother in Africa as a wife of a military had to use a bathroom with no privacy, she used to say, and was problematic for her intestine health from wich she always suffered.
    It seems everyone need some privacy, not only “women in republicans lives”.



    Report abuse

  • maria melo #154
    Jul 4, 2017 at 4:00 pm

    Dawkins, Hirsi Ali, Maher, and others have taken very constructive
    public stands against pandering to the bubble on the subjects of Islam and feminism. – Stardusty Psyche,

    I think the latest fallacy is “Guilt by association” – trying to pretend that there is a “left wing bias bubble”, relating to cherry-picked examples of pernicious feminism and Islamic apologetics, which can be associated with an imaginary “left-wing bubble” supporting the provision of transgender facilities!

    Can we hear more from you on this? That´s a too short sentence to understand how you feel about “feminism” and Islam,

    For some reason Stardusty has replied to you on this other thread:-

    https://www.richarddawkins.net/2017/06/supreme-court-sides-with-religious-institutions-in-a-major-church-state-decision/#li-comment-223395

    Stardusty Psyche #16
    Jul 4, 2017 at 4:59 pm

    to – maria melo #154 Jul 4, 2017 at 4:00 pm

    I dealt with these points @#146 including multiple links, (So – looking at your link and going to the further link which you would appear to be quoting), although Stardusty’s link did not go directly to the article which seemed to be being quoted.

    I further dealt with “the imaginary lefty bubble issue” @#155 citing once again the medical evidence presented @#91.



    Report abuse

  • Alan4discussion #162 Jul 4, 2017 at 5:51 pm

    trying to pretend that there is a “left wing bias bubble”,

    It is also known as the regressive left. Democratic pandering to the regressive left, the left bias bubble, was a significant factor in the Republican sweep of 2016.

    Perhaps you are not aware of this at all, perhaps you are in some sense a part of the regressive left, I cannot say for sure but based on your writing it seems likely.

    Bill Maher used to have a show called “Politically Incorrect”.
    Political correctness
    Left wing bubble
    Regressive left

    Whatever you want to call it Bill Maher lost his job for telling the truth about the courage of the 9/11 attackers and the cowardice of using cruise missiles.

    He’s back now and the message of reality based left is starting to get through, thanks significantly to the work of the people on the list I provided. People are starting to say no to safe spaces, deplatforming, Islamophobia, the pay gap, BLM, 3rd wave feminism, the culture of victimhood, and a number of left bubble issues.

    If we keep up on this path we have a chance to win again.

    For some reason Stardusty has replied to you on this other thread:-

    See #160 above



    Report abuse

  • We have already seen that the data doesn’t support Stardusty’s claims that “the vast majority” of Americans object to transgender people using the public bathrooms of their choice (53% oppose legislation to outlaw it and just 39% support it, with the others undecided).

    Now it turns out that political analysts don’t agree with him about the reason for Trump’s victory, either. Here’s a range of different views to consider. The first one is the most recent (and arguably the most interesting in terms of where the Democrats need to go from here).

    One or two of them refer to racism and Islamophobia, though only as one of several different possible explanations.

    One or two refer to misogyny, though very much focused on the idea of having a female president – no mention of feminism per se.

    None mention transgender bathrooms or deplatforming or the regressive left, even by implication.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/05/01/why-did-trump-win-new-research-by-democrats-offers-a-worrisome-answer/?utm_term=.c60a942b82a9

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/how-did-donald-trump-win-analysis

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37918303

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443909/real-reason-trump-won-trend-away-incumbents-strongest-factor

    http://www.salon.com/2016/12/26/13-theories-on-why-trump-won-and-how-clinton-lost_partner/

    Stardusty, by making unevidenced assertions that turn out to be based on nothing stronger than your own personal feelings, and then simply repeating them over and over and over again without ever engaging with the criticisms made of them, you are simply wasting everyone’s time – your own included. If you’re going to make categorical statements of supposed fact, we need to see some evidence to support them, dognabbit.



    Report abuse

  • Stardusty Psyche #163
    Jul 4, 2017 at 6:57 pm

    To – Alan4discussion #162 Jul 4, 2017 at 5:51 pm

    trying to pretend that there is a “left wing bias bubble”,

    It is also known as the regressive left. Democratic pandering to the regressive left, the left bias bubble, was a significant factor in the Republican sweep of 2016.

    This is a mixture of conjecture, false news, and propaganda in the US media!

    It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the real world evidence about transgender issues on this thread!

    The argument that because some gullible people believed liars on some issue, THEREFORE we must all become liars, or pander to bigots, is simply deeply flawed.

    Perhaps you are not aware of this at all, perhaps you are in some sense a part of the regressive left, I cannot say for sure but based on your writing it seems likely.

    Perhaps you just make up or copy propagandist crap and fallacies, to distract from the issues you will not face and refuse to answer!

    Bill Maher used to have a show called “Politically Incorrect”.
    Political correctness
    Left wing bubble
    Regressive left

    Whatever you want to call it Bill Maher lost his job for telling the truth about the courage of the 9/11 attackers and the cowardice of using cruise missiles.

    This emotive garbage with no basis in reality!

    He’s back now and the message of reality based left is starting to get through, thanks significantly to the work of the people on the list I provided. People are starting to say no to safe spaces, deplatforming, Islamophobia, the pay gap, BLM, 3rd wave feminism, the culture of victimhood,

    Which is a garbled, confused mix, of propaganda, and some real issues presented way out of proportion, with the odd fact or two thrown in for a bit of credibility!
    If you read the archives on this RDFS site you will see that I regularly demolish arguments based on “political correctness” – as well as arguments based on fallacious thinking and vacuous assertions!
    Your empty bubble jargon is copied straight out of false-news propaganda rags!

    It has absolutely nothing to do with your failure to give straight answers to straight questions!

    and a number of left bubble issues.

    As seen from inside the psychological projection of your right-wing propaganda bubble!

    So leaving media ramblings, and coming back to questions in the real world: –

    What provision would you design for wash room and toilet facilities for transgender male, transgender female, and transitioning intermediate people, – and in particular the models I linked earlier?

    . . . . Or do you belong to the US Republican school of thought, which gets a feeling of superiority, by abusing positions of power, to wilfully or negligently make life difficult and dangerous for other people?



    Report abuse

  • Stardusty Psyche #166
    Jul 5, 2017 at 12:08 am

    If you read the archives on this RDFS site you will see that I regularly demolish arguments based on “political correctness” – as well as arguments based on fallacious thinking and vacuous assertions!

    Sorry, based on this display I find no reason to suspect I would find such evidence in archives so I will not be digging through them.

    Ah! The now established Stardusty approach! –
    Don’t bother to research facts, or click on and read the multiple links provided @#146, but just sit in denial, make-up crap and ridiculous assertions, parroting nonsense copied from the US junk media, and keep dodging the simple questions which any person of reasonable intelligence should be able to answer, using the high quality information which others have already provided!

    Alan @#165 – Your empty bubble jargon is copied straight out of false-news propaganda rags!

    It has absolutely nothing to do with your failure to give straight answers to straight questions!

    So let’s look again at the questions you can’t or won’t answer!

    Alan @#155 – link – MedlinePlus – Health Information from the National Library of Medicine

    Alan @#157 – Do you really think you know better than the doctors from reading the right wing junk media quoting ignoramus politicians?

    Alan@#165 – What provision would you design for wash-room and toilet facilities for transgender male, transgender female, and transitioning intermediate people, – and in particular the [transgender] models I linked earlier?

    Still empty evasive babble – but no coherent answers?



    Report abuse

  • I see the Stardusty Psyche #166 trolling comment I replied to has disappeared, so perhaps the patience and tolerance of the mods was being sorely tried, just like the patience of myself and others!



    Report abuse

  • Stardusty Psyche #153
    Jul 4, 2017 at 2:52 pm

    Those are real important issues, along with phenotypes and hermaphrodites, in the far left bubble.

    I have to laugh at these junk media “authoritative” pronouncements about US Democrats and Liberals, being in a “far left bubble” of “Liberal science”!

    Back in the 1970s when I visited Moscow with a group of UK scientists to study an exhibition of Russian spacecraft during the early “glasnost” communist era, – and was followed around the city by the KGB – I was well aware of what the “far left” looked like!

    . . . . and guess what? science is science – so even “communist rocket science” and engineering worked! 🙂



    Report abuse

  • Phil

    I notice never once do you mention or acknowledge inequality. I think there is our difference.

    First we need to win back the white house and the Congress. So that’s the Catch 22, as it were. Or that’s what has to happen first. And then it’ll take several generations of Democratic leadership to actually make progress in the areas of inequality vis-a-vis wealth and income, and in improving our system of education now under attack like never before. (132)

    There, Phil. See? I mentioned inequality, as I often do. So what are we arguing about? Please remind me. Yes, she spoke at Goldman Sachs. Why does that bother you so much?

    Garrick, don’t think you’re so safe in the South Pacific. No one can escape the destructiveness of environmental and/or nuclear disasters. We’re all in the same boat with Trump in office, all facing the same ultimate threat. I do have a certain love for Hillary, and I have no wish to reassure anyone of anything – including any “unbiased” opinions. My bias is of no concern to me. (That’s rather funny, don’t you think?) Seriously, do you really think it is “reasonable” to suggest that anyone who claims to be progressive should have voted against her in this past election because her name isn’t Sanders or because the DNC might have favored her or because she spoke at Goldman Sachs and made a few mistakes or isn’t a perfect candidate or a “pure” progressive? I for one wish she were president. Sanders would have been good too. They were both good.

    Garrick, all your comments are sound and reasonable; I just wanted some clarity on one point.

    I repeated those words because they refer to what I was clarifying, and the actual consequences of what they refer to is something we have all known since the results of the election were revealed.

    I ask again what the consequences were of Clinton having spoken at Goldman Sachs or the consequences of any of her affiliations were in terms of her decisions or actions or stated policies. We all know what the perception was and we all know what the results of the election were.

    The term Regressive Left (and the now popular term neo liberal) offends me, Phil. It’s being used here on this thread. Liberalism is a good thing as is Leftism. But these terms are like Orwell’s double speak; they confuse the mind and force us to regard things as their opposites. Left=regressive, neoliberal=reactionary conservative! My objection to the term is justified.

    …a linguistic design meant to limit the freedom of thought—personal identity, self-expression…”

    Oh, one more thing: transgender people should be able to use the women’s room if they are women. End of story. Unisex bathrooms are okay too. Enough of this phobic nonsense.



    Report abuse

  • Dan

    My bias is of no concern to me. (That’s rather funny, don’t you think?)

    Well, I for one thought it was a riot. ~snort!~

    In fact, I intend to try it out on my Republican, libertarian, reactionary, pawns of the corporate overlords family members the next time I see them. You don’t mind if I steal it, do you?



    Report abuse

  • Phil,

    And what was so terrible about her “position” on policing in poor communities? She was against stop and frisk, right? If you’re alluding to the “super predator” remark in the 90s, that’s not fair; that was taken out of context – and Bill Clinton’s crime bill (not hers) saved lives. according to him. And it was mostly black on black violence that had reached crisis proportions.

    I don’t have all the facts so maybe that crime bill was too harsh. And it goes without saying that we need to address systemic inequality and identify the conditions that perpetuate drug sales and use as well as poverty.

    Laurie, by all means, use it.

    I feel persecuted. (Slight exaggeration.) Everyone is so rigid; they think that Hillary is some kind of wretched creature who will do or say anything to get elected. I liked her and still do. (Not romantically.) What do you think? Steinem supported her as did PP, and many other feminists and progressives. I don’t understand this pervasive contempt; it’s all over the place. Look up Hillary. One slanderous and vile article after another. My take? She’s smart, smarter than all of them, and they knew it; she would have shaken things up. She was a threat. Plus sexism played a huge role. That’s what I think. (And yes, she was flawed, but who isn’t? JFK was deeply flawed.)

    I acknowledge that Sanders is the most popular and important political figure in the country now, and deservedly so; but I hate this Hillary bashing. And I am suspicious of it. Look where it got us!!



    Report abuse

  • Phil

    I notice never once do you mention or acknowledge inequality.

    “Then, if there are enough of these people, and we can control the white house and both houses of Congress, we can at long last start to turn things around and create a great system of public education through massive spending, especially in the poor, red states. I can, at this moment, think of no better long-term solution to the problem of the current state of decadence and inequality that now threatens the very life blood of American civilization.” (139)

    Virtually everything I have said or written on this site about politics is an expression of acknowledgement of the essential problem of inequality. What are you talking about? You’re as bad as me. You say I have a bad memory when it comes to what you’ve written, and you often seem oblivious to my own stated and implied positions and premises. Are you okay?



    Report abuse

  • Dan

    As a feminist I waited my whole adult life to have a woman in the highest office in the land. For ten years I knew that Hillary would be the candidate and I waited patiently until the day came that I had the ballot in my hand with her name on it and then I checked off her name and dropped it in the ballot box thinking that our goal was accomplished. That’s how much I wanted Hillary to win. If one single white guy tells me in a sniggling voice that I “only voted for Hillary cuz she’s a female..blah..blah” I swear I’ll go off on them. After all these years of white men having someone who looks just like them in that oval office, representing their white guy special interests, and what?! I can’t want someone in that seat who looks like me and represents MY (and all women’s) special interests? That’s one colossal disappointment that I faced the morning after election day. Instead of our great female hope we got the pussy grabbing, shit for brains ogre who sits in that hallowed office right this minute. So that’s my take on the feminist side of things.

    Setting that aside, I think Hillary would have been a status quo President. I was willing to settle for that because I didn’t think that Sanders could win and I was too petrified to let Trump or any Republican win. I would have held my nose and voted for a Democrat who was a lot less than our Hillary. I did do that on a state election a while back. I voted for Hillary for the reasons I stated above but on the issues my heart is one hundred percent with Bernie. When Phil recommended we read Bernie’s book, I did and after reading his plan in detail I’m sold on it and him. I am also heavily influenced by the European way of doing things, not as a complete outsider but as someone who has spent a fair amount of time living there and talking to our friends there about their health care system and various other benefits that are important to them and that we are very far from getting here in pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps US of A. I’ve also had discussions with them about their tax load that pays for all of those gorgeous benefits.

    I feel like I’m ready to move on from Hillary now. It took me some time to get over her! But now, I’m not willing to settle for status quo anymore. Bernie says that the minute the Dems get control of the place they need to steamroll the right healthcare program through the system. Not conservative Obamacare, but actual Universal healthcare in a take no prisoners strategy. I know we have to phase out the predatory criminal for profit insurance companies. They may remain, but only as an atrophied vestigial reminder of their former glory days of murderous mega money thieves that they are. If wealthy people want to purchase auxiliary plans for medical five star treatment then so be it.

    The social justice piece is huge here, Dan. I don’t believe Hillary would have changed much about that. I’m not sure Bernie would be able to either with the House and Senate seemingly still in the Dark Ages. But like Chomsky said in the interview in the NY Times today, just seeing how far Sanders got in the last election and all of the activism that he inspired in this country, it’s really worth so much. I hope he runs next time. His plan for health, education, and policy is the only way out of the massive injustice and corruption burden that we are bending under. This is the stuff that really matters. This is where I am with this whole mess at this point.



    Report abuse

  • I totally agree with all that, Laurie.

    What are your thoughts on Elizabeth Warren? She always strikes me as highly impressive. Do you think she could be a good candidate? By which I mean, a successful candidate?



    Report abuse

  • I read that article too and as much as I like Chomsky and Hedges and West and I think they are wrong about Hillary, and about what he describes as neo-liberalism, an odious term. Neither Obama, who originally wanted a public option as part of the healthcare bill, if you recall, nor Hillary, are neoliberals; they are pro-business (which is problematic), but not laissez-faire capitalists or reactionaries. It’s labels, and that kind of rhetoric, that made people refuse to vote for Hillary, for anyone other than Sanders, who actually supported Obama and never wavered. That makes him false. I’ll vote for him if he runs, but I think the differences between Sanders and Hillary are not as great as people imagine. And I see him as an orator, like Obama. Hillary has a record of service and great tenacity, the absolute mark of a great politician. Maybe I am a little biased, but my gut told me that she was the superior candidate. Chomsky likes to put trump and Obama and Hillary in one pile and label them all neo-liberals, although he did say that not voting for her was “a terrible mistake”. He’s not an oracle, is as confused at times as the rest of us.

    And the election of Trump can happen again. We see what being labelled as “status quo” can do.

    Sanders supporters are, in my opinion, comprised of some of the best and the most righteous people in the country (stubbornly loyal at the expense of reason). Some of these Sanders supporting young people you mentioned voted for Donald or stayed home, because they had their little heads up their asses, wanted “something different”. Beware of candidates who claim to be beyond taking money from PACs or Wall Street money. Trump made that claim. Sanders did too. She didn’t.

    Here, read this short piece. Here’s an excerpt.

    http://time.com/4519718/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-change/

    It seems to me to be uncontestable that in this election, Clinton is the agent of true change. And true change is scary and threatening, and when we encounter it, we find it unlikable, unfriendly, unknowable. As much as we like to represent ourselves as forward-looking and unafraid of the future, we are much more comfortable in the present and, even more so, in the past—especially a golden-age version of the past where men were men, women were women, white males were entitled to nearly everything, and everyone was happy—a past that never existed.



    Report abuse

  • Dan, it was precisely reading that paragraph from your “better account” to me, that it struck me….. this was unusual from you, it is clearly not the stuff of obsessional interest to you as it is with me. With Carter it was not “how true” or “true but”… or “no because”, but it was your standard mode of non engagement with ideas, rather rubbishing or praising the messenger and leaving the message mostly untouched.

    It is, though, frankly, obsessional with me because like Carter, like all the psychology tests show that I spout, it really does seem it is the very root of most modern ills. It is an obsession and everything I write maps back to it. and you have no reason or obligation to share it to such an extent. I apologise for seeming to imply any need otherwise.

    I will though charge you with shooting a few too many messengers for your own good.



    Report abuse

  • Marco

    Laurie likes Warren, Marco, very much, as do I. Yes, she’d make a fine candidate, is electable, unless she too is labelled the status quo candidate by the left and the right.

    But I’ll let her speak for herself.



    Report abuse

  • Marco

    I’m a big fan of Warren. She’s the Senator of my state and I was thrilled when she won that election. Here’s an interesting article on VOX that discusses Sanders’ possible run for Presidency in future and Warren’s position relative to his.

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/5/15802616/bernie-sanders-2020

    From that article:

    Sanders sympathizers who are not necessarily fully bought-in Berners typically feel that the most reasonable arrangement would be for Sanders to stand down in favor of Elizabeth Warren. The pair’s views are regarded in Washington as essentially interchangeable, and it’s widely said by people in Sanders’s circle that he would have supported her had she chosen to run in 2016.

    And the Warren option is the more appealing one in many ways. Warren is younger (though not young, per se), she would meet the keen desire of liberal women who work in politics professionally to see a woman in the White House, she’s better liked by wonks as a rigorous policy thinker, and, most critically, she would represent a populist ideological viewpoint without picking at all the scabs from the 2016 primary.

    But for people inside the Sanders camp, this is arguably exactly the problem.

    Any mass political movement becomes, to an extent, self-referential. Warren, pointedly, did not step up to challenge Clinton even when many party actors wanted her to. And when Sanders did step up, she didn’t back him — opting instead for a studied neutrality. That decision has consequences for how she’s seen by Sanders’s core supporters — they signed up for an idealistic struggle against the party establishment, and she played a cynical game of power politics. And it appears to have influenced Sanders’s personal view of a natural ally. The Atlantic’s Franklin Foer reports that Sanders “peremptorily dismissed me from his office for asking a question about his political relationship with Elizabeth Warren.”

    Again, for several reasons, I’d be very excited to see her run. She’s my own state Senator, the woman that we hoped for and her views so closely aligned with Bernies, so…a match made in heaven! But then, just so you know, just sayin…My bias is of no concern to me. 😉

    haha



    Report abuse

  • On the topic of inequality, an interesting piece here from today’s Guardian:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/05/us-inequality-poor-people-bad-choices-wealthy-bias?CMP=fb_gu

    “It all starts with the psychology concept known as the “fundamental attribution error”. This is a natural tendency to see the behavior of others as being determined by their character – while excusing our own behavior based on circumstances.”

    Nothing most of us here don’t already know, but good that it’s beginning to get more media attention, at least. I see The Guardian is now running a regular column on the subject.



    Report abuse

  • Phil 179, 182

    What was that? What paragraph? I wrote a lot of paragraphs? What’s this about maps and about Carter and about messages and messengers? What am I not obsessed with? What are you apologizing about? Why do I have trouble understanding you at times?

    If it’s not too much trouble could you be more specific? What piece is that? Disparity between which candidates?

    Slur? I said “beware” of politicians who present as pure and never take money from PACS, etc. Gerry Brown did that too, and he is a bit of a phony. I didn’t say BS took PAC money. Nor did I say that Sanders (whose ideas are all quite sound and basic) was a bad candidate.

    (Carter. Yes he is a good guy. I like his courage for speaking out about Israel.)



    Report abuse

  • An excellent looking series, Marco, thanks.

    It is the utterly shocking experience of the poor that we fail to see on our screens at the moment, like we once did. This is why I post links to books like “On the Run” Alice Goffman for Americans and why we Brits need to see Ken Loach’s career peak at 81 years of age

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahWgxw9E_h4

    Dan,

    The paragraph you reprinted from #139.

    and

    This slur

    Beware of candidates who claim to be beyond taking money from PACs or Wall Street money. Trump made that claim. Sanders did too. She didn’t.



    Report abuse

  • No slur; it’s this holier than thou attitude that some candidates and their supporters have. And some of them are good, virtuous candidates in spite of that, as I explained above. (Your movie: I saw “An immediate classic” on the screen. Makes me question that. That’s not for them to say; it’s for history to show.)

    We may fail to see the poor on the screen but they are hard to miss where I live, and I live in a “nice” neighborhood. I saw a woman sleeping right in the middle of the sidewalk a week ago. People had to step over her. It’s so easy to step over them; I did the same thing but stood there a few minutes. What can I do? I asked myself. That poor lady. I almost wept.

    The “othered” America, the two Americas. King spoke of that fifty years ago! It never seems to end!



    Report abuse

  • Laurie

    “I brought my son in the women’s room for as long as I could get away with it.” #145

    Just a quick story. By the way, I think it’s fine to do what you did; but I remember being in France. I was about ten, I think. We were at a a swimming pool. We were heading out. I was with my mother; and I had to urinate. The boy’s room was, I guess, unavailable, so she was determined to get me into the girl’s room. I remember becoming hysterical. I screamed, was filled with dread and horror and rage, screamed my head off. No, no, no! I would not under any circumstances enter the girl’s room and “misrepresent myself” that way. I don’t remember what finally happened. She may have won that fight or may have given up. I don’t remember; but you reminded me of that scene. Why the idea of using the girl’s room aroused such intense feelings I may never know. But I remember using the women’s room about three weeks ago at a little jazz club in Greenwich Village. I think I got over whatever it was that was bothering me back then.



    Report abuse

  • Hmm, Dan, why were you in that women’s room in Greenwich Village? Mens’ room overcrowded? Nonexistent? Disoriented? Were there women in there? What was their reaction?

    Maybe your Mom wanted to keep an eye on the situation like I did.



    Report abuse

  • PAC monies used copypasta from opensecrets.org

    HC $1,785,190 0.32%

    DT $144,764 0.04%

    BS $5,621 0.00% (actually 0.0024%)

    So beware of what???, that you must so invoke Sanders as if he did a bad thing?? Sanders is rightfully proud of the way he funds through popular support. This is equally a decent thing to talk about. As is his railing against superPAC smear funding.

    HC $160,851,203 28.53%

    DT $134,607,903 40.41%

    BS $1,576,978 0.69% (specifically unwanted but out of his control)

    Shitty purchased election results. From shitty American politics up for the highest bidder that indeed needs to be railed at as Sanders has continually done. Trump spending $66m of his own money because he is that vain and that rich tried to copy Sanders and wear his clothes. Yours is a shameful inversion of the facts to slur Sanders with Trump’s behaviour.

    Inequality.

    Who had the more/most moral tax plan?



    Report abuse

  • I saw “An immediate classic” on the screen. Makes me question that. That’s not for them to say; it’s for history to show.

    Message, not messenger. Ken Loach doesn’t own his product. The producers do.



    Report abuse

  • Laurie,

    Since posted comments are often tone-deaf I can’t be 100 percent sure that you are kidding. So I’ll err on the side of safety. The men’s room was locked and I really had to take a leak.

    You’re funny.

    Phil, my good friend,

    HC had a very detailed tax plan. And Wall Street was terrffied of her. That’s significant. I don’t know whose was better. People in my sister’s bracket pay way too much. The super rich need to pay more. Confession: my modest portfolio has done very well since Trump has been in office. I like that. (See how rigorously honest I am?)

    No PAC money. That’s good, not bad; I get it. It’s laudable, but he had to have been aware that that would be a great thing to brag about too. Why not keep it to himself? Do you feel the need to tell everyone that you’ve done something praiseworthy?

    Not black and white.

    Let Hillary reply. (I love Hillary. Who said loyalty was a conservative trait? Wait! You’ve accused me of being conservative in my own way! Maybe you and Haidt are right, although I forgot what you meant when you said that I have a “conservative” side. Could you remind me?)

    Clinton: Sanders Accepted Wall Street Money Too, Indirectly.

    http://time.com/4212575/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-wall-street-donations/

    “Ken Loach doesn’t own his product. The producers do.”

    Good point. You are right. I was wrong.



    Report abuse

  • Dan

    You are totally in the clear about the G. Village bathroom situation. Interesting to note that both of us have gone waltzing into the wrong-sex bathrooms with no attempt to disguise our current genders and yet the world didn’t come to an end!

    My portfolio is going like gangbusters too. My nephew who works for Fidelity says this is a Trump bubble. As soon as Wall Street figures out that Trump isn’t really getting anything done and the Dems are imminently going to take over the place then the market will go crashing into the ditch. My finger is hovering over the bail out button. Housing prices are higher than ever but another massive layoff situation will send that crashing down too. I’m nervous about this.



    Report abuse

  • Alan4discussion #169
    Jul 5, 2017 at 9:38 am

    Stardusty Psyche #153
    Jul 4, 2017 at 2:52 pm

    Those are real important issues, along with phenotypes and hermaphrodites, in the far left bubble.

    I have to laugh at these junk media “authoritative” pronouncements
    about US Democrats and Liberals, being in a “far left bubble”

    From twitter:

    We are the Regressive Left. We hate misogyny, homophobia & other bigotry. Unless you’re non-white of course. Yes, we’re that patronising.
    7:51 AM – 19 Dec 2015

    OK, it’s the NY Post: “Hypocritical leftists willing to give Muslim extremists a pass” But it happens to be true. Sadly, very true. And utterly disgraceful
    12:19 AM – 1 Jul 2017

    Call it what you wish, the regressive left, hypocritical leftists, leftist bubble, politically correct, or whatever. It’s a real problem that pretty much everybody knows about except those in it.

    This ill conceived set of notions held by the regressive left in their bubble was a significant contributing factor driving the Republican clean sweep of 2016, especially on the subject of Islam because of its national security importance, but also on other issues like the bathroom issue.



    Report abuse

  • http://time.com/money/4554617/hillary-clinton-wall-street-backers-election/

    There are hints in apparently leaked email discussions among Clinton’s campaign staff that bankers are not far off the mark when they count on her to tread lightly.
    Pressed during the campaign by progressive Democrats to call for a revival of the Glass-Steagall Act that would require separation of commercial and investment banking, Clinton ultimately refused. She also weighed another progressive favorite – a tax on financial transactions- but instead recommended a far narrower plan to tax only canceled orders by high speed traders.Ultimately, what bankers most like about Clinton is that she is not Donald Trump.

    Did you actually go and read her policies like I did?

    The biggest crime against the poor, since the Enclosures Act reduced them from even being commoners, in the 2008 crash, would continue to go unpunished with insufficient protections. The thieves would prosper yet as she repeatedly honey-tongued them. This, this is what Sanders has ever been on about for the last eight years. Why politics in the US is all about purchased power and one of the first things in need of reform, not some crass goody two shoes point scoring.

    Yours are vague impressions it seems…



    Report abuse

  • Alan @#155 – link – MedlinePlus – Health Information from the National Library of Medicine

    Alan4discussion #169 – Jul 5, 2017 at 9:38 am – I have to laugh at these junk media “authoritative” pronouncements about US Democrats and Liberals, being in a “far left bubble”

    Stardusty Psyche #193
    Jul 5, 2017 at 11:28 pm

    From twitter:

    OK, it’s the NY Post:

    Ha! Ha! Ha! Disputing Health Information from the National Library of Medicine on intersex conditions, using reports of irrelevant rantings about Muslims from a fringe left-wing minority, using twitter and the New York Post as sources!

    . . .. and you wonder why I have to laugh!!

    Alan@#166 – Still empty evasive babble – but no coherent answers?

    Alan@#165 – What provision would you design for wash-room and toilet facilities for transgender male, transgender female, and transitioning intermediate people, – and in particular the [transgender] models I linked earlier?



    Report abuse

  • phil rimmer #194
    Jul 6, 2017 at 2:33 am

    http://time.com/money/4554617/hillary-clinton-wall-street-backers-election/

    Did you actually go and read her policies like I did?

    Yes, and I read your post, but I don’t quite see it as a direct response to #193 or my points more generally, but perhaps you have other things in mind, I’ll take a guess, let me know if I miss your mark.

    The biggest crime against the poor…

    Ok, that is a reasonable subject, that Clinton intended to perpetuate injustices against the poor, but I still don’t see the connection with the regressive left or the bathroom issue.

    Yours are vague impressions it seems…

    You obviously followed the 2016 elections WRT details of Clinton economic policy. Did you follow her positions that pandered to the regressive left? Did you see the many times she got hammered by the Republicans, especially on the refusal to draw the link between Islam itself and Islamic terrorism, as well as lesser issues such as BLM and the bathroom issue?



    Report abuse

  • Alan4discussion #195
    Jul 6, 2017 at 5:16 am

    using twitter and the New York Post as sources! . . .. and you wonder
    why I have to laugh!!

    What’s wrong with those sources? Is there a problem with the factual content or reasoning of those tweets?

    I think they were cogently written.



    Report abuse

  • Alan4discussion #169 – Jul 5, 2017 at 9:38 am – I have to laugh at these junk media “authoritative” pronouncements about US Democrats and Liberals, being in a “far left bubble”

    Stardusty Psyche #197
    Jul 6, 2017 at 7:54 am

    using twitter and the New York Post as sources! . . .. and you wonder why I have to laugh!!

    What’s wrong with those sources?

    If you have to ask, that is a possible explanation for your nonsensical ideas collected from the junk media!

    Any ignoramus can write any opinion on twitter!

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/New_York_Post

    New York Post
    Then in 1976, Rupert Murdoch bought the paper and turned it into New York City’s voice of wingnut yellow journalism. (Similarly, his British paper The Sun was originally a left-wing paper which evolved out of the trade union-affiliated Daily Herald.).
    It is a favorite for anti-libertarian big government conservatives of the North who support gun control for black people.

    Today, the paper is known for its racy front pages, which include screaming headlines[1] and juxtapositions that would be considered inappropriate in other papers

    Why nobody takes it seriously . . . .. . . . .. . (see clickable link)

    So coming back to the real world practical issue of bathrooms, based on the doctor’s top medical reference library information:-

    Alan@#165 – What provision would you design for wash-room and toilet facilities for transgender male, transgender female, and transitioning intermediate people, – and in particular the [transgender] models I linked earlier?



    Report abuse

  • Stardusty on the Goodbye, Establishment Cause thread:

    If you don’t believe in equal protection for those you despise, you
    don’t believe in it at all.

    If you don’t believe in free exercise for those you despise, you don’t
    believe in it at all.

    If you don’t believe in freedom of expression for those you despise,
    you don’t believe in it at all.

    *Does not apply to transgender people, though, apparently.



    Report abuse

  • Sorry SP #196.

    That post was part of a conversation with Dan, not you.

    I have entirely different things to say about the Hyper Pro Social. Degrees of leftness have very little to do with the problem (though the broad left is their natural home) and all analyses that muddle this in are missing the essential problem of the HPS. There are folk who make judgements about the underdog based essentially on a visceral, emotive response. The natural mammalian emotion of empathy (feeling another’s pain) predominates over a reasoned compassion that may better identify actual harm. The most accomplished whimpering underdog may get the affection rather than the more stoical and deserving.

    “Against Empathy. The Case for Reasoned Compassion.” by Paul Bloom

    Folk are surprisingly variable in their empathetic response. Somewhat aspie, I am rather low on empathy and slow (or was slow) in responding to apparent distress.. Below me you get into the realm of the anti-social trouble maker, then the alpha male/female, business leader, president and tyrant. At the other end of the scale you get people who get distressed very easily by there empathetic response kicking off at the mere imagined thought of a tear filled eye. This extreme response doesn’t mean it is the appropriate response. Mediated by oxytocin its a switch flipped on in terms of confirmation bias that it may be impossible to turn off. And oxytocin, building protected in-groups of the harmed, as it does also underwrites and cements the creation of what are perceived as the the harmers in a reviled out-group.

    Folk like me are not beyond help. Sympathy, rather than visceral, hormone-based empathy, is a rational compassion where emotions are reconnected, literally after the facts are in, engaging concerns and passions in the matters of harms and fairness. Whilst there is a little hope for the under-empathic with an intellectual engagement, the over empathic find it difficult to turn the automatic emotional switch off. Its part of your automatic less biddable self.

    The trick to progress is to step back from the (typically American) position that players are simply malicious on either side. The HPS are particularly quick to impute malice, though both extremes stupidly do it.

    Its typical of right wingers to imply this failing of HPS emotionalism as an essential feature of the left to denigrate the entire left. This is shabby, ignorant nonsense and needs to stop.



    Report abuse

  • Alan4discussion #198
    Jul 6, 2017 at 8:25 am

    using twitter and the New York Post as sources! . . .. and you wonder
    why I have to laugh!!

    What’s wrong with those sources?

    If you have to ask, that is a possible explanation for your
    nonsensical ideas collected from the junk media!

    Any ignoramus can write any opinion on twitter!

    You just called Richard Dawkins an “ignoramus” who is expressing “nonsensical ideas” that he “collected from the junk media” while you “have to laugh!” at Richard Dawkins.

    I disagree with you on those points.



    Report abuse

  • @#198 – Rupert Murdoch bought the paper and turned it into New York City’s voice of wingnut yellow journalism. (Similarly, his British paper The Sun . . .)

    Of course Rupert Murdoch’s UK propaganda rag, has lately had its some of its false news victim blaming stories, and cover-ups, exposed as the made up lies they were!

    https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/apr/26/how-the-suns-truth-about-hillsborough-unravelled

    Hillsborough disaster: deadly mistakes and lies that lasted decades

    A landmark moment of the long Hillsborough inquests came six months in, when a police officer who had spread stories that Liverpool supporters had stolen from victims, notoriously published by the Sun under the headline The Truth, admitted they were false.

    Gordon Sykes, a South Yorkshire police inspector on duty at the Leppings Lane end on the day of the disaster, had never previously retracted the allegation that supporters picked the pockets of dead people. When first questioned at the inquests, Sykes maintained that what he had said in an official Police Federation meeting on 19 April 1989, the day the Sun published its stories, was true: that he had been responsible for 10 dead bodies and “the bodies had nothing on them at all, not even a handkerchief”.

    In that meeting, which was attended by the then South Yorkshire police chief constable, Peter Wright, Sykes also spoke to confirm another infamous allegation, that one of the people who died at Hillsborough had “numerous wallets” on him, so was “one of the Liverpool pickpockets”.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-investigation-ross-barkley-kelvin-mackenzie-column-sun-newspaper-gorilla-liverpool-a7684451.html

    The article, written by the newspaper’s former editor Kelvin MacKenzie, made a number of disparaging comments against Everton midfielder Ross Barkley and the city of Liverpool.

    Mr MacKenzie has a long and bitter history with Liverpool and it was under his editorship that The Sun falsely reported Liverpool FC fans caused the crush at Hillsborough, which killed 96 people.

    On Tuesday, the jury at the new inquests into the deaths exonerated fans by ruling they did not contribute to the disaster at the FA Cup semi-final between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest. Jurors also decided the 96 victims had been unlawfully killed.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/28/hillsborough-six-suspects-face-criminal-charges-disaster-prosecutors/

    Hillsborough match commander David Duckenfield, former chief constable Sir Norman Bettison and four other people are to be prosecuted over offences relating to the Hillsborough disaster.

    The Crown Prosecution Service announced that Duckenfield is to be charged with the manslaughter by gross negligence of 95 of the 96 Liverpool FC fans who died at the FA Cup semi-final in 1989 and Bettison has been charged with four counts of misconduct in public office.

    Sue Hemming, head of the CPS’s special crime division, said former South Yorkshire Police officers Donald Denton and Alan Foster, as well as force solicitor Peter Metcalf, are charged with doing acts with intent to pervert the course of justice.

    Stardusty Psyche #197
    Jul 6, 2017 at 7:54 am

    What’s wrong with those sources?

    So people who want to be properly informed about events, or issues, don’t use Rupert Murdoch’s sensationalist, propaganda, false news, rags, as information sources.

    BTW: the Liverpool Football Club has banned SUN Reporters from attending matches to write sports reports, as they have been proven to be unfit to write honest accounts!



    Report abuse

  • Stardusty Psyche #201
    Jul 6, 2017 at 10:09 am

    If you have to ask, – that is a possible explanation for your
    nonsensical ideas collected from the junk media!

    Any ignoramus can write any opinion on twitter!

    You just called Richard Dawkins an “ignoramus”
    who is expressing “nonsensical ideas”
    that he “collected from the junk media”
    while you “have to laugh!” at Richard Dawkins.

    Oh dear! Oh dear!
    You really need to work on your reading and comprehension skills!

    Could I remind you that this is a science site for EVIDENCE based REASONED discussion, where we use evidence based reasoning – or beginners come at least to make the effort to learn!

    I said, “Any ignoramus can write any opinion on twitter”!

    NOT;-

    “Everyone who writes on twitter is an ignoramus!”

    AND:-
    Richard Dawkins WRITES on twitter!
    He does not use it as a source of information for researching his ideas and information! – Those come from research and scientific articles and reports.

    So coming back ON TOPIC to the real world practical issue of bathrooms, based on the doctor’s top medical reference library information:-

    Alan@#165 – What provision would you design for wash-room and toilet facilities for transgender male, transgender female, and transitioning intermediate people, – and in particular the [transgender] models I linked earlier?



    Report abuse

  • Phil,

    Most progressives prefer Sanders, so you are certainly in the majority; I am virtually alone on this; none of my many progressive friends voted for HC in the primary, and my support of her baffled them. And I honestly don’t know enough about the fine points of finance or about leaked emails to reply to your most recent attack of Hillary. Glass-Steagall is 85 years old; she supported Dodd Frank and wanted to expand it. Maybe Sanders is more progressive with regard to this vital issue of wealth and income inequality, in so far as there is no appearance of equivocation and he is demanding change right here and now; it does appear that way. But she was or is more shrewd and more practical; there would have been gradual progress in many areas, and more equality, I think – in the long run. No way to be sure. We certainly need campaign finance reform and other reforms and regulations, and redistribution, and more programs, greater equality, more funding for just about everything, especially education. She was against Citizens United…

    I still have a problem with his use of the word revolution. More like wishful thinking and advertising than something organic and spontaneous. Real revolutions are always uncertain; their outcomes are uncertain, and they can backfire and people can get hurt. He should have put a question mark at the end of the phrase: Our Revolution.

    The 2008 crash affected everyone, not just the poor. That was not the single worst attack on the poor. Is that what you said it was? (There is no single act.) That was the inevitable product of a system, a culture, long in the making.

    “There’s an ideology that takes a lot of effort to implant: it’s so inhuman that it’s hard to get into people’s heads, the ideology to just take care of yourself and forget about anyone else. An extreme version is the Ayn Rand version. Actually, there has been an effort for 150 years, literally, to try to impose that way of thinking on people.” -Chomsky

    “Regressive left”: some anonymous writer said it rather well in the comments section of an old article I found and I will reproduce what he or she said (with some minor alterations) although I warned you about these shenanigans months ago and you wouldn’t listen. The far right has eaten that phrase up, you know. They love it. Thanks.

    It was coined by Maajid Nawaz and his use of the word was meant to describe people on the left who excuse or outright ignore serious transgressions by certain Muslim Groups. Now the term is almost used interchangeably with SJW or to label people who don’t support certain view points. The original intent of the word was to label individuals or groups that were liberal in every sense of the word but looked past or tolerated abuses committed in the name of Islam. The ironic thing is a lot of people who use the term regressive left hate ALL muslims and use Maajid as their bearer of the term even though Maajid himself still considers himself Muslim.

    He wants to REFORM the religion, in sense having a new age of enlightenment, but the people who took up his terminology use it to attack all left leaning ideals. […]

    In the last year [I’ve been hearing a lot of] right leaning libertarians using the term along with other people who are [clearly] hostile to feminists, and to minorities. […]

    It’s really weird seeing people who hate ALL muslims use Maajid Nawaz as a jumping board for their bigotry.



    Report abuse

  • Dan

    How can you not know that any downturn in the economy hits those at the bottom hardest?

    Trevor Phillips lived to deeply regret his first re-promotion of “Islamophobia”

    “Regressive left” I’m guessing was used to condemn those on the left who appeared to side with oppressive reactionary forces. Now it is a right wing stick to beat the left by mischaracterisation of all leftists as that. Nawaz probably regrets it too.

    You recall of course my unhappiness with the term preferring the more revealing HPS. SJW isn’t so bad when opposed with Social Justice Advocate to explain the difference.

    “Revolution”.

    Its the message that counts. You take every opportunity to not engage with the message. Its this excuse (messenger) or that (title). Patrician and lazy?



    Report abuse

  • Phil

    Were they hit the hardest? Okay. How so? Those at the bottom had so little to begin with. (I don’t claim to be an expert on economic matters; in fact I avoided anything having to do with politics or economics for many years.)

    Yes, that’s right; it was the word “Islamophobe” we were disagreeing about, not the term Regressive Left.

    Sanders or Clinton, or Warren or Al Franken… Anyone. We have to get out of this mess we’re in. I like Sanders, always have. The Right Wing, as I just said elsewhere, is gaining strength and may soon be unstoppable. And the corporate run media (which isn’t all bad), “entranced by his antics and the advertising revenue it afforded,” as Chomsky said, will help him! The Supreme Court is putting us on the path to become a Christian Nation. Not sure which is worse: 1. A Christian Nation at last, 2. a true oligarchy, with even greater disparity than there is now), with millions suffering and impoverished, or 3. No more USA. (These moral monsters might blow it up, along with a sizable part of the rest of the world.)

    I would not want Gillibrand to run in 2020. I don’t think she’s on the level of Warren or the others I mentioned. She kind of irritates me, is a lightweight. She’s always talking about women in the military. That’s all she talks about.

    I think Laurie should run. That was originally a joke. Now I’m serious. And Steven007 will be VP. I will be chief adviser. Vicki will be Secretary of State. Arkrid will be Press Secretary. You will be in charge of the EPA…

    Book title and repeated phrase: “our revolution.” Annoys me. It’s lame. The messenger doesn’t annoy me. I like the messenger and his general message.



    Report abuse

  • Dan #206
    Jul 6, 2017 at 5:10 pm

    Were they hit the hardest? Okay. How so? Those at the bottom had so little to begin with. (I don’t claim to be an expert on economic matters; in fact I avoided anything having to do with politics or economics for many years.)

    I think sub-prime lenders giving loans at high interest rates to people who could not afford the repayments, – secured against the shanties they lived in, and them foreclosing on them an evicting them, is really scraping the bottom of the barrel in exploitation of the naive poor!

    pay-day loan, loan sharks come a close second!



    Report abuse

  • Dan

    I think Laurie should run.

    Haha. Well, if I somehow found myself in the oval office with my name on the nameplate on that desk through some bizarre rip in the time/space continuum, all I can say is this; I’m not qualified in any way for that job but you bet your bottom dollar I’d surround myself with the most brilliant experienced geniuses that money can buy. I would use my executive actions to create the social revolution that Chomsky and Sanders would be proud of. Don’t be afraid of social revolution, Dan. We lived through what Pinker calls the rights revolutions and it changed America for the better. I am pining for those days.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKdsRWhyH30&list=PL5jPQshWo8ryFVgGF2ddNsv5UL-CqakOB&index=1

    I want this to be my introductory song at my inauguration.



    Report abuse

  • Alan, Phil

    …scraping the bottom of the barrel in exploitation of the naive poor!

    Okay. I apologize to you and Phil and others for my damned ignorance. Of course that’s true. I am almost as bad as Sherlock Holmes, I’m afraid. Ever read Conan Doyle’s A Study in Scarlet? You should. Watson made a list of things Holmes knew about and a list of things that he had no knowledge of. On the knowledge list was, among other things, all the different kinds of tobacco. On the no knowledge list was, among other things, the heliocentric theory. “Why should I bother with that nonsense?” he asked. What possible difference does it make one way or the other?The brain is like an attic, can only store so much.”

    That’s not good.



    Report abuse

  • phil rimmer #200
    Jul 6, 2017 at 9:27 am

    Sorry SP #196.

    No harm, no foul.

    That post was part of a conversation with Dan, not you

    Yes, that explains the disconnect then.

    Interesting post, accounting for the regressive left at least in part due to a level of empathy that is so high as to cloud reasoned judgements. This seems related to the old term “bleeding heart liberal”.

    I, for one, do not attribute the regressive and hypocritical attitudes of so many liberals to malice, quite the opposite, as you suggest, an overabundance of empathy to to point that such liberals just can’t seem to grasp the core nature of, for example, Islam.

    Sam Harris does attribute malice from time to time, but that is a situation mostly unique to celebrity, wherein opposing public figures who clearly know better intentionally misrepresent the views of Sam Harris for their own profit in pandering to their naive audiences.

    .



    Report abuse

  • Phil,

    Just for the record, I love Sanders. I hope he lives another twenty years, and stays healthy. But I worry that he (we) will fail, that he will never be elected, that his revolution will not succeed, that we will be swallowed up, that the reactionaries will take over and stay in power for fifty years or until we destroy ourselves.



    Report abuse

  • On the subject of hired stooges, and the hired inflammatory propagandist media, in the services of diverting attention away from corrupt political manipulators! . . . . . . .

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-40527344

    A UK public relations firm has apologised over a controversial social media campaign in South Africa that critics say inflamed racial tensions.

    The opposition said the campaign by Bell Pottinger was designed to stress the power of white-owned businesses.

    The London-based company sacked one employee and suspended another three, admitting the campaign was “offensive”.

    Critics say its aim was to divert attention from claims of corruption made against President Jacob Zuma.

    The South African President has faced allegations over his ties with the wealthy Guptas family. Mr Zuma and the Guptas have consistently denied all the allegations.

    Bell Pottinger was hired by Oakbay, a company owned by the Guptas.

    ‘White monopoly capital’

    Critics in South Africa and media outlets had for some time accused the PR firm of presenting opponents of President Zuma and the Guptas as agents of a “white monopoly capital” during a sustained campaign.

    Pressure on Bell Pottinger increased recently after local media had leaked emails allegedly showing its employees working with Guptas’ representatives on a campaign focusing on “economic apartheid”.

    The authenticity of the emails has not been independently verified.

    In a statement on Thursday, Bell Pottinger Chief Executive James Henderson said: “We wish to issue a full, unequivocal and absolute apology to anyone impacted.”

    Bell Pottinger said it had ended its contract with Oakbay three months ago.

    The PR firm also said it had asked an independent law firm to review “the account and the work done on it”, and that executives had been “misled” about the campaign.

    Although that investigation was still continuing, Bell Pottinger said it had “already been shown interim evidence which has dismayed us”.

    ‘Apology not enough’

    Save South Africa, a campaign bringing together civil rights groups critical of President Zuma, said the apology is not enough.

    In a statement, it asked the PR firm “who it worked with in South Africa‚ what its brief was‚ and who provided that brief – and‚ most importantly‚ who it was ‘misled’ by”.

    There has been an outcry on social media in the country about the original campaign and the statement.

    Critics doctored the company’s Wikipedia page on Friday, accusing it of a “weak, meaningless and pathetic” apology.

    In 2012, Bell Pottinger was accused of unethically editing its clients’ Wikipedia pages by the website’s founder, Jimmy Wales.

    Bell Pottinger was also recently reported to a professional body for Britain’s PR industry.

    Supervising professional bodies with ethical standards – just the sort of things Trumpies want to abolish or label as “false news”! – In support of the “freedom” of the right-wing “liars-for hire”, false-news industry!



    Report abuse

  • Chaps, Chappesses, InterChapses and mods.

    How do we feel about having a new blank thread every month?

    I think we might up the traffic and utility of this site, and clean up the threads if we had one. I see great opportunity for generating new thread topics at the very least but perhaps also allow drawing attention to TV programs, and books of immediate interest. Part of the problem is finding these more random discussions in worn out threads subsequently where this kind of stuff usually sits. A monthly blank thread will prove one of the best places to start.

    This has to be easy and pretty much zero cost, nor be the start of stuff RD would not wish on his platform. It may provide problems for the mods….

    Any thoughts? Then maybe we can ask Trav pretty please?



    Report abuse

  • Phil #213

    From a modding point of view we wouldn’t have any objection, provided it didn’t descend into mere chat: the discussions would still have to be broadly related to science and reason, and the usual standards would still apply.

    We’ve passed the request on, so we’ll see what happens.

    The mods



    Report abuse

  • Laurie,

    How do you know you’re not qualified?

    Sorry for the sarcasm, Laurie, but you know I don’t like Pinker – at all: The Right’s Revolutions? Who won those?

    Who said I’m afraid of social revolution? It’s just that the term “revolt” shouldn’t be used lightly or presumptuously. You get equality and rights against the grain, and there are powerful opposing forces which absolutely forbid equality and justice. Nothing automatic or easy about it.

    I watched Sanders really put it to Steve Mnuchin on YouTube last night. Unfortunately, Mnuchin’s mind or heart is as impermeable as a layer of solid rock. He has zero interest in equality and justice. Zero. ZERO.



    Report abuse

  • Dan

    you know I don’t like Pinker – at all:

    Based on what? His hair? Give me some solid disagreement points because I know that if you ever read one of his books you’d be sold on his eloquent reasoning. I hold him in the highest regard as a writer and a great thinker of our time. The world would be a better place if Pinker was running the show. The rights revolutions- who won? We all won! The religio-fascists lost. And yes, it was neither automatic nor easy. This was all going on when we were coming of age in the sixties and seventies. The best two decades in our history (ok,just my opinion.).

    Women’s rights, gay rights, animal rights, civil rights, children’s rights. From Better Angels of Our Nature

    I don’t think there’s anyone around Trump who cares a fig for justice at all. They’re not even trying to hide that! They are self-serving thieves who’ve sold their souls to the highest bidder.

    I can’t just dance around the name “Pinker” just because you get aggravated, Dan! You need to make your peace with the guy. 🙂
    Actually the word “souls” aggravates me but I continue to use it for dramatic effect. 🙁



    Report abuse

  • I like the idea of an open thread even if we just test it out to see how it goes. I want to talk about books and I’ve been asking about what people are reading (Phil) but then feel guilty about being off topic. Make an honest woman of me.

    While I think of it, there have been some comments made regarding the two books that alternate on the discussion thread. Haven’t we just about covered them to death? I suppose there’s some commitment to the books behind the scenes that is no concern of mine but it seems claustrophobic to be limited to that material. With all of Richards great writing, surely we could stock that thread with new ideas to discuss forever! He has a new book of essays coming out, bet there’s some good conversation to be had from that one.



    Report abuse

  • I confess, Laurie, that I can’t even read two pages of the guy without wanting to throw up, and it’s not his hair. I am quite sure he is wrong about most things. I guess it behooves me to try but it’s so hard. Can you read Norman Mailer or Schopenhauer, all the people I like? Not so easy, right? We have a feeling sometimes that something will either augment us or diminish us. It’s an instinct. But sometimes we’re wrong so we shouldn’t succumb to that. Can’t help felling that Pinker will diminish me, however.

    And Phil, what was that about our mammalian past when you were attempting to explain certain “liberals”? Complete nonsense.

    The best episode of the otherwise rather mediocre show The Defenders was “Blacklist” starring the incomparable Jack Klugman. He received an Emmy award.

    What is this that you just posted? Let me watch it…..Okaaaaay. Nice scene. Hilarious…..Maybe an open thread isn’t such a good idea. I’m kidding. Actually I had that idea a few years ago shortly after I joined. I sent my idea to them through that little question mark, that portal on the lower left corner. “Send us a message.”



    Report abuse

  • Dan

    Phil, what was that about our mammalian past

    I meant to type primate past, but caught it too late. I have talked about the empathy bell curve many times before and I won’t bore people here by repeating the spiel. The Hyper Pro Social I have written about for 18 months here. I don’t ever recall anything from you that tackled it intellectually, only emotionally.

    I’ve just recently (37minutes ago) downloaded Robert Sapolsky’s latest book, “Behave” (as long as Better Angels, I note). I’m expecting to find all the latest on empathy there. I think Laurie might get to it before me, so she might offer a comment soon enough.

    The Defenders impressed 12 year old me. The positions it took and the subjects it tackled were unprecidented…But we’ve had this disagreement before…



    Report abuse

  • And Phil, what was that about our mammalian past

    I made this “mammalian past” remark on a thread years ago.
    A person of questionable knowledge stated he was not a mammal.
    I told him to look down and if he doesn’t see two little brown things on his chest, call his mother and have her check?



    Report abuse

  • Of course we have a mammalian past and a primate past; just not sure what that has to do with being a bleeding heart liberal. That was my original question. Applying the evolutionary theory of emotion in this way is objectionable to me.

    Sympathy, rather than visceral, hormone-based empathy, is a rational compassion where emotions are reconnected, literally after the facts are in, engaging concerns and passions in the matters of harms and fairness.

    I’m sorry, Phil, but this is a discussion thread and I really need to address the ideas expressed above. It is not personal. You’ve been critical of me and that’s good; so let me say this to you. This sounds verbose, almost irrational; an entirely superfluous and erroneous distinction. Just because you read something and it agreed with you doesn’t make it true. Sympathy and empathy are very closely related. The dictionary seems to emphasize putting oneself in someone else’s shoes when defining empathy (a term that appeared much later than sympathy). But that is precisely what is required when one feels sympathy; so I reject the dictionary’s distinction, along with the distinction you’ve made. (No serious student of language or philosophy should rely upon the dictionary when searching for meaning.)

    Both empathy and sympathy involve suffering which is from the greek pathos, which means suffering, feeling. Neither empathy nor sympathy are rational per se. I don’t know where you are getting this but I would encourage you to question it. (Maybe that book Against Empathy?)



    Report abuse

  • Psychologists use words professionally and try to use terms they can exchange with each other. In the recent past I have detailed many times six or so books by professional scientists that discuss this stuff using a common vocabulary. The definition of “empathy” say, is made explicit in all. If you prefer we could settle on “fish-paste”?

    Colloquial definitions if used with translation have zero implications on the message. Its only like rendering it in French or Elvish.

    Its the message, not the messenger, not the language he uses to deliver it, not his apparent political persuasion and consequent suitability to possibly hold a novel idea, not the number of Emmies its got (actually 13), often not even the semantics or any other component of that magic force field that keeps ideas safely at bay.

    Its the message.

    Stopped.

    No. I suspect you will hate “Behave” by Sapolsky, and my latest purchase “The Ego Tunnel” (horrid title) by Metzinger, who appears to be speaking my thoughts…

    The Sapolsky, though, is very good.



    Report abuse

  • 229
    maria melo says:

    LaurieB in converstaion with Dan on comment 176

    (…) think Hillary would have been a status quo President. I was
    willing to settle for that because I didn’t think that Sanders could
    win and I was too petrified to let Trump or any Republican win. I
    would have held my nose and voted for a Democrat who was a lot less
    than our Hillary. I did do that on a state election a while back. I
    voted for Hillary for the reasons I stated above but on the issues my
    heart is one hundred percent with Bernie. When Phil recommended we
    read Bernie’s book, I did and after reading his plan in detail I’m
    sold on it and him. I am also heavily influenced by the European way
    of doing things, not as a complete outsider but as someone who has
    spent a fair amount of time living there and talking to our friends
    there about their health care system and various other benefits that
    are important to them and that we are very far from getting here in
    pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps US of A. I’ve also had discussions
    with them about their tax load that pays for all of those gorgeous
    benefits.”

    Great Britain´s NHS, the portuguese SNS inspired in the British NHS and a Wellfare state is a radical differnt reality from american Health services, politics and economy, whole different worlds.
    Not to inniciate colateral discussions here, for instance, the portuguese SNS makes it affordable for a transgender with a low salary the benefit of reversing genitalia through National Health services after carefull examination of the consistency of his(hers condition as transgender from psychological, social aspects….



    Report abuse

  • I think there is a difference, but it may not be what you imagine it to be.

    I hope you don’t discover that you were exhibiting empathy all this time and not sympathy; you’d have to revise your adopted theory or substitute one word for another.

    I think empathy (something as uncommon as it is vital) may require more relatedness and sensitivity than sympathy. One can feel sympathy, say, for animals – and that is good; but you can only feel empathy for some other human being that you are relating to in the here-and-now. This business of hormones is, I think…well, you know what I think.



    Report abuse

  • Maria,

    They’re rounding up millions of undocumented workers here and breaking into their homes, as we speak. Trump is a fascist. And right now the Klu klux Klan is marching, with guns, in North Carolina.

    Great country.



    Report abuse

  • Dan, #233

    Sapolsky says it perfectly

    I MAKE MY living as a combination neurobiologist—someone who studies the brain—and
    primatologist—someone who studies monkeys and apes. Therefore, this is a book that is
    rooted in science, specifically biology. And out of that come three key points. First, you
    can’t begin to understand things like aggression, competition, cooperation, and
    empathy without biology; I say this for the benefit of a certain breed of social scientist
    who finds biology to be irrelevant and a bit ideologically suspect when thinking about
    human social behavior. But just as important, second, you’re just as much up the creek if
    you rely only on biology; this is said for the benefit of a style of molecular
    fundamentalist who believes that the social sciences are destined to be consumed by
    “real” science. And as a third point, by the time you finish this book, you’ll see that it
    actually makes no sense to distinguish between aspects of a behavior that are
    “biological” and those that would be described as, say, “psychological” or “cultural.”



    Report abuse

  • 237
    maria melo says:

    Dan,

    I´m not a neurobiologist, na ethologist nor a psychologist, I actually don´t have a theory of empathy vs sympathy, from theory to reality there should be an “ethical model” as for social sciences, for ethical reasons humans are not mice in labsy

    Did I say something that made you think I may have a theory of empathy vs sympathy that made possibly someone feel “revolted”?
    As I said before I cannot make long comments, it´s being hard to write a few words.



    Report abuse

  • Maria, hi! Sorry for the confusion; that particular comment about empathy was for Phil. It got posted before I saw yours. I agree with you about the social sciences; social theory dressed in the the robe of hard science should be handled with extreme care.

    Not waiting for Superman, Phil; that would be absurd and stupid, and is a straw-man; but neither do I wish to deny reality.

    A very intelligent person wrote this after reading Better Angels: “The genocide, culturacide and environmental holocaust of the modern day corporatocracy is so much more civilized and angelic than the savagery of our retarded ancestors. Mmmm, I feel all superior and advanced.”

    You have confirmation bias, as do I. But at least I admit it.



    Report abuse

  • Not waiting for Superman, Phil; that would be absurd and stupid,

    But Superman on the radio was a very positive propaganda force against the KKK in the forties. Kids learned who the baddies were. I thought you would get the reference.

    Everyone has confirmation bias, thats what corroboration is for. Sadly Brian Ferguson was overly invested in his earlier work and really overlooked key categories from Better Angels, like stateless farmers.

    Big states keep the centres safe.



    Report abuse

  • “Consider, also, his glib assertion, “There is no indication that anyone but Hitler and a few fanatical henchmen thought it was a good idea for the Jews to be exterminated.” Recent research has found 42,500 institutions set up to perpetrate the Holocaust. According to Geoffrey Megargee, “Many more people knew about it and took part in it … it was central to the entire Nazi system … many other countries had their own camp systems.”(6) Pinker’s description is hardly uncontentious.”

    6 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/has-holocaust-history-just-been-rewritten-astonishing-new-research-shows-nazi-camp-network-targeting-8518407.html

    “Pinker’s thesis, that people are becoming less violent, is unprovable and has nothing to do with science (he’s unconcerned when his facts are wrong). A lot of people have an ideological vested interest in believing him of course, but that doesn’t make him right. It’s easy to show how he uses “data” which is clearly wrong (eg. Otzi’s “fletched arrows” which weren’t).” -Stephen Corry

    Of course this fellow Corry must be wrong too.

    No, I didn’t get the Superman reference.



    Report abuse

  • Pinker’s thesis, that people are becoming less violent, is unprovable

    But this is pure straw. The intention is to demonstrate that societies have a lower density of violence now than from prehistory. Cultural evolution would look astonishingly different else.

    “Set up to perpetrate the holocaust” is substantially wrong. It implies its dull administrators understood the outcomes. The majority of these institutions thought that they were involved in detention or were involved in eugenics of medically incurables. A good inside account of this is given by Steve Silberman in Neurotribes. What happened was appalling but far more credible than this bald assertion.

    So far each novel horror that we seem newly capable of gets to happen once. This is a dangerous period, but we shouldn’t lose too much hope.



    Report abuse

  • The majority of these institutions thought that they were involved in detention or were involved in eugenics of medically incurables.

    Even if this is true and not specious revisionism, they were still detained, sterilized, or put out of their “misery”. What was considered medically incurable? Old age? Dementia? Feeble-mindedness? Schizophrenia? Do you know how horrible detention of innocent civilians and eugenics is in itself? Not much of an argument, Phil. Not this time.



    Report abuse

  • 245
    maria melo says:

    This one is for Phil

    People with autism DO care about others | Daily Mail Online
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3513641/People-autism-care-Cold-antisocial-traits-actually-separate-condition.html

    I think people find me “aspie” too, they usually say I have my “own world”, “you look like a Shell” etc, I was also critized for not being very”social” (but not anti-social),

    Even here on RDF, someone asked me if I was “aspie”. I don´t think I am, no psychologist told me so.



    Report abuse

  • Dan,

    Do you know how horrible detention of innocent civilians and eugenics is in itself? Not much of an argument, Phil.

    It lets no-one off for inexcusable behaviours, but it importantly changes the rap sheet for many to make the actions more credible, more likely. Yep its horrible. Quite as appalling as I imagined when reading about it in the book. But what happened in Germany was unprecedented and needs a full and careful analysis. It is warning how a recently created nation state, twice, even more recently, humbled and reduced to penury could become the perfect host for a complete psychocracy. (Italy, Spain and then Greece make interesting comparative studies.)

    Germany was made possible by a sufficient quantity of psychopaths in positions of power. At the top any thought was thinkable. Lower down was the problem and a hierarchy of deceptions was created and administered at each level. Couple this with the all important “bullies at the gate” for those with gnawing doubts. This state didn’t have to last all that long. Victory once war was joined would divert attention.

    Our growing revulsion at the “mechanisation” of state processes, where previous individual acts of “callous but possibly excusable because of being poorly discerned, private acts” are suddenly amplified and given a statistical weight, but only when the covers are finally taken off. Meanwhile our unease at State machinery (no single head to cut off) and a sense of empowerment to deal with it had really yet to grow after the intimidating body blow of noticing it for the first time. (Perhaps Kafka can stand for this comparatively recent new view.)

    OK. I’ve bitten off more than I can chew here. This is two chapters worth of “The Bully at the Gate. Coercion in politics, religion and thought.” The bullies at the gate know to look out as if at an enemy.



    Report abuse

  • 247
    Olgun says:

    Phil

    Am half way through the book; Reality Is Not What It Seems, The Journey To Quantum Gravity by Carlo Rovelli.

    Have you read it? (Though I imagine it’s like a Janet and John book to you). If so, another book recommendation for Dan?



    Report abuse

  • Coming back to transgender issues:-

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40546644

    The Church of England’s governing body is due to vote on whether special services should be held for transgender people.

    Supporters of the services say the Church should offer a welcome to people to mark their transition.

    Others suggest the services would be counter to some parts of the Bible which state that humans are created as either male or female.

    The Church’s four-day general synod meeting in York started on Friday.

    Plea for “urgency” on new sexuality policy

    The Church conducts multiple marriages, christenings, and blessings every day, and now it is being asked to add to its liturgy a service to welcome transgender Christians to their new identity.

    Such a service would not be a second baptism, however, as the Church’s teaching is that humans are made in the image of God – transcending gender – and baptism takes place only once.

    Supporters say such a welcome would help people undergoing the trauma of transition, or transphobic bullying.

    The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, has said the Church will spend three years on a document outlining a new stance on sexuality.

    Ah! Three years to decide if biological medicine or The Bible is correct, and if the faithful will accept the biology, the Bible, ranting preachers, or some sort of fudge? 🙂



    Report abuse

  • THE GUARDIAN also has an article on this!

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/09/anglican-church-vote-welcoming-transgender-people-general-synod

    The Church of England’s ruling body is to vote on whether to provide special services for transgender people during their transition.

    The General Synod is considering a motion on the need for transgender people to be “welcomed and affirmed in their parish church” as part of the “long and often complex process” of transition.

    The vote comes after bishops overwhelmingly backed a motion calling for a ban on “unethical” conversion therapy for gay Christians.

    While the synod debated and voted on the private member’s motion on Saturday, an estimated 1 million people were celebrating Pride weekend in London, marking 50 years since the decriminalisation of homosexuality.

    On Sunday the meeting in York will decide on a diocesan synod motion on “welcoming transgender people”, tabled by the Rev Chris Newlands of Blackburn.

    The church has stated its “fundamental belief” is that baptism can only be received once, therefore there is “no possibility” of the synod approving a service re-baptising individuals in their new gender.
    Advertisement

    Newlands’s motion “seeks to ensure that the C of E engages seriously with the issue of providing the opportunity of a liturgical marking of a person’s transition, which has the full authority of the C of E, as an appropriate expression of community and pastoral support to trans people”.

    The motion recognises that it cannot require clergy to offer to perform such a service if they “cannot in good conscience offer support in a liturgical marking of a person’s transition”.

    Should a member of the clergy not agree, it hopes that they “may have the generosity to point anyone who asks to a church where the clergy are willing to provide such a liturgy”.

    The motion calls on the House of Bishops “to consider providing some nationally commended liturgical materials which may be used in parish churches and chaplaincies to provide a pastoral response to the need of transgender people to be affirmed following their long, distressing and often complex process of transition”.

    So with an opt out clause for some clergy, it looks like “Bible-fudge” is specified, even before the three-year fumbling process of the issue begins!

    I wonder what the church bathroom policy will be?

    If a transgender transitioning individual meets with a member of the clergy who “disagrees”, I wonder if they would even WANT to come out, in that bigoted congregation?
    Fat better dump the whole faith-head bigoted stupidity altogether!



    Report abuse

  • maria #245

    Thank you so very much for this. It is almost exactly as Simon Baron Cohen predicted in his book “Zero degrees of Empathy”, distinguishing mind blind and emotion blind deficits. I shall be following up the papers on these as soon as I can.

    In the last ten years I’ve described myself as a “house-trained” aspie, i.e. not likely to do something too unfortunate in front of others. I’m very slow to read emotions off faces. I fail entirely to read lustful and “come hither” faces on the rare occasions I encounter them, taking them to be anger or disgust.

    But there are other routes to knowing what is in another person’s head and then emotionally engaging in it. Aspies, often clever enough, can think it through to get there eventually and care about and engage in the result. Psychopaths are the ones who are emotion indifferent.

    Though I fail specific tests in emotional/facial/vocal cognition I probably wouldn’t now be diagnosed as Aspie, or whatever the Spectrum definition is in DSM4. Women (mostly) trained me, plus a little art.

    I also believe these varieties of defecits and skills (low empathy usually is paired with higher systemising) in populations, and that exist at the start other “disease” axes like schizophrenic, OCD, psychopathic, create the mix of intellectual capacities that makes human cultures so wildly productive.



    Report abuse

  • Ollie,

    I’ll talk at greater length if/when we get a blank thread. Alan reminds us this thread has its original work still to do.

    Not read him. The reviews look terrific. (The bad reviews complain about format and that easy stuff comes first!) I need books like this myself from time to time for updates and better explanatory metaphors etc. Enjoy!



    Report abuse

  • 252
    maria melo says:

    A psychologist have described me in my early adulthood (19/20) as a person with a difficult emotional life (almost at the level of neurotic at some point), but how would it be different if a person is repressed in teens (not always) for having certain attracton for the same gender (and the other too), shall I tell anyone, do I need to become a shell (I guess that´s better for social coward protection), but it affects emotional life too. Never gave up of a normal investiment in interpersonal realtions, but that´s not satisfatory to me it reported (it was in my teens, I guess it could be different now).

    Indeed, once I´ve asked my husbund what he felt about me at first sight and his answer was that he felt I was a “very difficult person” (had a difficult emotional life).
    Sorry Laurie if I told I was “as free as a bird” (what still is true at least concerning religion).



    Report abuse

  • 253
    Olgun says:

    Thanks Phil!

    Have got a bit bored by the thread subject. Seems like a no-brainer to me and anyone who objects hasn’t thought it through. Even on human rights and right to freedom crossover leaves me thinking that I would rather the prudes suffer for the right reasons than the transgender for the wrong.



    Report abuse

  • Maria

    I read a book titled Quiet, The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking by Susan Cain. I’ve recommended that book on this site in the past. Our commenter Vicki said that the book was validating. I agree with her opinion. It’s not easy being the quiet one surrounded by a noisy world. If I only had a dollar for every time I’ve been called “antisocial” I’d be a wealthy woman! I now think this is a very cruel insult to the quiet introverts among us. The book Quiet was validation for introverts and shy people and gives us the confidence to stand up with pride and offers practical suggestions for making our way in friendship, business and family with defense against negativity aimed at us and appreciation for diverse ways of engaging with others.

    As for the sexual attraction thing, if we ever could get research results that showed truthful valid responses from all women everywhere (research dreaming here!) I strongly believe that we would be shocked at how fluid women’s sexuality really is. I’m not sure about men in this way (because I’m not one of them) but of all the women I’ve ever known, most of them do feel this potential but do not feel free to act on it. Now, thankfully, young women seem to be less restricted by society and it’s puritanical enforcers. I agree that these forces that constrained us years ago had a bad effect on our mentality. I do feel bitter resentment about all of that and we are not alone in this. There’s some small comfort in that. If we acted out against that in negative ways then let’s forgive ourselves first. After that, forgive the oppressors who were victims of the same oppression when they were young. I know it’s not easy. 🙂



    Report abuse

  • Phil, Laurie, Maria, others

    Introversion or being “anti-social” can be a good think if one chooses to be introverted or anti-social – and if that choice arises from the need to concentrate on other more important (i.e. more creative) things than being sociable.

    But if one is introverted out of fear and one cannot be sociable but would like to have that option, one should be honest with oneself about that. In some cases being forced to be introverted causes one to be more creative; in others it is a breeding ground for resentment and aggression; so it’s hard to know what attitude to adopt about introversion as every situation is different. But Jung’s comment to James Joyce applies. Joyce’s daughter was, I believe, schizophrenic. Joyce took her to see Jung who diagnosed her as schizophrenic.

    “No,” said Joyce, “she has my genius for language and has created her own.”

    “Yes, but you dive; she falls,” Jung replied.

    Phil, my assumption based on my observations, is that there is still a tremendous amount of hate out there – in the United States, Europe, the UK, and elsewhere. A sizable portion of the so-called civilized populations of the word would not object to genocide. When we vilify people as The Other, we dehumanize them; we regard them as parasites. I think these people, the racists and bigots amongst us, would be willing executioners in spirit, even if they are not carrying it out in a physical sense. A book was written claiming that many Germans during the time of Hitler were such “willing executioners.” If this is true you would probably argue that they were brainwashed, that it isn’t their real, authentic selves that would ever condone or encourage mass slaughter, but rather a pseudo-self created for them by those in power. This kind of violence in their nature, you could argue, is produced in them by a small minority of psychopaths in power. But that same argument could be applied both ways; you regard our prehistoric past as having a “greater density” of violence (a concept I do not comprehend). If only they had the structures in place that we have now, and had more enlightened and compassionate rulers, if only our prehistoric counterparts had what we have now… And, if only we had more enlightened and compassionate people in power now there wouldn’t be so much much hate and anger and dehumanization (which leads to indifference to or desire for genocide)… But there is no “if only” in life. There is only what is, and that is always changing. We could be reduced to rubble and then, if there were survivors, we’d be, in spite of whatever emotional evolution since prehistoric times has occurred, back in those prior states all over again! Has there been such a change in our evolution in a biological sense? In other words, have we grown morally as a species since prehistoric times in the same way that bones grow? Or is it mere cultural evolution that you speak of?

    We may be less violent now, as a result of cultural evolution, and we may not be. I would have to read P’s book in order to fully grasp the argument(s) and see why one has cause to be hopeful.

    I look forward to discussing Pinker with you down the road and after I have digested what he has to say.



    Report abuse

  • Dan,

    You seem to think the purpose of historical analysis is to better apportion blame, to alter the judgement of history on individuals and peoples. For me it is to understand how cultures actually happen and how they change in time and if they, in any sense, learn. Can they grow up?



    Report abuse

  • Introverts

    I am split on this. I am fully behind Susan Cain in the spurious impressiveness of extroverts. Extroversion is the new blonde. It fills cheap TV vacuously. It fills the Whitehouse.

    Introverts by contrast tend to have an interior world of some sophistication. If motivated to speak it is from a position of knowledge.

    My big discovery as an acting teen and tween was, however, mutual creativity. I think of it now as a mutual support group for introverts. So often my interior world (not in an act of learning but an act of creating) had blanks I couldn’t fill. I couldn’t put the problem into words for myself and the words if chosen carefully can do some of my thinking for me. Time and again it was talking through, particularly with folk who had the same or a similar problem that the blanks would be filled. Forced to actually articulate my ideas, until they become clear, the problems of the blanks become solved in some way or other. Thinking is thinking but often talking entre nous is thinking also. Thinking aloud in groups you trust intimately can be amazing. (Often they just gave me the answer, like, what’s the problem?)

    I am socially terrified. It caused me lots of problems domestically. The acting didn’t help much. It is age and its wonderful “well, fuck ’em” attitude that grants the sweetest release.

    Dan,

    Love the Jung, Joyce anecdote.

    I talk all the time of the value of neural diversity. I think it one of the reason’s we work in families or small groups. Our quirks need to be known and accommodated if we are to best flourish.



    Report abuse

  • Phil,

    Not sure that’s what I was getting at. The cultures of humans are continuously changing and are more or less determined. To what extent our own species itself has changed for the better since prehistoric times in a moral-physiological sense, if at all (that is, assuming that such a process can ever be made clear and acceptable to me) is something that I cannot comment on.

    One’s own judgment, of times past and the present time, and the judgments of others, can remain fixed, and can be altered – rightly and wrongly.

    To apportion blame to where it rightly belongs (if that can be achieved) and to better understand how cultures, behaviors, and attitudes actually happen is part of the same process, isn’t it?



    Report abuse

  • Dan

    To apportion blame to where it rightly belongs (if that can be achieved) and to better understand how cultures, behaviors, and attitudes actually happen is part of the same process, isn’t it?

    No.



    Report abuse

  • “Blame” was not the best word. Anyway, perhaps that’s the artist’s job: he goes one step further than the scientist and says: this is good or bad, right or wrong.

    I’d like to see historians and scientists and artists come together in this regard.



    Report abuse

  • Note: lousy connection where I am. I wrote something substantive and somewhat lengthy about science versus art and the second after I pressed “Post Comment” I lost my internet connection and the comment. I wanted to preserve at least something, so I rewrote it but shortened what I had said considerably (as I was completely exhausted). I ended up writing something too general and too watery. Sorry for the generalization and the wateriness.

    However…

    Edmund Burke said: “I do not know how to draw an indictment of a whole people.”

    And that’s a problem for a lot of people.



    Report abuse

  • Dan,

    I completely get your point. I am not saying that no judgements are to be made on history. Novelists and playwrights always have and perhaps increasingly do. One of our greatest historical novelists Hilary Mantel delivered this years BBC Reith Lectures, “Resurrection. The Art and Craft.” …Our judgements on history will always change.

    One aspect of the historical record including recent history, to today, that I think we urgently need to study far more is the role of the psychopath. How he, they, can act at such a large scale when so minded. For the last five or more years I have rated it society’s biggest problem. Until we learn how to flag the psychopathic and the narrow scope of their actual concerns, people will continue to make poor choices.

    This web site is dedicated to the relief of the misled. We need to understand intimately how people get to make such bad decisions and fail to make good ones.



    Report abuse

  • There is now a blank thread for open discussion, currently accessible from the home page and/or via this link:

    https://www.richarddawkins.net/2017/07/open-discussion/

    Users are welcome to use it for thoughtful discussion of topics broadly connected with reason and science, for which there are no dedicated threads. (For ease of finding discussions later, we would ask you to use the dedicated threads wherever possible and appropriate.)

    Please note that the Open Thread is NOT for general chat, and that (with the exception of the off-topic rule, which will obviously be interpreted more loosely there) all the site’s existing Terms of Use will also apply there.

    It is provided on a trial basis for now, and we’ll keep it under review.

    Enjoy!

    The mods



    Report abuse

Leave a Reply

View our comment policy.