"Nice of FLOTUS to encourage the diminishment of women on ‘international women's day.’

[HipKat]

10 minutes ago, ICRockets2 said:

No, I mean trans people.

Right - attention seekers. That IS what they are

[ICRockets2]

6 minutes ago, HipKat said:

Right - attention seekers. That IS what they are

Nope.  Most trans people would very much like to be left the fuck alone.

[ICRockets2]

7 minutes ago, LiterateStylish said:

Gendered bathrooms are a social construct.

 

That's not an answer, it's a non-sequitur.

[HipKat]

5 minutes ago, ICRockets2 said:

Nope.  Most trans people would very much like to be left the fuck alone.

Then.... get back in there!

[ICRockets2]

2 minutes ago, HipKat said:

Then.... get back in there!

That's the opposite of being left the fuck alone.

[HipKat]

1 minute ago, ICRockets2 said:

That's the opposite of being left the fuck alone.

Stay in the closet, get left the fuck alone. Seems to make sense to me

[ICRockets2]

Just now, HipKat said:

Stay in the closet, get left the fuck alone. Seems to make sense to me

That isn't what they want.  They want the right to be openly trans and left the fuck alone.  

 

[LiterateStylish]

11 minutes ago, ICRockets2 said:

That's not an answer, it's a non-sequitur.

You asked why things need to change. I said gendered bathrooms is a social construct.

HK asked why trannies change their gender. You say gender is a social construct.

Baiting you into these things are so easy that it’s becoming not fun anymore

[ICRockets2]

8 minutes ago, LiterateStylish said:

You asked why things need to change. I said gendered bathrooms is a social construct.

HK asked why trannies change their gender. You say gender is a social construct.

Baiting you into these things are so easy that it’s becoming not fun anymore

"What problem are you trying to solve that has nothing to do with trans people?"

"None, it's specifically about trans people.  God, I baited you so hard."

[LiterateStylish]

3 minutes ago, ICRockets2 said:

"What problem are you trying to solve that has nothing to do with trans people?"

"None, it's specifically about trans people.  God, I baited you so hard."

Misrepresentations for 1000, Alex.

[LiterateStylish]

Oh and the question remains:
 

How about XX and XY spaces?

[ICRockets2]

Just now, LiterateStylish said:

Misrepresentations for 1000, Alex.

Let's try this again.  Give me the non-discriminatory reason you think bathrooms need to be made XX and XY.  That reason cannot be centered on the existence of trans people, because then the reason is explicitly discriminatory.

[ICRockets2]

2 minutes ago, LiterateStylish said:

Oh and the question remains:
 

How about XX and XY spaces?

I answered that question. 

[LiterateStylish]

59 minutes ago, ICRockets2 said:

Let's try this again.  Give me the non-discriminatory reason you think bathrooms need to be made XX and XY.  That reason cannot be centered on the existence of trans people, because then the reason is explicitly discriminatory.

A rule existing because of the occurrence of a group does not make it discriminatory on its face.

That being said the reason is simple. There can be no arguments. XX and XY are chromosomal. It is a fact that has no opposition. It is universally accepted by all parties and peoples. If you have a Y chromosome you go to the door with the Y on it. If you don’t, go to the door with the X. It applies to everyone.

[ICRockets2]

1 minute ago, LiterateStylish said:

A rule existing because of the occurrence of a group does not make it discriminatory on its face.

Yes it does.

[ICRockets2]

2 minutes ago, LiterateStylish said:

 

That being said the reason is simple. There can be no arguments. XX and XY are chromosomal. It is a fact without anyone defying it at this moment.

What.

Problem.

Are.

You.

Trying.

To.

Address.

[LiterateStylish]

1 minute ago, ICRockets2 said:

What.

Problem.

Are.

You.

Trying.

To.

Address.

Arguments. Debates. Division. Etc. 

XX and XY are chromosomal. It is a fact that has no opposition. It is universally accepted by all parties and peoples and way you lean. If you have a Y chromosome you go to the door with the Y on it. If you don’t, go to the door with the X. It applies to everyone.

[LiterateStylish]

2 minutes ago, ICRockets2 said:

Yes it does.

You’re having trouble with words again.

[ICRockets2]

Just now, LiterateStylish said:

You’re having trouble with words again.

No, if an exclusionary rule EXISTS BECAUSE OF a group of people, that rule is discriminatory.

[ICRockets2]

1 minute ago, LiterateStylish said:

Arguments. Debates. Division. Etc. 

 

Oh if you want to reduce division then we let everyone use the same bathroom.  

[ICRockets2]

6 minutes ago, LiterateStylish said:

A rule existing because of the occurrence of a group does not make it discriminatory on its face.

That being said the reason is simple. There can be no arguments. XX and XY are chromosomal. It is a fact that has no opposition. It is universally accepted by all parties and peoples. If you have a Y chromosome you go to the door with the Y on it. If you don’t, go to the door with the X. It applies to everyone.

You know like 99,9% of people don't know their chromosomes right?

[HipKat]

1 hour ago, ICRockets2 said:

That isn't what they want.  They want the right to be openly trans and left the fuck alone.  

 

Won't happen. Not in this generation. This a conservative majority who morality as an excuse to demonize alternative lifestyles. 
People like this will continue to make Trans people targets and regarded as ouotsiders

[ICRockets2]

1 minute ago, HipKat said:

Won't happen. Not in this generation. This a conservative majority who morality as an excuse to demonize alternative lifestyles. 
People like this will continue to make Trans people targets and regarded as ouotsiders

You're saying this as though you think it's a regrettable truth of the world, but you GLEEFULLY attack trans people every single fucking day.  You are incapable of engaging in good faith.

[LiterateStylish]

22 minutes ago, ICRockets2 said:

You know like 99,9% of people don't know their chromosomes right?

We were not talking about implementation or feasibility. It was a thought experience.

[LiterateStylish]

25 minutes ago, ICRockets2 said:

No, if an exclusionary rule EXISTS BECAUSE OF a group of people, that rule is discriminatory.

Company A has a history of poor hiring and firing practices of employees with asian ethnicity. In order to fix this issue, the company decides to pass a rule that asians are excluded from being fired for the next 2 years.

Is this discriminatory?