How North Carolina Will Respond To Fed's Request For Stay: Re Tranny Lawsuits

[Pop23]

I won't argue whether transgender people exist. They obviously do, and your refusal to accept that is your problem. The only question now, is whether they deserve the same rights as everybody else. Just admit that this is a carryover of your butt hurt from your loss on gay rights, and if you can't stop gays from being married, you at least want to deny rights to part of what you consider to be the same group.

No, there is another question: whether or not their nonexistent "rights" to practice delusions and force others to play along includes the invasion of intimate hygiene retreats behind doors marked 'women' on the outside. Even while we know 1 in 6 of those women have been raped by a man invading their intimate space where they should've had that space respected. WOMEN WILL BE CONSIDERED IN THIS DEBATE. Regardless of your cult's insistence that they not be considered at all.

Can you name even one instance where a transgender person raped anyone in the bathroom?

While cross dressed? Or out of their disquise?

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm saying our laws will allow nothing less than basic rights for everyone, including transgenders. Obviously, it's going to take the courts to prove that to North Carolina politicians.

Does it bother you at all that women who may have been raped (1 in 6) would be in that bathroom with a man walking in behind a door marked "women"? Do you think we should eliminate the words "women" and "men" from the dictionary? After all, if a word completely loses its meaning, what use do we have for it anymore?

This is about transgender people. Your misdirection doesn't change anything.

No....this is about men suffering from delusions (you call them "transgender people") who want to invade the private segregated hygiene retreats denoted by the word WOMEN on the door, of women and girls. THIS IS ALSO ABOUT WOMEN AND GIRLS. You're complete dismissal of their interests in this debate is telling. VERY telling. You want the world to think of men as superior and women as having to just put up with whatever they want to do to them. Women have civil rights too you know. After all, Justice Ginsburg agrees:

In an article in The Washington Post in 1975, Ginsberg wrote to dispel the fear that the Equal Rights Act would “require unisex restrooms in public places.” According to Ginsberg, “Emphatically not so.”

The now-Supreme Court justice continued, “Separate places to disrobe, sleep, perform personal bodily functions are permitted, in some situations required, by regard for individual privacy.” Ginsburg In 1975: Separate Bathrooms Are ‘In Some Situations Required’

So the constitutional rights of women in this regard has already had the pathway paved. Men are men, even if they're wearing a wig and pumps.

I won't argue whether transgender people exist. They obviously do, and your refusal to accept that is your problem. The only question now, is whether they deserve the same rights as everybody else. Just admit that this is a carryover of your butt hurt from your loss on gay rights, and if you can't stop gays from being married, you at least want to deny rights to part of what you consider to be the same group.

The only obvious existence is cross dressers. Then it is simply how obsessed the cross dresser is.

Some take the fetish to the extreme, and it is those that the government has a duty to seek mental health for. No other Duty is the government required to give.

Unfortunately for you, the experts in psychology and psychiatry disagree with you. I know you right wingers don't believe in things like education, or experts in any particular field, but you'll just have to get used to it.

 

[BULLDOG]

I won't argue whether transgender people exist. They obviously do, and your refusal to accept that is your problem. The only question now, is whether they deserve the same rights as everybody else. Just admit that this is a carryover of your butt hurt from your loss on gay rights, and if you can't stop gays from being married, you at least want to deny rights to part of what you consider to be the same group.

No, there is another question: whether or not their nonexistent "rights" to practice delusions and force others to play along includes the invasion of intimate hygiene retreats behind doors marked 'women' on the outside. Even while we know 1 in 6 of those women have been raped by a man invading their intimate space where they should've had that space respected. WOMEN WILL BE CONSIDERED IN THIS DEBATE. Regardless of your cult's insistence that they not be considered at all.

Can you name even one instance where a transgender person raped anyone in the bathroom?

While cross dressed? Or out of their disquise?

Silly attempt at dodging the question, but not really an answer.

 

[Pop23]

I'm saying our laws will allow nothing less than basic rights for everyone, including transgenders. Obviously, it's going to take the courts to prove that to North Carolina politicians.

Does it bother you at all that women who may have been raped (1 in 6) would be in that bathroom with a man walking in behind a door marked "women"? Do you think we should eliminate the words "women" and "men" from the dictionary? After all, if a word completely loses its meaning, what use do we have for it anymore?

This is about transgender people. Your misdirection doesn't change anything.

No....this is about men suffering from delusions (you call them "transgender people") who want to invade the private segregated hygiene retreats denoted by the word WOMEN on the door, of women and girls. THIS IS ALSO ABOUT WOMEN AND GIRLS. You're complete dismissal of their interests in this debate is telling. VERY telling. You want the world to think of men as superior and women as having to just put up with whatever they want to do to them. Women have civil rights too you know. After all, Justice Ginsburg agrees:

In an article in The Washington Post in 1975, Ginsberg wrote to dispel the fear that the Equal Rights Act would “require unisex restrooms in public places.” According to Ginsberg, “Emphatically not so.”

The now-Supreme Court justice continued, “Separate places to disrobe, sleep, perform personal bodily functions are permitted, in some situations required, by regard for individual privacy.” Ginsburg In 1975: Separate Bathrooms Are ‘In Some Situations Required’

So the constitutional rights of women in this regard has already had the pathway paved. Men are men, even if they're wearing a wig and pumps.

I won't argue whether transgender people exist. They obviously do, and your refusal to accept that is your problem. The only question now, is whether they deserve the same rights as everybody else. Just admit that this is a carryover of your butt hurt from your loss on gay rights, and if you can't stop gays from being married, you at least want to deny rights to part of what you consider to be the same group.

The only obvious existence is cross dressers. Then it is simply how obsessed the cross dresser is.

Some take the fetish to the extreme, and it is those that the government has a duty to seek mental health for. No other Duty is the government required to give.

Unfortunately for you, the experts in psychology and psychiatry disagree with you. I know you right wingers don't believe in things like education, or experts in any particular field, but you'll just have to get used to it.

Once again, the only onbious existence is the cross dressing fetish.

Period

 

[Pop23]

I won't argue whether transgender people exist. They obviously do, and your refusal to accept that is your problem. The only question now, is whether they deserve the same rights as everybody else. Just admit that this is a carryover of your butt hurt from your loss on gay rights, and if you can't stop gays from being married, you at least want to deny rights to part of what you consider to be the same group.

No, there is another question: whether or not their nonexistent "rights" to practice delusions and force others to play along includes the invasion of intimate hygiene retreats behind doors marked 'women' on the outside. Even while we know 1 in 6 of those women have been raped by a man invading their intimate space where they should've had that space respected. WOMEN WILL BE CONSIDERED IN THIS DEBATE. Regardless of your cult's insistence that they not be considered at all.

Can you name even one instance where a transgender person raped anyone in the bathroom?

While cross dressed? Or out of their disquise?

Silly attempt at dodging the question, but not really an answer.

Not silly at all, why would you think that any sillier then:

1. A male putting on a dress

2. A male demanding the right to urinate with females

3. A male thinking that some cosmetic surgery can make them a woman, when it has never happened before, and is impossible in the future.

You want settled science? Look at #3

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm saying our laws will allow nothing less than basic rights for everyone, including transgenders. Obviously, it's going to take the courts to prove that to North Carolina politicians.

Does it bother you at all that women who may have been raped (1 in 6) would be in that bathroom with a man walking in behind a door marked "women"? Do you think we should eliminate the words "women" and "men" from the dictionary? After all, if a word completely loses its meaning, what use do we have for it anymore?

This is about transgender people. Your misdirection doesn't change anything.

No....this is about men suffering from delusions (you call them "transgender people") who want to invade the private segregated hygiene retreats denoted by the word WOMEN on the door, of women and girls. THIS IS ALSO ABOUT WOMEN AND GIRLS. You're complete dismissal of their interests in this debate is telling. VERY telling. You want the world to think of men as superior and women as having to just put up with whatever they want to do to them. Women have civil rights too you know. After all, Justice Ginsburg agrees:

In an article in The Washington Post in 1975, Ginsberg wrote to dispel the fear that the Equal Rights Act would “require unisex restrooms in public places.” According to Ginsberg, “Emphatically not so.”

The now-Supreme Court justice continued, “Separate places to disrobe, sleep, perform personal bodily functions are permitted, in some situations required, by regard for individual privacy.” Ginsburg In 1975: Separate Bathrooms Are ‘In Some Situations Required’

So the constitutional rights of women in this regard has already had the pathway paved. Men are men, even if they're wearing a wig and pumps.

I won't argue whether transgender people exist. They obviously do, and your refusal to accept that is your problem. The only question now, is whether they deserve the same rights as everybody else. Just admit that this is a carryover of your butt hurt from your loss on gay rights, and if you can't stop gays from being married, you at least want to deny rights to part of what you consider to be the same group.

The only obvious existence is cross dressers. Then it is simply how obsessed the cross dresser is.

Some take the fetish to the extreme, and it is those that the government has a duty to seek mental health for. No other Duty is the government required to give.

Unfortunately for you, the experts in psychology and psychiatry disagree with you. I know you right wingers don't believe in things like education, or experts in any particular field, but you'll just have to get used to it.

Once again, the only onbious existence is the cross dressing fetish.

Period

You are free to believe anything you want, but if you ever decide to join the real world, there are lots of people willing to help you adapt to reality.

 

[BULLDOG]

I won't argue whether transgender people exist. They obviously do, and your refusal to accept that is your problem. The only question now, is whether they deserve the same rights as everybody else. Just admit that this is a carryover of your butt hurt from your loss on gay rights, and if you can't stop gays from being married, you at least want to deny rights to part of what you consider to be the same group.

No, there is another question: whether or not their nonexistent "rights" to practice delusions and force others to play along includes the invasion of intimate hygiene retreats behind doors marked 'women' on the outside. Even while we know 1 in 6 of those women have been raped by a man invading their intimate space where they should've had that space respected. WOMEN WILL BE CONSIDERED IN THIS DEBATE. Regardless of your cult's insistence that they not be considered at all.

Can you name even one instance where a transgender person raped anyone in the bathroom?

While cross dressed? Or out of their disquise?

Silly attempt at dodging the question, but not really an answer.

Not silly at all, why would you think that any sillier then:

1. A male putting on a dress

2. A male demanding the right to urinate with females

3. A male thinking that some cosmetic surgery can make them a woman, when it has never happened before, and is impossible in the future.

You want settled science? Look at #3

No, cosmetic surgery alone would never make anyone a woman. There is much more to it than that. Cosmetic surgery only changes the physical appearance to match the gender that the person already possesses. I think that might be the part you can't wrap your little mind around.

 

[Silhouette]

The science is in favor of insanity.

 

[Pop23]

No....this is about men suffering from delusions (you call them "transgender people") who want to invade the private segregated hygiene retreats denoted by the word WOMEN on the door, of women and girls. THIS IS ALSO ABOUT WOMEN AND GIRLS. You're complete dismissal of their interests in this debate is telling. VERY telling. You want the world to think of men as superior and women as having to just put up with whatever they want to do to them. Women have civil rights too you know. After all, Justice Ginsburg agrees:

So the constitutional rights of women in this regard has already had the pathway paved. Men are men, even if they're wearing a wig and pumps.

I won't argue whether transgender people exist. They obviously do, and your refusal to accept that is your problem. The only question now, is whether they deserve the same rights as everybody else. Just admit that this is a carryover of your butt hurt from your loss on gay rights, and if you can't stop gays from being married, you at least want to deny rights to part of what you consider to be the same group.

The only obvious existence is cross dressers. Then it is simply how obsessed the cross dresser is.

Some take the fetish to the extreme, and it is those that the government has a duty to seek mental health for. No other Duty is the government required to give.

Unfortunately for you, the experts in psychology and psychiatry disagree with you. I know you right wingers don't believe in things like education, or experts in any particular field, but you'll just have to get used to it.

Once again, the only onbious existence is the cross dressing fetish.

Period

You are free to believe anything you want, but if you ever decide to join the real world, there are lots of people willing to help you adapt to reality.

There is settled science on this issue.

That being that no amount of cosmetic surgery has ever, or will ever turn a Male into a female.

Cry long and hard all you want, but even peeing in a woman's restroom does not change what IS REALITY.

 

[Pop23]

No, there is another question: whether or not their nonexistent "rights" to practice delusions and force others to play along includes the invasion of intimate hygiene retreats behind doors marked 'women' on the outside. Even while we know 1 in 6 of those women have been raped by a man invading their intimate space where they should've had that space respected. WOMEN WILL BE CONSIDERED IN THIS DEBATE. Regardless of your cult's insistence that they not be considered at all.

Can you name even one instance where a transgender person raped anyone in the bathroom?

While cross dressed? Or out of their disquise?

Silly attempt at dodging the question, but not really an answer.

Not silly at all, why would you think that any sillier then:

1. A male putting on a dress

2. A male demanding the right to urinate with females

3. A male thinking that some cosmetic surgery can make them a woman, when it has never happened before, and is impossible in the future.

You want settled science? Look at #3

No, cosmetic surgery alone would never make anyone a woman. There is much more to it than that. Cosmetic surgery only changes the physical appearance to match the gender that the person already possesses. I think that might be the part you can't wrap your little mind around.

So they only superficially want to be women.

Good to know. So as they pretend to be female, it's no big deal to pretend that the Men's room is actually the Woman's restroom.

Ok, case closed.

The government has no duty to provide pretend facilities for anyone.

 

[Silhouette]

Unfortunately for you, the experts in psychology and psychiatry disagree with you. I know you right wingers don't believe in things like education, or experts in any particular field, but you'll just have to get used to it.

Which ones? The "experts" at the American Psychological Association which was taken over by gay activists in the 1970s &80s; where they "disappeared" the ruling scientific principle?



Or the experts at Johns Hopkins? JHMN: Sexual Healing
***********
Controversy over sex-change surgery at Hopkins raged, both in the media and inside the institution. “This was taking place at a very conservative place and in a highly charged atmosphere,” Schmidt recalls. “It’s pretty rough surgery; some people consider it mutilating. And, of course, the scientific side of it is pretty damn weak.”

Finally, in 1979, the unit’s then-director, Meyer, published a study questioning certain benefits of the surgery that helped convince the Hopkins hierarchy to eliminate its sex reassignment program entirely

 

[BULLDOG]

The science is in favor of insanity.

So you site crap from more than 35 years ago to support your claim. Good for you.

 

[Silhouette]

The science is in favor of insanity.

So you site crap from more than 35 years ago to support your claim. Good for you.

The word is "cite". Anyway, the article from Johns Hopkins Journal was from Winter 1999 and the interview with the emeritus president of the APA in the youtube video was done April 2013. Nice try though.

 

[BULLDOG]

Can you name even one instance where a transgender person raped anyone in the bathroom?

While cross dressed? Or out of their disquise?

Silly attempt at dodging the question, but not really an answer.

Not silly at all, why would you think that any sillier then:

1. A male putting on a dress

2. A male demanding the right to urinate with females

3. A male thinking that some cosmetic surgery can make them a woman, when it has never happened before, and is impossible in the future.

You want settled science? Look at #3

No, cosmetic surgery alone would never make anyone a woman. There is much more to it than that. Cosmetic surgery only changes the physical appearance to match the gender that the person already possesses. I think that might be the part you can't wrap your little mind around.

So they only superficially want to be women.

Good to know. So as they pretend to be female, it's no big deal to pretend that the Men's room is actually the Woman's restroom.

Ok, case closed.

The government has no duty to provide pretend facilities for anyone.

Not surprising that you would try to twist what I said to try to match your contention. I never said they only superficially wanted to become women. If you don't want an honest discussion then screw you.

 

[Pop23]

The science is in favor of insanity.

So you site crap from more than 35 years ago to support your claim. Good for you.

The word is "cite". Anyway, the article from Johns Hopkins Journal was from Winter 1999 and the interview with the emeritus president of the APA in the youtube video was done April 2013. Nice try though.

But he will claim his is settled science and could no possibly be undone in ten years!

We must be at the peak of science as of today!

Might as well just fire all scientists then. They are no longer needed?

 

[Pop23]

While cross dressed? Or out of their disquise?

Silly attempt at dodging the question, but not really an answer.

Not silly at all, why would you think that any sillier then:

1. A male putting on a dress

2. A male demanding the right to urinate with females

3. A male thinking that some cosmetic surgery can make them a woman, when it has never happened before, and is impossible in the future.

You want settled science? Look at #3

No, cosmetic surgery alone would never make anyone a woman. There is much more to it than that. Cosmetic surgery only changes the physical appearance to match the gender that the person already possesses. I think that might be the part you can't wrap your little mind around.

So they only superficially want to be women.

Good to know. So as they pretend to be female, it's no big deal to pretend that the Men's room is actually the Woman's restroom.

Ok, case closed.

The government has no duty to provide pretend facilities for anyone.

Not surprising that you would try to twist what I said to try to match your contention. I never said they only superficially wanted to become women. If you don't want an honest discussion then screw you.

No, but they can't possibly achieve what they claim they want.

So they are far better dealing with reality then attempting to fool themselves.

 

[BULLDOG]

The science is in favor of insanity.

So you site crap from more than 35 years ago to support your claim. Good for you.

The word is "cite". Anyway, the article from Johns Hopkins Journal was from Winter 1999 and the interview with the emeritus president of the APA in the youtube video was done April 2013. Nice try though.

Thank you for noting my typo. Yes the interview was 2013, but it was with a man who hasn't been part of the APA for more than 35 years. I get it. You don't like science, at least not current science.

 

[Silhouette]

Thank you for noting my typo. Yes the interview was 2013, but it was with a man who hasn't been part of the APA for more than 35 years. I get it. You don't like science, at least not current science.

Who else would you interview about what took place at the APA other than the president while it was happening? Don't go into writing history books if you don't want to get close to the source and action at the time and place in question. In a court of law, he would be the gold standard for an eyewitness.

Fail. Next.

 

[BULLDOG]

Thank you for noting my typo. Yes the interview was 2013, but it was with a man who hasn't been part of the APA for more than 35 years. I get it. You don't like science, at least not current science.

Who else would you interview about what took place at the APA other than the president while it was happening? Don't go into writing history books if you don't want to get close to the source and action at the time and place in question. In a court of law, he would be the gold standard for an eyewitness.

Fail. Next.

OK, so how does that show the reality now?

 

[Silhouette]

OK, so how does that show the reality now?

The same way the discussion of how the model T lead up to the Toyota Tundra. It's much much worse now, more fine tuned and like a machine: the control the Church of LGBT exerts over the erstwhile-scientific entity.