Inspector

Did you not read the thread? I addressed this. See if you can find it. (you ought to have read my arguments before attacking them) No, I am not. I am using the definition that fits the physical, provable facts - beyond someone's mere say-so that they feel they are not a man and the fact that they are willing to throw on some makeup and a dress. When a man brings his claim out of the realm of feelings and into the realm of physical facts - by actually changing his anatomy - then I am willing to play along and say that "he" is no longer a man. Until then, it is just a game of pretend and I am not obliged to play along and assume that he/she really is a transsexual and not just a pervert who wants to get into the ladies' room. And certainly, he is not right to force anyone else to play along.

Ah, this old saw. I've seen it before, here. There's actually a libertarian source for this claim, which keeps popping up. My answer to it is there as well - in my very first reply, and the anarchist was not able to counter it. He basically conceded my point that a government monopoly on rights-enforcement was not necessarily coercive.

As I said, if the law says that, then the law is wrong. Yes, they are. They are anatomically men. Period. I know that they don't wish to be, but as I said before, the law is here to recognize facts and not wishes. When they are anatomically altered, then they have grounds to declare themselves legally not men. Until then, they are just playing a game of pretend and the rest of the world is not obliged to play along. And it is wrong to force us to do so. My world? Take a look around you man: is isn't my world; it's the real world. The one you see when you look out your window. As I said, I am doing nothing more than explicitly stating what is in fact the existing purpose of womens' restrooms - that men (i.e. people with penises) are not allowed. If I am bonkers paranoid to say that an isolated place where people take their pants off is not somewhere where women want to mingle with strange men then I guess our whole society is, too. And if this leads to some kind of "SEPARATION;" separationatworkseparationatschool etc, then I suppose we would see this everywhere. But guess what? We don't! This crazy bonkers paranoid society in which we live has managed to keep this separation confined to bathrooms, locker rooms, and other places where clothes come off. Gee, why is this? Because maybe there is just a little bit of a difference between a bathroom and a public place where people don't take their pants off. Well then that is their problem and they are obliged to deal with it and not force the rest of us to bend to their wishes. If you bothered to read what I said, you would have noticed this: No, you're entirely missing my point. Allow me to re-emphasize it: So some people will get away with it. Really, what has that got to do with anything?

Well, what is the law right now? Your attempts to, well it isn't really arguing so much as making fun, of my position are basically emotionalism. If you actually examine what I have said, there would be no crazy totalitarian laws. As I said, any private bathroom owner can choose to have a different policy and simply label his bathrooms accordingly. And making fun of the idea of keeping men out of the ladies' room is a little silly if you think about it. The only thing I'm doing is making explicit what is in fact the exclusive purpose of even having a womens' restrooms at all. If I am not just wrong but completely bonkers insane as you claim, then so is our entire society because that's how we've made our restrooms. You people can stick your heads in the sand and say there are no differences between men and women at all. You can smear me with the brush of feminism because I think that women would have a legitimate privacy and safety concern to want to be separated from men in bathrooms. That somehow this means I am calling all men rapists if I say that statistically speaking, women are not rapists and so you can't just say that it is silly to separate them because it's equally likely for a woman to be a rapist. (which is just plain ridiculous - that simply isn't a reality) And as a final absurdity, you're saying that I'm claiming that everyone with a penis is a likely pervert. Which is not true - I'm claiming everyone who has a penis and who has an itching desire to take it into the womens' restroom is a likely pervert. And such people would be indistinguishable from honest transsexuals, so it is kind of a problem and the best policy is to just continue to consider transsexuals to be men so long as they physically remain, in fact, men. Why not repeal the law (it is even a law?) that makes them wait a year for the surgery if you're so concerned? Wouldn't that be a much more workable solution than forcing women to consider anyone who dresses as a woman to be a woman (at the expense of their safety)?

If he were going into the mens' restroom, then I'd agree with you. If there's a men's bathroom not 5 feet away, then why is it reasonable to assume that he would commit a crime in order to accomplish his innocent goal when there is a perfectly crime-free means available to him? Given these facts, I'd say that going to the bathroom would be the last thing I would guess he was up to. He'd have to be really, painfully stupid for that to be the explanation. Well, call me Dirty Harry then. I suppose we simply disagree on what is a reasonable assumption in this case. For me, it is pretty obvious that a man walking into the womens' restrooms (without some obviously explanation like an "out of order" sign on the womens' or a cane and sunglasses) is up to no good. To you, not so much. Oh, haha, I considered it. Describing how you could see he was barefoot and had no visible pants poking out from the coat, and having his hands in his pocket, and then asking what if that same man were wearing lipstick. But I figured you would get the idea with just the coat, and I see I was right. Where did I say you had to arrest him for rape? What is the status of the law right now? What is the crime/charge presently? I'm being honest when I say I really did not think that you really were saying what you are saying. But I won't ask you to repeat yourself again.

The attempted initiation of force is to voyeuristically violate their privacy or to rape them. I would have thought that would have been obvious. I already outlined a position on the permissibility of privately owned restrooms that are clearly marked as exceptional. I don't think it's particularly weak. Tell me, if you saw a man in a trench coat walk into a public womens' restroom on your beat, what would you do? If my assumption's so weak, then perhaps you are saying the proper assumption is that there is no reason at all to think he is up to no good and you will continue merrily on your way. Hopefully you'll still be within earshot when the screams start. Or perhaps it would also be a weak assumption at that point to think something is amiss. I really don't know quite what you mean to say here. A perfectly valid question: if by individuals you mean the actual women. Why should their happiness and safety be sacrificed to people who are trying to force the rest of the world to defy the facts in service of their wishes. And the original poster's faulty definition is not a part of the reasoning there.

There can be excuses based on context, of course, but I don't know what you're asking for here. It is not sensible to wait before the cudgel has physically connected with your skull before reacting. A man in the womens' room is up to no good. This is a perfectly fair assumption.

Certainly if a bathroom is privately owned and there is an explicit and clear statement to the effect that both men and women are allowed in at the same time, then the law should allow this. But otherwise, the expectation is that a bathroom labeled "women" is for women only and I do believe the law should be able to prosecute for more than just tresspassing if a man enters. And of course, as has been pointed out, until all bathrooms are privately owned, we very much do have to deal with the problem of many of them being public.

You're missing the point. The purpose of a Womens' restroom is that women rationally desire separation and privacy from men when in an exposed and partially undressed state. And despite their wishes to the contrary, transsexuals are - anatomically - MEN. PERIOD. It's all well and good that transsexuals say that they aren't men - but don't you see what letting them go into womens' restrooms means? It means that any man can just throw a dress on and waltz into the womens' restroom to engage in his perversions unhindered by law. If somebody claims to be "trapped in a woman's body," then really all we have to go on is their say-so. That's not good enough to risk womens' safety - or privacy. Until they actually get the operation and make good on their claims, they're just going to have to deal with it. Which is not an unreasonable thing to ask of them because FACTS (their anatomy) are superior to WISHES (their claim of "orientation"). That is patently untrue. Sitting in the same room with your pants off in an isolated place away from the public is worlds different in terms of safety and privacy from sitting fully clothed in public. You can pooh-pooh it all you like, but having a designated zone where if a man is caught entering he can be assumed to be up to no good and prosecuted by law is a valid safety measure. And as I said, it is not strictly safety but also privacy at stake. First, I have already addressed this point: while there are plenty of awful things that women can do to other women, protecting from these things is not the explicitly stated purpose of a womens' bathroom. Keeping penises out is. Furthermore, you would do well to investigate how many women are rapists versus how many men. (exclude the school-teachers with underage shenanigans) By your argument, you can't just say that women lack the equipment, as dildos are inexpensive and easy to acquire. So where are all these women rapists you are talking about? To say that a woman can have ill intent may be technically possible, but it just isn't in line with how things work out there in the real world. If a person is legally female but anatomically male then the law is wrong. A person is male so long as they are anatomically male, and wishing won't make it otherwise.

You called my position "nonsense." That is not disagreement - it is abuse. Since you have not apologized, I will not engage with you on this. I will only say that it is in fact your position that is nonsense. I can't believe that you would spout such ridiculous nonsense.

LISTEN. You've just called my position "nonsense" so I think it's way overgenerous for me to even respond to you. In fact I won't. Not until you apologize. I don't have to put up with abuse for daring to offer some truth around here.

No, that's not true of every single woman who uses the rest room, unless women suddenly acquired penises while I wasn't looking. Are you suggesting that a woman, who lacks a penis mind you, can rape -properly speaking rape - another woman? To be sure, there are plenty of unpleasant things that people can do to each other in any circumstance anywhere. Nobody is claiming that restrooms can be made perfectly safe. But womens' restrooms aren't labeled "non-muggers." Or "non-attackers." They're labeled women. The expectation is that there will only be actual women in there. The entire point of a womens' restroom is that nobody with a penis is allowed inside. What transsexuals are demanding is that everyone else must ignore the physical fact that they do have penises and allow them in anyway - because their feelings and wishes trump the physical facts. No - one breach does not excuse another. If there are specific criminals who threaten or attack a transvestite, then what that does mean is that those criminals ought to be prosecuted. It does not mean that transvestites get to force innocent people to pretend that the physical facts are other than what they are. No, the same could not be said. Forcing someone to go to a place is not the same thing as forbidding someone from going to a place.

I disagree. What's uncivil is to allow people with penises into the womens' restroom - on nothing more than their say-so that they aren't interested in using them for ill. As for getting beaten up if they go to the mens' room - that's really a separate problem. As for the "demand" that they risk life and limb - nobody's demanding that they dress as a gender that they physically are not and then attempt to use the public restrooms of said gender. Nobody is forcing them to put themselves in that situation.

Perhaps some clarity would help here: The purpose of having a men's and women's restroom is to keep the people with penises away from unwilling womenfolk while they have their pants off. I honestly don't care how gender-confused individuals live their lives or what they think they are - it's their life and so forth. But if you have a penis, you must stay away from the place where women take off their pants; at least until you get the thing removed. This trumps anyone's fragile little psyche.

That's better. I'm inclined to say that if one has a functional penis, one must go in the men's room. If it's vestigial, then I suppose it would be up to them.

I know all that. But let me re-emphasize this again: So long as they still have a penis, it's just a game of pretend. And the rest of the world isn't obliged to play along.

I thought we were discussing Barland, not Iran? And Barland was an analogue for Mogadishu. You're mixing up your metaphors here. Are you suggesting that Al Qaeda so far has the capability to further threaten a larger percentage of the American population? As in, a significant percentage that would, on the strictly pragmatic basis that you are operating on, justify our expenditure of blood and treasure in Afghanistan? Wait, are you talking about Barland or Iran or Mogadishu? Because you seem to be opposed to upholding the principle in any of those cases, and right there you just admitted that Bin Laden has cited America failing to uphold that principle in Mogadishu as direct cause for his attacks on us. And if you're talking about Iran, they are right now attacking us in Iraq, so there's no point in citing the "30 years gone" thing. And besides, Softwarenerd is precisely correct here: you have to start somewhere. Past cowardice can't forever dictate our policy. At some point, we have to grow a spine, give notice of that fact, and then act on it.

I heard about this a while back. I would have thought this would have been obvious in a place like this, but... Boys have a penis and girls have a vagina. I don't care what someone's pretending to be for a while before their surgery. Reality trumps feelings - and this includes the hurt feelings of transsexuals who really, really want to believe that they are anatomically different than what they actually are. Sorry. So long as they still have a penis, it's just a game of pretend. And the rest of the world isn't obliged to play along.

No; you've missed it again. Allow me to re-create it, with the parts in bold being what I've altered. Alice: What is the purpose of the U.S. military? Bob: To protect U.S. citizens from foreign threats. Alice: What if they try to bring aid to starving Foolanders? Bob: They are contradicting their purpose. Alice: What if they are attacked by Barlanders in the process? Bob: Bomb Barland. Alice: But Barland isn't a foreign threat to U.S. citizens. They only attack our military while we're in Fooland, which we shouldn't be in anyway! Bob: Ah, but they are a foreign threat to U.S. citizens, because military servicemen are U.S. citizens, too! Alice: Okay, but how are they a threat to the 99.999% of the U.S. population that isn't part of the specific military unit feeding starving Foolanders? Bob: The principle that nobody gets away with killing American citizens is at stake. You have to think in principle and not pragmatically. Alice: So you're going to initiate a war on Barland, potentially spending billions of dollars and killing hundreds of thousands of combatants and civilians, when they aren't even a threat to the vast majority of Americans? Bob: No. We won't have initiaiated the war - the Barlanders will have initiated it. And bombs are cheap, especially if you aren't going out of your way to avoid casualties. And again - to say they "aren't a threat" is to subscribe to philosophic pragmatism and to believe that letting murderers get away with murder will not embolden our enemies, allowing them to grow into a threat to more than .0001% of the population years down the road. Let's look at your logic here - we should consider our military response based on what percentage of Americans are threatened? What percentage of Americans died in 9/11? Or even Pearl Harbor for that matter? Don't you see where pragmatism gets you?

I'm still waiting for someone to crack a 300 joke.

"Democracy" does not grant the right to govern, nor is it a justification for anything, much less the violation of rights.

Careful, David, your quote form makes it look like Diana said that, whereas it was an article she was quoting. While I think that evolution does not challenge faith, as such, since they can always backpedal into saying that their imaginary friend in fact was responsible for evolution, it does destroy the biblical literalist idea that the earth was created 4000 (or whatever) years ago.

Because the Iranian regime responsible for the '79 and '83 offenses is still in power and they still, to this day, continue to attack us. The Somali warlord and the mobs of people who attacked our soldiers are likely dead or gone and they don't posses the capability to threaten us any more. Supposing that we had some reasonable intel that had the location of the warlord or some of those responsible for the attacks, I would have no objection to dropping a few bombs on them from high altitude. Iran is a center of Islamic terrorism. It is not necessary that they be the center - there can be other centers, which can be next on our target list if necessary. Nobody here is saying we should stop at Iran or that Saudi Arabia shouldn't be the next focus of our attention. AGAIN, you seem to conflate the fact of it being a bad idea to be in a place with an aggressor's moral right to get away with murdering our citizens. It does not matter if it is a bad idea to be in a place. If someone murders our citizens, it is a failure of national defense to let them get away with it. Not the least of which because it encourages and emboldens our enemies. You do not seem to have grasped what I was saying. I said that there was no reason why Korea needed to be a great sacrifices of our citizens' lives and our military budget. We could have fought it properly at minimal cost if Truman hadn't harbored an irrational fear of "escalation." There would have been no need to nuke the Soviets because if we had simply stared them down, they would have blinked. They did not present a credible nuclear threat until decades later. Our leaders knew this, but were altruistically concerned with there being a big war - even if they knew we would win it and not at great cost. In light of this, if the Korean war had been fought properly, I doubt Vietnam would have even happened at all.

It really is not a crucial point. I am not arguing the specifics of whether it was in our national interests to defend property rights in Iran. I am saying that whether or not it was in our interests, Iran had no right to "retaliate" against it and it is proper for us to respond to their attacks against us.

Precisely, fletch. It is a dangerous anthropomorphization to attribute an advanced, conceptual trait like trade to a simplistic, perceptual entity like a dog. You might be seeking a value in return for a value from a dog, but the dog knows absolutely nothing about all of that. It is simply a perceptual being, following its automatic instincts.