I thought this was another clone thread. Then I remembered that the names were changed... Thread title as well.

Does bacefook have anything comparable to being sent to Coventry so you can continue draining energy from undesirables and make the world a better place for others? Anyone? Anyone?

I welcome your contempt.

I don't expect to change the opinions of trans-phobic bigots, but I will point out any logical fallacies in the trite, disingenuous memes they post. Unless of course, they block me from being able to comment on their posts, like F**d S***d the cowardly bigot did, and then lied about not doing. Unfriending me is what F**d should have done in the first place--although I will point out that I never felt the need to unfriend F**d. You see, like I keep saying, I think that a free, unfettered exchange of ideas--especially when people disagree--is really a great thing.

I haven't been on FB for that long, but I'm noticing that people can use the settings to curate a false little world where nobody ever disagrees with them. I'm now aware that having a fairly Moderated site is quite a luxury.

Limey is still F*** Sch*** in post 8.

Since I'm now living in the Pacific NW, I'm a little unclear on the geographical boundaries of the strict use of the term barbecue. Technically, this was not a BBQ, we grilled. It was excellent, and the weather was beautiful. Good times. Also, there were two trans people there and nobody got raped in the bathroom, whether or not F**d believes this is possible.

See post number two of this thread.

In real life, when people come up to you and say things you figure are wrong, do you say:

"You're an asshole, but you're also wrong. Since I'm smarter than you, let me explain why you're wrong."

If you said that to anyone. ANYONE. In "real life". What would you expect to have happen?

If someone said that to YOU. What would you do? What if it was a stranger? What if it was an acquaintance? What if it was a friend?

The Cellar was DESIGNED to be the discussion you wanted. That was my original intent; free range discussion. For years it worked that way. It has now stopped being that, because as social media bloomed, people found they could go elsewhere and curate their false little world where nobody ever disagrees with them.

All political people have now left the Cellar because they got pushback and found it uncomfortable. It happened from the right. It happened from the left.

This is where we are today. And now, as what I find to be a final insult, you have used the Cellar, not to HAVE that discussion, but to yell at other people for not having that discussion ELSEWHERE.

I had figured this, and it was part of my outrage. You can put me off if you're at a BBQ. If it's dogs on a Weber, you can go to the bathroom and answer the post on your phone. Or just do it while sitting there, with your horribly overcooked burger and slice of processed cheese product.

~ ETA Were many political and social positions and types represented at this event? Bubbles aren't just for social media. You moved into one. On purpose. ~


The Cellar was co-founded by a trans person. (In a cellar.)

Dang, you seem pretty pissed, dude. I'm sorry that it feels like I am part of a trend that (rightly) upsets you. Honestly I'm pretty new to FB, and most of the time I've been away from the Cellar I wasn't posting anywhere. I've made a conscious effort to post more on FB the last few years, to keep up with family back home. I don't think I've ever posted anything political on FB until this current primary season. That's all this is.

Tap tap tap... Is this thing on??

O the irony, UT must have put me on Ignore.

You want to know where I was that night? I was at a dear friend's house celebrating the anniversary of moving back in after a house fire. We were sitting outside enjoying the beautiful sunshine after a long rainy season, grilling some gourmet-ƒucking-quality food and having real-life conversations, actually in person, when you FB messaged to harass me about this thread, which I fully intended to get back to on Monday when I was at a proper keyboard, which I did. Jesus.

You may know the semantic difference between BBQ and grilling

But now, to fully comprehend my post, and understand its mild humor, you will need to have BBQ.

shitty tough meat BBQd > gourmet food grilled

Growing up is hard to do

But being awesome never gets old. Bring it on, low-key haters.

BBQ vs grilling

Here is the Judge John Hodgman podcast on the topic. Enjoy and laugh while learning.

I don't like learning new things. My father and my father's father had a meaning for barbecue which is eternally going to be the correct one, regardless of any new experiences or information that tries to burrow its way into my thick, impenetrable skull. I will put my fingers in my ears and go, "La La La" if necessary.

Is this you being awesome then? Cuz it doesn't seem very awesome.

I don't like politics for just this reason. It turns people I like into cocksuckers. don't turn into a cocksucker, Flint. I want to still like you.

Oh, it's nothing to do with politics. I don't like bigots.

Bigots who hide behind politics or religion deserve to be publicly shamed. It's the right thing to do. We, as a people, need to call that behavior out and say, "Not OK." I think that's very awesome. Being on the right side of history is probably the most awesome thing we can do in our short lifetime.

Oh, it seemed like your angst was derived from what you thought he did with respect to blocking posts or something

That too. Don't like chickenshits either.

Why are you acting like you don't remember that I was always like this?

I guess I it's been too long. Why don't you stick around more. This kind of shit generates more involvement from the lookie lous too

Thank you I******* M***** for remembering that my post #9 made no sense with post #8 left like that. :D

Being on the right side of history is just picking the winning side, because the winners write history without regard for truth. The winners and losers will pass on to their decedents that they were in the right, making a permanent division on that topic. That's why there are still people claiming the masters and slaves were bros, who hung out on the veranda together after work. There are probably a few people who believe we shouldn't have gotten into either world war.. but probably most of them are German though.

Fred messaged me he isn't going to even lurk anymore so thanks for that, flint. But it's kind of unfair because he was already pretty inactive for some time.

And, this is how it works now.

You did a greeeeat job of bursting the bubble and figuring out how to have a productive political dialogue

Produce more converts by insulting the fuck out of them, nice movement you got going

Ask anyone in China. Tank man at Tienanmen Square never happened.

That's the definition of closed minded.

Too bad he's not around anymore to explain this.

I get the two wrongs don't make a right, but this sounds really close to the selective support for rules that I've been hearing from Drumph.

Not OK for you to do the EXACT SAME thing as I did to you... :facepalm:

Not really the same impact as "I was wrong to do that, I'm sorry."

i bid a farewell, for now, never say never, with this and I will not go into anymore detail than what I am about to say.

to the above quote, close minded? not in this case. Through personal experience that has happened to me in my younger years I will not ever be tolerant of the opposite sex in any bathroom. this is an example of one person ruining the party for everyone, so to speak. If it keeps even just one child from having to go through the experience of during and after said situation, by all means i'm for it. case closed for me.

good day.

When someone has a position they want to broadcast through meme after meme, day after day, they damn well better be able to defend that position in their own words. Meme propaganda invites an equally snarky response. That’s not how you start a discussion. If, the first time they encounter pushback, their response is to block people from engaging with them, then they clearly don’t want a discussion.

I don't know, but I'm suspicious that most of the people passing along memes do it because they find them more funny or clever than they could dream up. It may not be pushing their personal agenda. Granted repeated memes on the same topic looks suspiciously personal, the problem is you never get the reasoning behind that position.

On the bathroom thing I'm undecided. The trans population is awfully small from what I've seen/heard. Is making public restrooms more comfortable for them, worth giving carte blanche to a much larger population of perverts? Those unintended consequences are murder.

Bruce, if I were The Onion, the headline would be "straight, white male perverts used as excuse by straight, white male bigots to discriminate against trans people"

*If the problem were gay male rapists, they could have already done that in the men's room, like discrimination against gay people using straight people's bathrooms claimed they would, but never did.

*If the problem were black male rapists they could have already done that in the men's room, like discrimination against black people using white people's bathrooms claimed they would, but never did.

Using bathroom laws, and rape-scare tactics, to discriminate against minority groups, is not a new thing.

How do you tell if a man is gay or a rapist? How do you tell if a Black man is a rapist and who is he raping in the men's room? Those herrings aren't even pink.

Nobody's saying go shit in the woods, public restrooms are for everyone as they have been... except in the south. However the question remains, is it worth allowing the perverts to double their territory, to make a very small group more comfortable in the rest room? Should anyone be comfortable in a public restroom?
I can see pros and cons, and because it doesn't affect me, I don't have personal bias to sway me. That makes it difficult to decide whether noble or practical is more important.

Personally, my prostate wouldn't wait in line at the ladies room. :haha:

How do you tell if a trans person is using the restroom?

Still waiting for an explanation of the reasoning behind this epic flaw in "thinking things through."

If a person has a dress and a beard it's a pretty good bet. If they pass for a man or woman, then it's not a problem and it doesn't matter what the law is.

So the problem you're characterizing here is that many people think that they do not know any trans folks. It's the same excuse that allowed passive racism to flourish under segregation, "Not knowing any better." The problem is that people do know trans people, they just don't know they know them, nor realize that they'd probably look a hell of a lot more unusual if they were dressed as their birth gender. Why don't people know that they're trans? Because they're hiding in the shadows of society, because they're afraid of getting the shit beat out of them by bigots who hate anyone different than themselves.

Don't put words in my mouth. I said it doesn't affect ME. I will continue to use the same as I always have. Noble or practical is my choice, because of that.

Didn't intend to put words in your mouth, I think we have a misunderstanding. When you said "dress and a beard" I assume you're joking--I assume you understand we're not talking about "cross dressers" as if from a Monty Python sketch. The problem I meant to say your joke (I assumed) referred to is if people really thought that is what we're talking about, because they're unfamiliar with what trans people actually are. Now that I look at it, that's a lot of assumptions, so let's say I made an "ass of me" and I apologize.

I'm like, kinda sorta with you on one hand, and on the other hand look at flint so CUTE with his new toy! But MAN the thing I hate the most is when lefties assume both the moral high ground *and* faux expertise about an issue.

"Trans" now having been painted with this super-broad brush ("people being BULLIED!"), because it fits the notion of anti-trans is just like racism!, now suddenly NOT! WE ARE NOT talking about "cross dressers" as if from a Monty Python sketch.

Wait, why not? "trans" accounts for a very wide description of people, some of whom are exactly like you describe and being bullied, and others who are:

Mike who likes to wear something frilly on Saturday night and is perfectly content with that level of crossover, would not go further;

Liza who has had the surgery and has lived as a woman for 25 years; and now considers herself a woman, not a trans, and is frankly way more concerned about women's issues;

Martine who is a woman, lesbian and doesn't actually think of herself as trans, but looks so masculine that she is regularly considered trans and doesn't mind the label if she can use men's accoutrements;

Jane, bio male who lives as a woman, and black-markets what she thinks are the right steroids from Canada, but intends to never get the surgery. If you tell her she's not passing, ever, at all, she will be VERY angry.

George who is a "cross dresser" as in a Monty Python sketch. Does it for fun. May enjoy it too much, he's not saying.

Jennifer, who first thought she was George, then thought she was Mike, then thought she was Jane, and is now Liza.

(I have known them all.)

Oh, hey yeah there's tons of nuance. It's not a contest, though, the point is that if the source of well-meaning but passively trans-phobic people's issues are lack of familiarity with who we're talking about, by design because society at large feels icky about discussing it, and the minority group themselves are statistically, astronomically more likely to face violence because of openly being who they are, then even my pseudo-progressive, privileged cis-splaining of the issue, ham-handed though it may be, it still better than keeping quiet and passively participating in the false reality of binary genders.

It was an attempt at humor, a trans would surely shave. But my point is if they can pass for male or female, there won't be a problem regardless of the law. It's only if they cause trouble, or make a scene, would the law be brought into it.

Reminds me of the problem of cops pulling someone over and getting hit by a car going by. The driver couldn't be prosecuted for an accident unless they could prove some violation. So many states passed laws that if you see a cop with someone pulled over, you have to get out of that right lane, or if you can't, crawl by. It won't change much but if a cop gets hit they can now charge the driver with that new law.

Now if a trans goes in the ladies room, and on closer inspection, voice, hanging out rather than going in a stall then leaving, and obviously appears male, then all the ladies feel uncomfortable. Now we've traded one person being uncomfortable for several being uncomfortable. That's where noble vs practical comes in my mind.

Bruce, you often bring a perspective to things that feels honestly a little out of left field to me at first, but--usually--I can come around to at least halfway understanding or agreeing with. Sometimes I think you have side points that are barely related to the subject, but that's cool, because I think it's awesome that people come at thing from different angles. In this case, I hear what you're saying, but really, do you really think the intent of these laws isn't just to stir up unnecessary confrontations regarding an issue that wouldn't have been an issue (in exactly the way you're describing it not being an issue!) if they simply hadn't felt the need to pass the goddamned inflammatory law in the first place? Really, the whole thing is epic shit-stirring, and ultimately will result in a national dialogue where we decide, once again, that people who aren't bigots don't like bigots, and won't tolerate regressive laws based on hatred of minority groups.

Oh and props to UT, because "some of his best friends are trans" :stickpoke

When you take into account the cost of the studies and plans and legal crap, it'd probably be a lot cheaper in the long run to have several single stall restrooms with handwashing facilities inside opening into a public area. Or separate restrooms for kids only. Consider this; There are women who lure kids away for the sexual pleasure of men. Myra Hindley. There are juveniles who kill young kids. Jamie Bulger. the world is fucked up. Are the kids not already at the same risk? Parents, look after your kids. If the bathrooms are unigender, you can go in with them. if you're not there and you don't think it's safe ....why aren't you there?

No I don't think it was shit stirring although the political arena being what it is, that's possible.
But if any man goes into the ladies room, what can they do about it other than harass him? What can they charge him with if he doesn't do anything in there. They can't even charge him with trespassing in a public rest room. With this law about natural born gender they have a tool to punish him.

That's just my reasoning on this law, as I don't think it would prevent anything, just give them a tool if someone's a problem. But I'm aware of unintended consequences and seemingly harmless laws passed today, can come back to bite us all tomorrow.

I haven't heard what the lawmakers stated reasons were, some bullshit excuse to cover the real intent? Harass trans people? Garner bigot votes? I'm not privy to their motives.

Are you trolling me?

earlier
ya dumb jagoff. :jagoff:

So ARE we talking about crossdressers, or are we not? Who gets included in the cut, and why?

You lost me. What thing that you are saying I am saying am I supposed to be responding to?

There are lots of possibilities, but for the sake of this thread, who is "Trans" enough to get to go in a women's restroom?

Why don't you tell me what you think my position is.

I'm out.

That was weird. Are we reading different threads?

Anyway that was cool how UT berated me for not having a political discussion in his sandbox, then we were having one, then he awesomely shut it down with his superior perspective, which he totally slammed my dumb, inferior perspective with, which totally isn't the asshole thing he was accusing me of to begin with.

:cool:

I don't troll.
I'm said when I heard this was happening, I didn't hear a reason why from the people doing it, so I had to make up a logical reason and related what it was.

Really no different from all the people who are speculating on the motive, and predicting dire consequences, except they're doing it with gusto.

Hmm, ok. Well thanks for sharing. I'll think on it.

What worries me most about this proposed law is this:

The potential dangers of men going into a female bathroom (which, lets face it is what this is about - I don't think the people passing the law give much of a shit about women going into a men's bathroom) and using the legal right of trans women to use that bathroom as somehow a cover for their nefarious attempts to peep on or attack women seems pretty low to me. I don't have any figures to hand, but I imagine that the number of such incidents would be vanishingly small.

On the other hand, the danger to a transwoman who is in the process of transitioning, or has transitioned and doesn't 'pass' as female to others, of going into a male bathroom whilst dressed and presenting as female seems pretty clear to me. The number of incidents of transwomen having the shit beaten out of them by people who find their gender non-comformity fundamentally and personally threatening, when taken as a percentage of the trans population is frighteningly high.

Legally obliging transwomen to use male bathrooms would, in my opinion, force them to either: run a very dangerous gauntlet in a purely male environment which could well end up with them being assaulted and seriously injured, or not use public restrooms at all.


[eta] to clarify: I think such laws risk replacing a vanishingly small risk of harm to an individual, with a much greater risk of harm to an individual.

I berated you for calling people out here and using their real name, and using OUR community (not MINE; it's owned by J.R. "Bob" Dobbs) as your personal occasional message service, to reach Facebook friends who are not your friends, and for not actually influencing anyone at all or having a discussion at all but having a political tantrum against someone you barely know which is pathetic masturbatory behavior and I know because I've done a shit ton of it.

If you want me to weigh in, have a discussion. I don't think that's actually happening here. I think it would take a lot of discipline which doesn't exist here and which people aren't really interested in. I believe we can learn by interacting with those we disagree with, but when we play games and masturbate there's no *actual* interaction.

Replace "trans" with "black" and "ladies" with "whites only" and it changes the whole tenor.

I'm with Dana. Other than the discomfort people have with non-conformists, the issue is with people (men, apparently, because we're all deviates ;) ) pretending to be trans in order to do something creepy to women. At least that's what I think has caused the legislation.

We had coed bathrooms in college.

It was basically no big deal, except I didn't want to take a dump next to anyone, let alone a woman, so I would go over to a classroom building to take care of that particular business in a bathroom that was always empty. I'd brush my teeth, shower and pee next to women in the bathroom in my dorms though. (No urinals, stalls only.)

It took about a week to get used to when I was a freshman, but after that it was completely unremarkable. We were all about the same age though, and knew one another.