I can’t say I understand this mentality.
2 Likes
The point is that allowing men to use women’s bathrooms and changerooms is adding another risk factor, and it isn’t necessary. There are already all sorts of crazy people in public places (not just transsexuals) and there is nothing you can do about that, it’s more about minimizing the risk.
The easy solution to this is to have 18+ locker rooms and kids locker rooms. There, no little girls interacting with mentally ill men.
Edit: I’ll be waiting nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize, thank you.
1 Like
You may enjoy reading Focault’s “On Madness”
I can’t see how this minimizes the risk: now those mentally ill men are with little boys instead of little girls. The risk is still there: it just moved.
I just can’t see the philosophical consistency in not being ok with one group being at risk but being ok with another purely because that is convention. If there are mentally ill people out there putting children at risk, that seems incredibly concerning.
1 Like
Isn’t that exactly what you are advocating for?
There are and always have been. But what can you do about it, short of giving everyone a psychiatric assessment and institutionalizing those who can potentially be a threat?
I am not advocating for anything: I am just trying to understand the thought process.
My thought process is that there are already enough problems, deal with those first rather than creating new ones.
1 Like
It appears to be the same problem in both cases though: children being forced to share spaces with mentally ill people.
here’s the thing - there are enough people to conjure up “new” problems while other people are dealing/working on old problems.
The issue is there seems to be a perceived bottleneck wrt who is responsible for dealing with these “issues” (real or perceived). A lot of the people who decry problems also seem to pass responsibility to find solution onto other people - they lack the personal agency to “take the bull by the horns” so to speak. They also seem to lack people skills to successfully tackle interpersonal problems … i.e. the tranny issue.
My favorite example of the type of effective interpersonal problem solving that has to deal with “identity” politics is Daryl Davis. If you’re not sure who that is, I suggest you go look it up.
It issue that seems to be the issue, and is being decried as the issue, rarely is the actual issue - it’s a symptom of the root problem or a diversion from the root problem. And most of these problems stem from an inability or unwillingness to actually talk to people respectfully, on both sides.
it sounds like the thing that pwnisher is saying to you isn’t really registering since he already addressed this. I’ll phrase it a different way.
Mentally ill men (specifically trans, since that’s what we are talking about) use public restrooms. They are currently either going to use 1 restroom or the other. Your contention, as you’ve stated, is that these individuals pose a risk for little girls if they share a bathroom with them. They currently share a bathroom with young boys. Pwnisher’s point is that you’re not creating a new problem if they are allowed to use the bathroom of their choice. It’s shifting the population at risk potentially, and that’s it. So the question is, why would you choose to value the young girls’ safety over the young boys? Is it not something of a lateral movement?
2 Likes
What do you propose as a solution?
I will continue this discussion later.
I am still trying to understand the problem.
Mentally ill adults sharing the same vulnerable space as children.
I would imagine that expands beyond just change rooms and bathrooms, correct? Like bus stations, movie theaters, etc?
but
Are you just trying to make me run in circles or do you actually have a point?
You don’t normally take your pats off in a bus station or theater though.
I don’t have a point, no. I’m not trying to make a point; I’m trying to understand the problem. This is why I said “it appears to be” rather than “it is”.
To clarify, the children are only in danger from the mentally ill when they are pantless? I assumed we meant a more general danger that is the risk assumed when one is forced to share a space with the mentally ill.
Idk, pretty easy to do what my president advocated for and grab a woman by her pussy even if she’s wearing pants. There are mentally sick folks everywhere.
Why is everyone suddenly so afraid of men in dresses preying on children? Haven’t priests had that covered for a long time?
Also, a couple things:
What is making everyone associate gender dysphoria with pedophilia? The two are not remotely related. Transsexuals are at risk for a bunch of problems, including suicide, but they’re not linked to deviant behavior, and everyone is just stating the danger of having them around kids like that’s a given.
And further, for everyone using the term ‘mentally ill’, the DSM 5 explicitly says that gender nonconformity is not in and of itself a mental disorder. It’s the stresses that go along with those feelings that can lead to the diagnosis of a disorder.
I don’t want a ‘gender neutral’ bathroom, but worrying about trans people attacking our children is pure hysteria, plain and simple.
2 Likes