LGBTQ Stuff (split from other political threads)

[Quirky]

This trans, bathroom and men in womens sports discussion really belongs in the LPC/Trudeau thread, because up until their reign into power, this wasn't even up for discussion in a wide enough scope. This country, culturally, economically and socially has been circling the drain since 2015, that's the real problem. Canada needs a political and social enima.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Ok - so since some homosexual women may also be predatory against other women, should they be banned from women’s washrooms? If so, where do they go if not the men’s ones?

How the hell did you extrapolate that from my comment that priests prey on both sexes of children. That comment wasn't even tied to washrooms. It was tied to the sexual deviance of some clergy.

 

[brihard]

Your priest comment is a stereotype. They don't just prey on choirboys. They don't discriminate based on sex.

I have used single use female bathrooms at gas stations, etc, when the men's was occupied. I wouldn't use a female washroom at a highway service centre. I would not want to make anyone uncomfortable.

Other than that, being male, the world is my urinal.

Not sure if you have different research at hand, but a pretty widespread analysis of Catholic clergy sexual abuse victims in 2008 found 81% of victims were male. I suspect not a great deal has changed in 15 years to radically alter those stats given that many clergy sex abuse reports are historical.

Loading...

www.researchgate.net

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Can a mod split all this non election discussion please. There has to be a couple of threads this can get tagged to without loss of continuity. I'm positive we've been on this merry go round before

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Not sure if you have different research at hand, but a pretty widespread analysis of Catholic clergy sexual abuse victims in 2008 found 81% of victims were male. I suspect not a great deal has changed in 15 years to radically alter those stats given that many clergy sex abuse reports are historical.

Loading...

www.researchgate.net

Did I say they had a preference? All I said was they don't discriminate. Could be a boy, could be a girl. I got my daughter away from one just in time. Mere weeks before he made his move. I didn't ask him why he was an outlier and picked little girls, when all his buds picked boys. I wasn't making odds or taking notes. Why the fuck are you always picking a fight. Fuck it. It's all bullshit anyway, milnet will hold this discussion over and over without anything changing. Same people same arguments, same resolutions

 

[Brad Sallows]

Can a mod split all this non election discussion please. There has to be a couple of threads this can get tagged to without loss of continuity. I'm positive we've been on this merry go round before

We can't just dump "see what the CPC leadership did!" articles into the thread and not expect the issue to be discussed.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

We can't just dump "see what the CPC leadership did!" articles into the thread and not expect the issue to be discussed.

Nor do we have to let it go on for pages and make the main discussion immaterial. Especially if we've done it before, more than once, in various formats. This has already grown its own head. We moved from "see what the CPC leadership did" quite a ways back. This isn't even the same subject.

 

[brihard]

Did I say they had a preference? All I said was they don't discriminate. Could be a boy, could be a girl. I got my daughter away from one just in time. Mere weeks before he made his move. I didn't ask him why he was an outlier and picked little girls, when all his buds picked boys. I wasn't making odds or taking notes. Why the fuck are you always picking a fight. Fuck it. It's all bullshit anyway, milnet will hold this discussion over and over without anything changing. Same people same arguments, same resolutions

I’m not picking a fight. You said something that didn’t jive with what I’ve seen elsewhere so I asked in case you knew something I didn’t.

I’m sorry your daughter (and you) went through that and I’m glad you got her out in time.

 

[Remius]

Nor do we have to let it go on for pages and make the main discussion immaterial.

Was the main discussion not about transgender use of washrooms and sports in the context of PP’s declaration?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Was the main discussion not about transgender use of washrooms and sports in the context of PP’s declaration?

OK, go ahead and carry on then.

 

[Quirky]

How long until we get biological men trying to play for a team in the PWHL? Will they allow it or will the trans community cry foul again.

I don't think anything stops women from playing in the NHL, but it's just really difficult. Other than a women goalie playing for Tampa I think, in a pre-season game years ago.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I’m not picking a fight. You said something that didn’t jive with what I’ve seen elsewhere so I asked in case you knew something I didn’t.

I’m sorry your daughter (and you) went through that and I’m glad you got her out in time.

I said they prey on both boys and girls. I said nothing about frequency or percentages. They prey on boys and girls, it wasn't weighted to frequency or percentages. They prey on both boys and girls. What is it about that, that didn't jive with what you seen elswhere? Have you seen something contrary to they prey on boys and girls. Do they not prey on girls also? I said nothing that was contrary to what you've seen.

"Your priest comment is a stereotype. - the stereotype that it's always boys, typically attached to the church in some way.

They don't just prey on choirboys. - meaning there are others males besides choirboys, and girls also

They don't discriminate based on sex." - boys and girls are both victims. Nothing about numbers or frequency. Just a simple, factual comment.

 

[dimsum]

How the hell did you extrapolate that from my comment that priests prey on both sexes of children. That comment wasn't even tied to washrooms. It was tied to the sexual deviance of some clergy.

Sorry - it was @captloadie ’s previous comment I was referring to.

Regardless, it changes nothing. Whether it was PP's position or the CPC's position, the end result is the same. They clearly stated a position on a topic, then went on to state that it was not their business to introduce legislation on the topic.

The only way to be mad about that is to already dislike the CPC, and be looking for a way to rationalize your dislike.

In reality it's likely very smart politics, because it offers a definitive answer to a contentious topic, meaning they can't be ambushed with it during an election campaign. The Twitter mob will spend their energy now to make it a big deal, and by the time the writ drops it will be forgotten. Add to that, the fact that the majority of Canadians seem to agree with the CPC stance, and the silliness of trying to make this a big deal becomes even more obvious.

I’m not mad about it. If JT said those words, I would call him out equally on it.

I’m an equal opportunity caller-outer.

 

[brihard]

Your reply was part of the discussion continuing from @captloadie andnI think others- my reply was in that larger context, which in the post you had replied to included (disproportionate) clerical predation on young boys. You’re right that boys are not exclusively victims, it’s just enough of a disproportionate thing to be noteworthy, and it’s fair to mention if we’re having a larger discussion about protecting kids from sexual predators.

I’m sorry if I didn’t make it clear that my reply was more ‘at large’ and not solely to your words. That’s on me.

 

[Kirkhill]

If Kanada had a Freikorperkultur then a lot of these discussions would go away.

But we don't.

We have a different culture.

Reshaping a culture requires a lot of friction. Some of us don't like the friction.

 

[Remius]

To what fear do you refer? If you mean fear that women are going to be abused by men, that has already happened, repeatedly. There's nothing irrational about it.

Don’t play coy. The issue is about transgendered people using washrooms and the backlash about it and the whole issue of transgenderism writ large in the public discourse. If a man wants to abuse a woman in a public washroom, no amount of legislation on transgender rights is going to change that.

 

[TacticalTea]

Don’t play coy. The issue is about transgendered people using washrooms and the backlash about it and the whole issue of transgenderism writ large in the public discourse. If a man wants to abuse a woman in a public washroom, no amount of legislation on transgender rights is going to change that.

The logical conclusion of that being that there should not be laws ever anyway.

"Welp, bad guys gonna bad guy, so let's not do anything"

Which is obviously ridiculous.

Everyone understands that letting males enter female spaces means females will be less safe and some deplorable individuals will exploit this weakness in our society to inflict violence upon them.

Not rocket science.

Somehow, liberals understand this when it comes to guns, but not when it comes to the safety of their wives and daughters. In that case, they prefer to let rapists go with lighter sentences and facilitate their criminal behaviour.

Puzzling. Though it is, also, in alignment with their equivocation with regards to the violence perpetrated by Hamas.

 

[ArmyRick]

See, we have taken the argument away from individuals who identify as trans as a true belief, and continued the fear mongering to protect our wives and daughters from those individuals who are going to use whatever system they can to feed their sickness.

If the PM stood up and said he wanted to ban Catholic Priests from using men's washrooms and changerooms because they will use them to pray on our young boys, we'd be all up in arms about the statement.

Sick fucks are going to cause harm no matter what. Unisex washrooms would actually be safer, as there would be more individuals around to protect all people who use them.

I am just curious. Why do you need a background verification to work with children? Be it school or volunteer groups?

Maybe its a proactive measure to protect the innocent.

Thats why BIOLOGICAL WOMAN only should use the womens bathrooms.

Curious, are you a father?

 

[Kirkhill]

If I'm right about the word choice re: biological vice birth it could be that he's setting himself up to stake ground on both sides of the wedge and reframe the issue ahead of the election. Takes time to convince voters from both wings

The dichotomy is dead simple.

XX
XY

 

[Remius]

The logical conclusion of that being that there should not be laws ever anyway.

"Welp, bad guys gonna bad guy, so let's not do anything"

Which is obviously ridiculous.

The ridiculous thing being that all of a sudden people are worried about women being abused in public washrooms all of a sudden when we speak about transgendered types.

Everyone understands that letting males enter female spaces means females will be less safe and some deplorable individuals will exploit this weakness in our society to inflict violence upon them.

Interesting. So your take is that women are less safe around men?

What would be interesting is to see where women are being sexually assaulted and by who. My guess is being assaulted by transgendered biological men in women’s public bathrooms would be low.

Not rocket science.

I don’t think the backlash is being driven by scientific.

Somehow, liberals understand this when it comes to guns, but not when it comes to the safety of their wives and daughters. In that case, they prefer to let rapists go with lighter sentences and facilitate their criminal behaviour.

Puzzling.

The Liberals are playing their part in this as well.