ESPN

pumpdog20

pumpdog20

Well-known member
Messages
4,741
Reaction score
3,153
How is telling a male to not use a female only restroom (or vice versa) discriminatory? Some of you folks are so worried about being "inclusive" that you're on the verge of removing all lines. IMO, that's not a good thing.
 
Irish Insanity

Irish Insanity

Well-known member
Messages
9,885
Reaction score
584
As I type I'm standing in a unisex, 1 room/toilet, bathroom monitoring my youngest in his venture to, as he calls it, 'drop a duece.' Seems like this restroom would solve the issue.
 
Ndaccountant

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
Irish Insanity said:
As I type I'm standing in a unisex, 1 room/toilet, bathroom monitoring my youngest in his venture to, as he calls it, 'drop a duece.' Seems like this restroom would solve the issue.
Click to expand...

Yes it would. But is isolation really the answer? Should we all drop a deuce in solitude?
 
Irish YJ

Irish YJ

Southsida
Messages
25,888
Reaction score
1,444
Ndaccountant said:
Yes it would. But is isolation really the answer? Should we all drop a deuce in solitude?
Click to expand...

Sometimes I just love the serenity. Especially when I'm working up a good one. Everyone needs a little me time now and them. Be one with the deuce.
 
greyhammer90

greyhammer90

the drunk piano player
Messages
16,820
Reaction score
16,079
woolybug25 said:
Dressing up as a women doesn't make that easier.
Click to expand...

I keep seeing you say this, and I just want to point out that this isn't how it's going to be. The vast majority of men who feel like a woman will not wear women's clothing in the sense of high heels and a cocktail dress. They will likely dress completely normally, but self-identify as a woman. This will be nearly impossible to police. Whether or not that's an issue for you is another question entirely.

I'm personally of the opinion that the inescapable conclusion of saying that "bathrooms should be separated by what a person feels they are" is that in reality there will be no such thing as gender separated bathrooms at all anymore. They will eventually cease to exist, because they will be seen as outmoded and not useful. If the race to make concessions for people with alternative gender identity continues, I'd say we have probably about ten years until they are seen as simply being inherently offensive anyway. Again, that might not be an issue for you. I'm pretty undecided on it, but it's certainly a big step.

So yeah, I don't really know what my point is, but it's not going to be some guy in drag going into every ladies room. I think its a slight mischaracterization of the entire issue here to act like that's going to be the conclusion. It's mostly going to be people that look totally "normal." IF these people are questioned (which is becoming a big "if" quickly), they will simply say that they self-identify female and that will be the end of it.
 
Last edited:
phillyirish

phillyirish

................
Messages
1,931
Reaction score
884
Did I miss something, why is the bathroom debate and ESPN in the same thread? Is it because their both stupid as sh*t?
 
woolybug25

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
greyhammer90 said:
I keep seeing you say this, and I just want to point out that this isn't how it's going to be. The vast majority of men who feel like a woman will not wear women's clothing in the sense of high heels and a cocktail dress. They will likely dress completely normally, but self-identify as a woman. This will be nearly impossible to police. Whether or not that's an issue for you is another question entirely.
Click to expand...

Really? Because when anyone talks about potential rapes, they always preface it with some comment about how "it's not the transpeople I'm worried about, it's the predators that will imitate them to get access to children". They aren't talking about men identifying as women but in regular day to day attire. They claim to fear the pedaphiles and rapists posing as women.

I'm personally of the opinion that the inescapable conclusion of saying that "bathrooms should be separated by what a person feels they are" is that in reality there will be no such thing as gender separated bathrooms at all anymore. They will eventually cease to exist, because they will be seen as outmoded and not useful. If the race to make concessions for people with alternative gender identity continues, I'd say we have probably about ten years until they are seen as simply being inherently offensive anyway. Again, that might not be an issue for you. I'm pretty undecided on it, but it's certainly a big step.

So yeah, I don't really know what my point is, but it's not going to be some guy in drag going into every ladies room. I think its a slight mischaracterization of the entire issue here to act like that's going to be the conclusion. It's mostly going to be people that look totally "normal." IF these people are questioned (which is becoming a big "if" quickly), they will simply say that they self-identify female and that will be the end of it.
Click to expand...

I think that assuming this is a step to complete gender detoriation is a bit far fetched. Transpeople have been using their restroom of choice for decades upon decades. This wasn't even a public issue until Caitlin Jenner made a tv show, which pissed off a bunch of evangelicals, and they decided to pass a bathroom bill for no other reason but discrimination. Literally nothing has changed for transgender people, it's just a knee jerk reaction when evangelicals couldn't look away.
 
greyhammer90

greyhammer90

the drunk piano player
Messages
16,820
Reaction score
16,079
woolybug25 said:
Really? Because when anyone talks about potential rapes, they always preface it with some comment about how "it's not the transpeople I'm worried about, it's the predators that will imitate them to get access to children". They aren't talking about men identifying as women but in regular day to day attire. They claim to fear the pedaphiles and rapists posing as women.
Click to expand...

My point is that those rapists and pedophiles don't need to dress up as women. They will simply have access to the women's bathroom. That's the only possible outcome. I mean, even if there's a lumberjack looking dude with flannel and a beard, are you going to be the one to say "No you don't" when he says he identifies as a woman? There is simply no way to police that kind of situation.

Again, I'm not saying this is necessarily a problem, it very well could be completely overblown, and I think it's fine that you're fine with it. But I do think saying that the "rapist and pedophiles" would need to dress up as women to gain access to these women's rooms is a mischaracterization of the reality of what would really happen here. The reality is that essentially anyone could access any of the rooms because who's going to tell you "no you don't actually identify as a female because you seem more like a man to me" in this day and age?
 
bobbyok1

bobbyok1

Dominates Wiffle Ball
Messages
1,447
Reaction score
1,287
woolybug25 said:
I think that assuming this is a step to complete gender detoriation is a bit far fetched. Transpeople have been using their restroom of choice for decades upon decades. This wasn't even a public issue until Caitlin Jenner made a tv show, which pissed off a bunch of evangelicals, and they decided to pass a bathroom bill for no other reason but discrimination. Literally nothing has changed for transgender people, it's just a knee jerk reaction when evangelicals couldn't look away.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that is not all the reality of how it played out. The Bruce Jenner wanting to become a women TV show led evangelicals to pass bathroom laws? No, the whole "transgender" rights discussion was predicted for years by evangelicals once the LGBT push for same-sex marriage began. Next, the evangelicals predicted was Trans rights, and next in line will be a push for pedophiles rights. Sound crazy? Well so does grown men having the right to enter bathrooms and use them with 6 year old little girls. I would not at all be surprised to see the LGBT expand their label and change their branding in time to include pedophiles. I'm sure it would not be labeled as "Pedophiles" rather something along the lines of "sexually inclusive individuals". LGBTSI. As the common argument goes in defense of LGBT rights, "who is to say who we can love?" Why shouldn't someone be allowed to love children in a sexual way then? If that is the way the see themselves and identify, who is to argue against it?
 
Last edited:
greyhammer90

greyhammer90

the drunk piano player
Messages
16,820
Reaction score
16,079
bobbyok1 said:
I'm pretty sure that is not all the reality of how it played out. The Bruce Jenner wanting to become a women TV show led evangelicals to pass bathroom laws? No, the whole "transgender" rights discussion was predicted for years by evangelicals once the LGBT push for same-sex marriage began. Next, the evangelicals predicted was Trans rights, and next in line will be a push for pedophiles rights. Sound crazy? Well so does grown men having the right to enter bathrooms and use them with 6 year old little girls. I would not at all be surprised to see the LGBT expand their label and change their branding in time to include pedophiles. I'm sure it would not be labeled as "Pedophiles" rather something along the lines of "sexually inclusive individuals". LGBTSI. As the common argument goes in defense of LGBT rights, "who is to say who we can love?" Why shouldn't someone be allowed to love children in a sexual way then? If that is the way the see themselves and identify, who is to argue against it?
Click to expand...

I get that it fits with the slow spiral of moral disintegration theologians just looooooove to predict, but the idea that there are certain people (children) and things (animals) that are mental incapable of consenting is too ingrained in our society for something like this to happen. Even putting on my biggest "what if this goes to far?" hat, I just don't see it.
 
bobbyok1

bobbyok1

Dominates Wiffle Ball
Messages
1,447
Reaction score
1,287
greyhammer90 said:
I get that it fits with the slow spiral of moral disintegration theologians just looooooove to predict, but the idea that there are certain people (children) and things (animals) that are mental incapable of consenting is too ingrained in our society for something like this to happen. Even putting on my biggest "what if this goes to far?" hat, I just don't see it.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with you Greyhammer for just the reasons you cited, and I honestly hope it never does go down the road. A large part of the point I was trying to make was that evangelicals are not the reason the issue of Trans using bathrooms of their choice has exploded in our culture. I am sure evangelicals, along with many other non-evangelicals who see how problematic the issue is, have added fuel to the debate. But, the LGBT movement is the group behind this push, the issue has not primarily arisen out of a reaction to evangelical opposition as Wooly argued.
 
Last edited:
N

NDgradstudent

Banned
Messages
2,414
Reaction score
165
“It was apparent to me early on that if you wanted to go off topic as a sportsperson, you had to go off topic left or you were going to get into trouble,” Schilling said.
Click to expand...

This is so true. We get preachy and obnoxious people as sportswriters all the time- like Michael Wilbon calling ND racist for firing Willingham (remember that?), or Mike Wise and Jon Feinstein whining about the Redskins,* or the whole Michael Sam and Bruce Jenner circuses, which ESPN lectured everyone about. We don't need to hear a sportswriters' political opinions.

*I mean that Red Reddy Reddest REDSKINS REDSKINS REDSKINS!!!!
 
Whiskeyjack

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
greyhammer90 said:
I get that it fits with the slow spiral of moral disintegration theologians just looooooove to predict, but the idea that there are certain people (children) and things (animals) that are mental incapable of consenting is too ingrained in our society for something like this to happen. Even putting on my biggest "what if this goes to far?" hat, I just don't see it.
Click to expand...

A few points here:
  • Christianity was once so ingrained in our society that what we're arguing about now would seem like madness even just a few decades ago; so the "I just can't see it happening" argument doesn't hold much water. The reasoning behind legalizing SSM logically entails at least polyamory, and possibly several other practices that are currently taboo. If you're cool with that, great. If not, it should cause you to reassess the wisdom of redefining marriage in the first place.
  • "Consent" is a pretty flimsy legal nail on which to hang the entirety of liberal sexual ethics. The age of majority itself is a somewhat arbitrary designation, which has changed many times in recent history. If an arbitrarily-defined date is the only thing standing between a man and the legal presumption of rape, perhaps we need to ground our concept of sexual ethics in something a little more robust.
  • The "slow spiral of moral disintegration" isn't theoretical. As I described in this post yesterday, there's already a mountain of sociological evidence about the harm sexual liberalism has wrought within the West (and I didn't even bring up the profound damage divorce and single-parenthood causes to children).
  • As you and others have already demonstrated, these bathroom laws are seeking to fix a problem that doesn't exist. But that's besides the point. The Obama DoE recently issued a letter ruling that gender dysphoric students must be allowed access to any bathroom of his or her (xe, xer, etc.) choice under Title IX, which is binding on all public institutions. These laws are a (poor) reaction to that. Post-Obergefell, anyone who believes that marriage should primarily be about the stable procreation and rearing of children is presumably a bigot. Social and religious conservatives are reading the writing on the wall and bracing themselves for the same sort of legal persecution for anyone who believes that the biological reality of sex should have some sort of bearing on public policy. Much like with SSM, the reactions are ham-fisted, and they often do more harm than good. But the ideological threat is real.
 
greyhammer90

greyhammer90

the drunk piano player
Messages
16,820
Reaction score
16,079
Whiskeyjack said:
[*]"Consent" is a pretty flimsy legal nail on which to hang the entirety of liberal sexual ethics. The age of majority itself is a somewhat arbitrary designation, which has changed many times in recent history. If an arbitrarily-defined date is the only thing standing between a man and the legal presumption of rape, perhaps we need to ground our concept of sexual ethics in something a little more robust.
[/LIST]
Click to expand...

I don't think it's flimsy at all. I think if anything "personal choice" in sexual relations is as strong as its ever been from an individuals perspective in this country. You might argue that this is a trend that lends itself to the eventual acceptance of pedophilia, but I would say it's a trend that would further support the need to punish those who would force themselves sexually upon those who cannot consent. As for your comment that the "line" is arbitrary, I'd appreciate if you could explain that further because I think I know where you're going with that but I don't want to mouth off and have you embarrass me.

I might respond to the rest later, but this was just the point I thought was most interesting.
 
PANDFAN

PANDFAN

Look Down
Messages
16,770
Reaction score
2,278
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">More changes on the way at ESPN as Trent Dilfer is reportedly on his way out <a href="https://t.co/A5DNhQQHp3">https://t.co/A5DNhQQHp3</a></p>— Zach Barnett (@zach_barnett) <a href="https://twitter.com/zach_barnett/status/727141930832785409">May 2, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
K

koonja

Guest
PANDFAN said:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">More changes on the way at ESPN as Trent Dilfer is reportedly on his way out <a href="https://t.co/A5DNhQQHp3">https://t.co/A5DNhQQHp3</a></p>— Zach Barnett (@zach_barnett) <a href="https://twitter.com/zach_barnett/status/727141930832785409">May 2, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Click to expand...

Dang, Dilfer is the best IMO.
 
zelezo vlk

zelezo vlk

Well-known member
Messages
18,005
Reaction score
5,046
Maybe Kelly is bringing him on as an extra special QB analyst? That'd be awesome
 
bobbyok1

bobbyok1

Dominates Wiffle Ball
Messages
1,447
Reaction score
1,287
Wonder what all is behind the mass exodus from ESPN?

Is it all ESPN's initiative?

Is it all being initiated by those leaving?

It is a little of both?

What reasons are behind so many changes so quickly of prominent people leaving the network or being asked to leave?

Besides the Curt Schilling thing, I have not read up on the reasons for the others personnel changes. Anybody got a quick update as to why?
 
Ndaccountant

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
bobbyok1 said:
Wonder what all is behind the mass exodus from ESPN?

Is it all ESPN's initiative?

Is it all being initiated by those leaving?

It is a little of both?

What reasons are behind so many changes so quickly of prominent people leaving the network or being asked to leave?

Besides the Curt Schilling thing, I have not read up on the reasons for the others personnel changes. Anybody got a quick update as to why?
Click to expand...

Why ESPN is laying off hundreds of people - Business Insider

Wiz can probably articulate the accuracy of this better than anyone else.
 
Irish YJ

Irish YJ

Southsida
Messages
25,888
Reaction score
1,444
bobbyok1 said:
Thanks for the link. Makes sense that the cost of airing the sports they cover is going up therefore the have to make approx $250 million in cuts to keep the train moving forward.
Click to expand...

Surprised they are not applying for government aid, or holding the state hostage with threats of moving.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top