Political Correctness thread

BeauBenken

Shut up, Richard
Staff member
Messages
16,041
Reaction score
5,491
Removing statue of a racist person =/= removing racism

I get that some might see them as tasteless, but they still have significance of some sort. We would have to remove damn near all of our monuments if we looked more closely at all our "heroes". And in this case, it memorializes all the Kentucky soldiers who died fighting for the Confederacy. These are not necessarily evil men who owned slaves and hated blacks, but men who died fighting for the state of Kentucky. I mean, they're only moving the statue and not destroying it, but dang.
 
Last edited:

ACamp1900

Counting my ‘bet against ND’ winnings
Messages
48,947
Reaction score
11,225
Kentucky Confederate monument to be removed after 120 years

PC Police at it again. SMH. Even bad history is history right? I guess we are telling our children these days that all the Americans that died on the evil side of the Civil War were all morally bankrupt racists which deserve no place in our country's long and unique tapestry.

My thoughts exactly, we all have pet peeves, This is one of mine, it's shallow and inaccurate.
 

kmoose

Banned
Messages
10,298
Reaction score
1,181
Removing statue of a racist person =/= removing racism

I get that some might see them as tasteless, but they still have significance of some sort. We would have to remove damn near all of our monuments if we looked more closely at all our "heroes". And in this case, it memorializes all the Kentucky soldiers who died fighting for the Confederacy. These are not necessarily evil men who owned slaves and hated blacks, but men who died fighting for the state of Kentucky. I mean, they're only moving the statue and not destroying it, but dang.

Teddy Roosevelt openly advocated putting the Native Americans on reservations because it would be easier to "ethnically cleanse" them if they were all in one place. So I guess we better tear down Mt. Rushmore, huh?
 

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,698
Reaction score
5,996
Teddy Roosevelt openly advocated putting the Native Americans on reservations because it would be easier to "ethnically cleanse" them if they were all in one place. So I guess we better tear down Mt. Rushmore, huh?

Teddy believed 9 out of 10 times, the only good Indian is a dead Indian.
 

Irish YJ

Southsida
Messages
25,888
Reaction score
1,444
Every history is cluttered with good and bad. It's still part of history, and important. The bad is probably more important in terms of what to remember. It's also vital that all understand that people can be both good and bad, and that the "times" to an extent define what is good, and what is bad.

I wish I could jump in a time machine and see what the PC police and revisionists do to our history in a few hundred year. Not to mention their take on today's culture....

Sad that so much will be deleted, white washed, etc.. Hell our own Catholic history if full of this.
 
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
Teddy Roosevelt openly advocated putting the Native Americans on reservations because it would be easier to "ethnically cleanse" them if they were all in one place. So I guess we better tear down Mt. Rushmore, huh?

Teddy believed 9 out of 10 times, the only good Indian is a dead Indian.

You guys just make things up don't you? It is bad enough this thread is full of oversimplifications, generalizations, and gross conflations. But Roosevelt, was a consummate politician. Think of it he went from a second-shelf bureaucrat from New York, to the President of the United States in 18 months. America had never seen such a perfect political animal! So most of his public legend is, uhm, bull shit! (Not to say he wasn't a man of great character, or a great president!)

I guess it has to be that way, because, otherwise, this thread wouldn't be as good of a display of each poster's prejudices.

“Most men, when they think they are thinking, are merely rearranging their prejudices.”
―Knute Rockne



Teddy Roosevelt and the Indians

Posted on October 9, 2011 by Ojibwa

In 1901, President William McKinley was assassinated and Theodore Roosevelt became the 26th President of the United States. He entered the White House better acquainted with both the Indian Service (later known as the Bureau of Indian Affairs) and Indians than any President since William Henry Harrison. While Roosevelt had a background with regard to Indian affairs, this was not one of his major interests. In their annual report, the Indian Rights Association lauded the new President:


“No man in the country has a fuller or more practical sympathy with the Indians than President Roosevelt, nor a better understanding of their conditions and needs.”

At the time Roosevelt became President, the Indian Service had a staff of nearly 6,000 to administer 160 reservations with more than 300 tribes. The Indian Service included 250 schools which accounted for half of its work force and had an enrollment of nearly 20,000.

Prior to Being President:

In 1891, four groups of Indian Service employees – physicians, school superintendents and assistant superintendents, school-teachers, and matrons – were placed under Civil Service Classifications. As a member of the Civil Service Commission, Theodore Roosevelt advocated that Civil Service rules be modified so that Indians could be given preference for these positions.

The following year, Theodore Roosevelt delivered a Lowell Institute Lecture in Boston, Massachusetts, in which he defends the government’s treatment of Indians:


“This continent had to be won. We need not waste our time in dealing with any sentimentalist who believes that, on account of any abstract principle, it would have been right to leave this continent to the domain, the hunting ground of squalid savages. It had to be taken by the white race.”

As President. 1901:

With regard to Indians, in 1901 President Theodore Roosevelt stated:

“In my judgment the time has arrived when we should definitely make up our minds to recognize the Indian as an individual and not as a member of a tribe. The General Allotment Act is a mighty pulverizing engine to break up the tribal mass.”

In 1901 Camp McDowell, Arizona, an abandoned military reservation, was set aside for Indian use by Executive Order by President Theodore Roosevelt. Congress, however, rejected a bill that would have created a Yavapai reservation because American squatters in the area objected.

As President. 1902:

President Theodore Roosevelt appointed a Catholic to the Board of Indian Commissioners in an attempt to reverse the pattern of discrimination against Catholics by the federal government. He was criticized for this.

In South Dakota, the Indian Rights Association (IRA) authorized an investigation into the situation of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation. The IRA sent a letter to the Department of the Interior asking that action on cattle leases on the reservation be held off until the rights of the Sioux had been assured. The IRA also contacted President Theodore Roosevelt and asked him to intervene. The Women’s National Indian Association and the Boston Indian Citizenship Committee joined the IRA in protesting the leases.

In response to the IRA request, President Roosevelt asked writer George Bird Grinnell to investigate the situation on the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation. Grinnell’s report blasted the government’s unscrupulous leasing practices. He also criticized the order by the Commission of Indian Affairs that all Indians cut off their long hair. According to Grinnell:


“Such an order was never before heard of in a free country, and the enforcement of it tends to make the Indians feel themselves to be slaves.”

As President. 1903:

In his book The Winning of the West, President Theodore Roosevelt wrote:


“The truth is, the Indians never had any real title to the soil.”

He compared Indian rights to the land with those of cattle ranchers trying to keep immigrants off their vast unfenced ranges.

President Theodore Roosevelt visited the Grand Canyon in Arizona. He rode down into the canyon and found Havasupai families headed by Yavñmi’ Gswedva (Dangling Beard) and Burro living at Indian Garden. Then President Roosevelt spoke to Gswedva (also called Big Jim) and informed him, through an interpreter, of the federal government’s intent to locate a park for the American people on Gswedva’s and Burro’s garden lands below the rim. Roosevelt urged the Indians to vacate the area so that American tourists could enjoy it.

In Arizona, President Theodore Roosevelt sent his personal agent to investigate the situation of the Yavapai in the Verde Valley. The agent reported that there were more than 500 Yavapai living in the area. The agent recommended buying the squatters’ claims to Fort McDowell lands and making this land available to the Yavapai. While the agent expressed concern that the Yavapai might be corrupted by the nearby American communities, those Americans who wanted the Yavapai removed from the area argued that their children’s morals would be corrupted by Yavapai resettlement in the area.

As a result of the agent’s report, the Fort McDowell Reservation was created for the Yavapai by executive order of President Theodore Roosevelt. Under the order, all lands which were not legally claimed by Americans were to be turned over to the Yavapai who were living in the area. This action represented the culmination of four decades of efforts by the Yavapai to obtain a reservation in their homelands.

In Washington, D. C., Nez Perce Chief Joseph met with President Theodore Roosevelt. At a buffalo dinner, Chief Joseph explained the situation of his people. He was promised by the President that someone would come to investigate the matter.

As President. 1904:

President Theodore Roosevelt appointed Francis Leupp as Commissioner of Indian Affairs. Leupp had been employed by the Indian Rights Association as their Washington, D.C. representative. Unlike most of the earlier appointments to this position, Leupp was actually well-versed in Indian affairs.

In Oklahoma, the proposed relocation of the Delaware by the Dawes Commission was cancelled by President Theodore Roosevelt. There had been a major oil strike on Delaware lands and it was rumored that Dawes Commission members were trying to shunt the Delawares aside to promote lucrative deals with the Cherokees.

As President. 1905:

Roosevelt won the 1904 Presidential election by a landslide. For his 1905 inauguration, President Theodore Roosevelt asked the Indian Service to provide “a touch of color” for his inaugural parade by providing some Indians. The Indian Service provided Geronimo (Apache), Quanah Parker (Comanche), American Horse (Sioux), Hollow Horn Bear (Sioux), Little Plume (Blackfoot), and Buckskin Charley (Ute). These Indian leaders, called “chiefs” by the press, rode painted ponies and led a troop of marching Carlisle Indian students up Pennsylvania Avenue. Along the parade route, the Indians were met with war whoops and similar derisive shouts from the crowd.

President Theodore Roosevelt visited Frederick, Oklahoma Territory where he was met by an honor guard that included Comanche leader Quanah Parker. Roosevelt asked Parker to join him on the speakers’ stand as he told the people:


“Give the red man the same chance as the white. This country is founded on a doctrine of giving each man a fair show to see what there is in him.”

As President. 1906:

President Theodore Roosevelt signed the bill which created Mesa Verde National Park in Colorado. Mesa Verde is the site of ancient Anasazi ruins, a culture which is ancestral to the Pueblos. This was the first national park which sought to preserve ancient ruins. The initial Act included 42,000 acres of Ute land. However, because of a faulty survey almost none of the ruins were in the Park. To correct this, the bill was amended to place all unpatented prehistoric ruins on Indian or federal land within five miles of the park boundary under the custodianship of the park.

Apache leader Geronimo, who was a prisoner-of-war, told his life story to S. M. Barrett who published it as Geronimo: His Own Story. The military objected to this biography and sought to stop its publication. President Roosevelt personally intervened to see that Geronimo’s story was published.

In Wyoming, Devils Tower – a sacred place known to the Lakota, Shoshone, Arapaho, and Cheyenne as Bears’ Lodge – was proclaimed a national monument by presidential proclamation. This geological feature was mentioned in the oral traditions of at least 20 tribes and is also known as Tree Rock, Home of the Bear, and Great Grey Horn.

As President. 1908:

In New York, President Theodore Roosevelt dedicated a monument to Captain John Underhill, the first professional Indian fighter in the northeast. In 1637, Underhill had been one of the leaders of the genocidal Pequot War. According to Roosevelt, Underhill was one of the men in Colonial times who

“helped to lay the foundation of the nation that was to be.”

Later historians would characterize Underhill as a sociopath or as a person who suffered from antisocial personality disorder.

President Roosevelt established the National Bison Range near Moise, Montana on the Flathead Reservation. The mission of the Nation Bison Range is to provide a representative herd of buffalo, in natural conditions, to help ensure the preservation of the species for the public benefit and enjoyment.

As President. 1909:

President Theodore Roosevelt issued eight proclamations which transferred 15 million acres of Indian timber on reservations created by Executive Order to adjacent national forests. The reservations included Fort Apache, Mescalero, Jicallilla, San Carlos, Zuni, Hoopa Valley, Tule River, and Navajo. The proclamation regarding the enlargement of the Trinity National Forest to include most of the Hoopa Reservation stated that after 25 years any un-allotted land on the reservation was to become a part of the national forest and the Hoopa were to lose their rights to this land.
 

Irish YJ

Southsida
Messages
25,888
Reaction score
1,444
ummm
wasn't this one of his quotes...

"I suppose I should be ashamed to say that I take the Western view of the Indian. I don't go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of every ten are, and I shouldn't like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth. The most vicious cowboy has more moral principle than the average Indian. Turn three hundred low families of New York into New Jersey, support them for fifty years in vicious idleness, and you will have some idea of what the Indians are. Reckless, revengeful, fiendishly cruel, they rob and murder, not the cowboys, who can take care of themselves, but the defenseless, lone settlers on the plains. As for the soldiers, an Indian chief once asked Sheridan for a cannon. "What! Do you want to kill my soldiers with it?" asked the general. "No," replied the chief, "want to kill the cowboy; kill soldier with a club."

Believe he also said the Sand Creek Massacre was righteous and beneficial...

I'm no historian, but everything I've read has TR waffling all over the place when it comes to the native americans.
 
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
ummm
wasn't this one of his quotes...



Believe he also said the Sand Creek Massacre was righteous and beneficial...

I'm no historian, but everything I've read has TR waffling all over the place when it comes to the native americans.

Exactly. Which is why I included the long quotation in my post.

From the time of the kingmaker, Mark Hanna, his protégé, Wm. McKinley, and greatest political miscalculation ,Theodore Roosevelt, the political candidate changed.

At the same time with all the technological innovation, the number of words that came out of a politicians mouth were captured, more accurately, as well as more often.

Another thing started happening. Listeners who enjoyed the time honored, old 'stump speeches' as good natured political theater, had little taste for any politician to utter the 'truth.' Didn't matter whether the candidate new it, was acquainted with the issue, or even cared. There was a subtle shift in setting the political stage from the candidate and their backers, to the electorate. It took a while for the political 'strategists' an entirely new animal introduced to combat the growing knowledge of an informed electorate, to recycle 'weasel words,' as Truman loved calling them.

So there was a time in American politics where a relatively "honest, straight-forward man of character," could be found talking out of both sides of his mouth on every issue. It wasn't that Teddy was any more or less honest than any other President. It was that he was captured by the circumstances of his time, (and of his doing) like nobody else other than Nixon, (think newer technology yet; think tapes.)

So my point is not that Teddy didn't say the only good Indian was a dead Indian. It was that he never said it as President in front of a Native American. Nor did he ever act like it towards any Native American peoples.

In fact, he was all over the place! That is my point! There is zero credibility in any single quotation attributable to the guy! Nobody rattled more sabers than Teddy! The sad part is what his pro-war attitudes did to him after losing his son as a pilot over France in the First War. He never recovered. And he didn't rattle any more sabers.
 

BeauBenken

Shut up, Richard
Staff member
Messages
16,041
Reaction score
5,491
So my point is not that Teddy didn't say the only good Indian was a dead Indian. It was that he never said it as President in front of a Native American. Nor did he ever act like it towards any Native American peoples.

In fact, he was all over the place! That is my point! There is zero credibility in any single quotation attributable to the guy! Nobody rattled more sabers than Teddy! The sad part is what his pro-war attitudes did to him after losing his son as a pilot over France in the First War. He never recovered. And he didn't rattle any more sabers.

Except you lumped it in a response in which the first line accused the quoted posts for "making stuff up". That's pretty much saying "bull shit".

Not to mention the point of their comments were to suggest that many of our "heroes" would not be regarded as such today. I usually wouldn't link a site that I don't particularly trust, but at least they site their sources in this article: https://indiancountrytodaymedianetw...cking-quotes-indians-us-leaders-part-1-150362.
 
Last edited:

Bishop2b5

SEC Exchange Student
Messages
8,929
Reaction score
6,159
2016-04-29-2acf9adc_large.jpg
 

JTLA

Active member
Messages
231
Reaction score
73
Since we are on the subject, I wanted to tell you all a story.

First let me introduce myself as a left leaning critical thinker who disagrees with most of what is argued for on the far left AND most of what is argued for on the right.

I am also one who enjoys crude jokes, insults, and making fun of people. I laugh at my own weaknesses and talk shit about you behind your back about yours. I hate the political correct movement and SJWs make me so angry, regardless of their cause. I have made my share of jokes about gays, fags, and trannys; but I also consider myself a friend to many and mostly want people to live their lives as they see fit.

My wife worked with a lesbian woman at a gym and the two became friends. This woman, AJ, disclosed her plans to transition to living her life as a man. Again, I made jokes about this to my wife and thought it was all pretty ridiculous.

A few months later my wife asked AJ over for dinner.

AJ, now living as a man and partially transitioned (looking somewhere between butch and very metro) came over for dinner... with his girlfriend (who was very attractive mind you). We talked about all kinds of things that night, but I had to ask questions about his journey. I tried to be sensitive; just because someone is changing their gender, doesn't mean they want to talk about it - or their genitals or their sex life any more than you or I do.

Certain elements rocked my mind, and were difficult for me to understand, for example, his girlfriend started dating him when he was a her. What I encountered though was a thoughtful, likeable, emotionally stable person who was nothing but thrilled to have the opportunity to live life the way he always felt inside - by getting his outsides to match his insides. He wasn't fighting any larger societal battles or wanting anyone else to approve.

To my point... He shared with me a simply frustration he had at that point: the gym of course had men's and women's locker room. Since he had been working there for some time, his boss was most comfortable and insisted on him using the women's room. You can imagine that as he started getting facial hair and more masculine features, this created a problem. Women complained that there was a man in the women's room. The result of all this was the AJ would just not use the restroom at work. He would just hold it. All day. Or go down the street to the gas station.

My conclusions after that night is this.
A. Why the hell do we have gender specific but otherwise shared bathrooms anywhere? I'd like to see a world where stalls are private and gender neutral and sinks are shared by all.
B. There is no way in the world I would ever want to tell AJ he had to use a bathroom that he physically did not appear to belong in. It's just wrong... and DANGEROUS! Can you imagine the woman in these photos below using a men's room?
C. This was no longer a broad concept to me about social justice or political correctness, but this was an individual's real life challenge that was far more difficult than I could imagine.

In my view, the legislation being passed is being driven by hate and misunderstanding from hardcore zealots on the right. It's disruptive to our notions of freedom and tolerance. I want to live in a world where we protect the vulnerable while cherishing the values that we hold dear. I don't see how passing laws designed to alienate people or criminalize people because they want to pursue their own identity as the see fit. It's still against the law to exhibit lewd behavior, to be a peeping tom, to fondle or molest anyone, and I'm not the least bit convinced any of these laws do anything to help enforce those laws or fight any real criminal behavior that exists.

Carry on. And please forgive me if any of this is viewed as politically correct. LOL.


 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
Since we are on the subject, I wanted to tell you all a story.

First let me introduce myself as a left leaning critical thinker who disagrees with most of what is argued for on the far left AND most of what is argued for on the right.

I am also one who enjoys crude jokes, insults, and making fun of people. I laugh at my own weaknesses and talk shit about you behind your back about yours. I hate the political correct movement and SJWs make me so angry, regardless of their cause. I have made my share of jokes about gays, fags, and trannys; but I also consider myself a friend to many and mostly want people to live their lives as they see fit.

My wife worked with a lesbian woman at a gym and the two became friends. This woman, AJ, disclosed her plans to transition to living her life as a man. Again, I made jokes about this to my wife and thought it was all pretty ridiculous.

A few months later my wife asked AJ over for dinner.

AJ, now living as a man and partially transitioned (looking somewhere between butch and very metro) came over for dinner... with his girlfriend (who was very attractive mind you). We talked about all kinds of things that night, but I had to ask questions about his journey. I tried to be sensitive; just because someone is changing their gender, doesn't mean they want to talk about it - or their genitals or their sex life any more than you or I do.

Certain elements rocked my mind, and were difficult for me to understand, for example, his girlfriend started dating him when he was a her. What I encountered though was a thoughtful, likeable, emotionally stable person who was nothing but thrilled to have the opportunity to live life the way he always felt inside - by getting his outsides to match his insides. He wasn't fighting any larger societal battles or wanting anyone else to approve.

To my point... He shared with me a simply frustration he had at that point: the gym of course had men's and women's locker room. Since he had been working there for some time, his boss was most comfortable and insisted on him using the women's room. You can imagine that as he started getting facial hair and more masculine features, this created a problem. Women complained that there was a man in the women's room. The result of all this was the AJ would just not use the restroom at work. He would just hold it. All day. Or go down the street to the gas station.

My conclusions after that night is this.
A. Why the hell do we have gender specific but otherwise shared bathrooms anywhere? I'd like to see a world where stalls are private and gender neutral and sinks are shared by all.
B. There is no way in the world I would ever want to tell AJ he had to use a bathroom that he physically did not appear to belong in. It's just wrong... and DANGEROUS! Can you imagine the woman in these photos below using a men's room?
C. This was no longer a broad concept to me about social justice or political correctness, but this was an individual's real life challenge that was far more difficult than I could imagine.

In my view, the legislation being passed is being driven by hate and misunderstanding from hardcore zealots on the right. It's disruptive to our notions of freedom and tolerance. I want to live in a world where we protect the vulnerable while cherishing the values that we hold dear. I don't see how passing laws designed to alienate people or criminalize people because they want to pursue their own identity as the see fit. It's still against the law to exhibit lewd behavior, to be a peeping tom, to fondle or molest anyone, and I'm not the least bit convinced any of these laws do anything to help enforce those laws or fight any real criminal behavior that exists.

Carry on. And please forgive me if any of this is viewed as politically correct. LOL.

I can tell you I generally see the world as a righty...my sense is I just don't give a shit in the general public arena...however, in schools I do care. Your friend's response to "holding it" is EXACTLY what I think will happen to little girls subjected to boys showing up in their restroom, and done over years that is a health problem.

The VAST majority of schools were constructed with the plumbing of the gender in mind, and privacy a secondary concern. As such, the engineering and retrofit costs to get to the restrooms you envision (correctly) are ENORMOUS. Yet can someone please tell who and how that gets paid for w/o jeopardizing educational funds...ya know the ones that pay teachers like shit, and have them purchasing their own paper, and fighting for there to be art and phys ed. You know sometimes it isn't the concept, it is the utterly idiotic way it is dropped on people to "make it so". I'm not really arguing the point from a philosophical point of view...I know things that make conservatives squirm are the stuff of Nirvana for liberals...I just expect ridiculous things with marginal REAL benefit to continue to pop up...and my question will always be the one that no liberal wants to discuss honestly...at what cost?
 

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
Bloomberg apparently got booed for saying the following during his commencement speech at scUM....
The whole purpose of college is to learn how to deal with difficult situations — not run away from them,” “One of the most dangerous places on a college campus is a safe space because it creates the false impression that we can insulate ourselves from those who hold different views.
 

Bishop2b5

SEC Exchange Student
Messages
8,929
Reaction score
6,159
Bloomberg apparently got booed for saying the following during his commencement speech at scUM....

Bloomberg was 100% correct and these delicate little #safespace kids are in for a rude awakening when they get out into the real world and discover that most people don't give two flying $#!%$ about their silly ideas or sensitive feelings.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
I've asked this of others in other threads, and still haven't gotten a satisfactory answer. I've said before that I think the bathroom argument is a red herring for the bigger issue, school locker rooms.

Where would you have a trans female (biological male with a penis) shower and change after gym class?
 

Irish YJ

Southsida
Messages
25,888
Reaction score
1,444
Bloomberg was 100% correct and these delicate little #safespace kids are in for a rude awakening when they get out into the real world and discover that most people don't give two flying $#!%$ about their silly ideas or sensitive feelings.

but they can go use any bathroom they want and get free medical when they can't find a job.
 

Irish YJ

Southsida
Messages
25,888
Reaction score
1,444
I've asked this of others in other threads, and still haven't gotten a satisfactory answer. I've said before that I think the bathroom argument is a red herring for the bigger issue, school locker rooms.

Where would you have a trans female (biological male with a penis) shower and change after gym class?

Can we talk about the bigger issue. Do we really need gym class?
 

Bishop2b5

SEC Exchange Student
Messages
8,929
Reaction score
6,159
I've asked this of others in other threads, and still haven't gotten a satisfactory answer. I've said before that I think the bathroom argument is a red herring for the bigger issue, school locker rooms.

Where would you have a trans female (biological male with a penis) shower and change after gym class?

I don't think either locker room or shower is appropriate and suitable without making a lot of people very uncomfortable and violating their rights. If reasonably feasible, I'd say they should be provided with access to private facilities. If not, then they just don't shower after gym class, though I think any school could easily provide them with a private area where they could change clothes.

The law says you have to make reasonable accommodations for those with special needs. It doesn't require you to go to unreasonable ends to accommodate every special need or circumstance. For example, a national park has to make most of their facilities accessible to people in wheelchairs by installing ramps and/or elevators. It doesn't require them to destroy the historical accuracy of a building by installing them, nor to make hiking trails or climbing trails in such steep, wild areas as the Grand Canyon or Devil's Tower wheelchair accessible because doing so would be unreasonable. I think the same principle applies here.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
I don't think either locker room or shower is appropriate and suitable without making a lot of people very uncomfortable and violating their rights. If reasonably feasible, I'd say they should be provided with access to private facilities. If not, then they just don't shower after gym class, though I think any school could easily provide them with a private area where they could change clothes.
That's what the original plan was before the Charlotte ordinance and the North Carolina state law that was passed in response to that ordinance. Without the state law, the Charlotte ordinance would have classified that as discrimination and the "victims" who were asked to shower in private facilities could have sued cities and school boards for discrimination.

No, the North Carolina law is not perfect. But the Charlotte ordinance would have been far worse.

The law says you have to make reasonable accommodations for those with special needs. It doesn't require you to go to unreasonable ends to accommodate every special need or circumstance. For example, a national park has to make most of their facilities accessible to people in wheelchairs by installing ramps and/or elevators. It doesn't require them to destroy the historical accuracy of a building by installing them, nor to make hiking trails or climbing trails in such steep, wild areas as the Grand Canyon or Devil's Tower wheelchair accessible because doing so would be unreasonable. I think the same principle applies here.
The Americans with Disabilities Act has nothing to do with this. In fact, you'd probably be accused of discrimination by the trans lobby for the suggestion that this is a disability.
 
Last edited:

Bishop2b5

SEC Exchange Student
Messages
8,929
Reaction score
6,159
The Americans with Disabilities Act has nothing to do with this. In fact, you'd probably be accused of discrimination by the trans lobby for the suggestion that this is a disability.

I didn't say it was a disability, nor was I suggesting the Americans with Disabilities Act applies here. I was using it as an example of making reasonable accommodations for someone's needs as opposed to unreasonable ones that require excessive expenditures or violating the rights or needs of others.

That being said, I believe - based on the overwhelming medical and psychiatric evidence - that gender dysphoria is a mental disorder and should be treated as such instead of demanding that we disregard reality and accommodate their delusions instead of helping them with treatment. If a person is schizophrenic, we don't encourage them to listen to the voices they hear. We get them help. If someone is paranoid and thinks aliens are reading their mind, we don't encourage them to wear tinfoil hats or build them an "alien shield" around their house. We get them treatment. As someone earlier mentioned, if your uncle thinks he's a walrus, you don't help him get tusk implants and move to Baffin Island to dive for shellfish. You get him some help.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
I didn't say it was a disability, nor was I suggesting the Americans with Disabilities Act applies here. I was using it as an example of making reasonable accommodations for someone's needs as opposed to unreasonable ones that require excessive expenditures or violating the rights or needs of others.
The "reasonable accommodations" standard comes from the ADA.

That being said, I believe - based on the overwhelming medical and psychiatric evidence - that gender dysphoria is a mental disorder and should be treated as such instead of demanding that we disregard reality and accommodate their delusions instead of helping them with treatment. If a person is schizophrenic, we don't encourage them to listen to the voices they hear. We get them help. If someone is paranoid and thinks aliens are reading their mind, we don't encourage them to wear tinfoil hats or build them an "alien shield" around their house. We get them treatment. As someone earlier mentioned, if your uncle thinks he's a walrus, you don't help him get tusk implants and move to Baffin Island to dive for shellfish. You get him some help.
I agree with you. I'm not making the argument of the trans lobby, I'm just pointing out how we can't even have conversations in good faith because well-articulated points like the one you just made would be summarily dismissed as bigotry. It's right out of "Rules for Radicals." "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
I don't think either locker room or shower is appropriate and suitable without making a lot of people very uncomfortable and violating their rights. If reasonably feasible, I'd say they should be provided with access to private facilities. If not, then they just don't shower after gym class, though I think any school could easily provide them with a private area where they could change clothes.

The law says you have to make reasonable accommodations for those with special needs. It doesn't require you to go to unreasonable ends to accommodate every special need or circumstance. For example, a national park has to make most of their facilities accessible to people in wheelchairs by installing ramps and/or elevators. It doesn't require them to destroy the historical accuracy of a building by installing them, nor to make hiking trails or climbing trails in such steep, wild areas as the Grand Canyon or Devil's Tower wheelchair accessible because doing so would be unreasonable. I think the same principle applies here.

I'd respect everyone's right to choose and to be treated as humans with appropriate dignity and respect.

We - or most Americans - can unite on nudism - yeah, I know some prefer the "clothing optional" term. Those among us who are nudists really don't have a problem with shared bathrooms and even common shower areas. Privacy in elimination is protected wtih doors. You realize our commonality and celebrate our differences. Of course, Americans may want these areas of chosen nudity restricted to adults.

I would be concerned to allow military or ex-military admitted due to rape statistics, especially of males. I imagine nudists may also recognizing that male survivors of rape in the military are less likely to report their rapes than females (see link). Whether clothing-optional for ex-military survivors is part of their healing process should be left to their counselors. Of course, this may be considered discrimination. But people have the right to be protected.
 
Last edited:

Bishop2b5

SEC Exchange Student
Messages
8,929
Reaction score
6,159
In my view, the legislation being passed is being driven by hate and misunderstanding from hardcore zealots on the right.

I think that this is a major misconception for those on the left: every issue where Conservatives disagree with Leftists, the Leftists automatically assume (or at least claim) that it's because of bigotry, racism, hatred, and etc. It's the automatic go-to answer for everything and makes a neat little explanation without having to actually examine or think about the actual reasons those ideas or policies are opposed.

Conservatives aren't against millions of Mexicans illegally flooding our country because we hate Hispanics. We're against it for exactly the same reasons you'd be opposed to a dozen uninvited strangers invading your home and demanding that you accommodate them.

Conservatives aren't against unlimited, endless welfare because we hate Blacks or the poor. We're against it because it's bad for them in the long run as it makes them permanently dependent, destroys their self-reliance, and there's no justification for hard-working people to be forced to permanently support those who are perfectly capable of working and self-reliance, but consistently make poor life choices and refuse to do anything to improve their lot.

As such, opposition to allowing transgender people to use any restroom they choose has nothing to do with hate, bigotry, or misunderstanding towards them. It has everything to do with opposition to being forced to pretend their delusions are valid instead of the symptom of a known and well-established psychological disorder that calls for humane treatment, the invasion of privacy that most of us would like to enjoy, the disregard for the rights that afford us that privacy, and not wanting rapists, perverts, and child molesters gaining easy access to women's restrooms by pretending to be transgender.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
I've asked this of others in other threads, and still haven't gotten a satisfactory answer. I've said before that I think the bathroom argument is a red herring for the bigger issue, school locker rooms.

Where would you have a trans female (biological male with a penis) shower and change after gym class?

I'm a strict plumbing guy on this topic unless the facilities are constructed to accomodate gender neutral use...if you have a penis...you use the mens locker room...you don't...off to the womens locker room you go...if that is tramatic, here is a counselor for you to work with.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
I'm a strict plumbing guy on this topic unless the facilities are constructed to accomodate gender neutral use...if you have a penis...you use the mens locker room...you don't...off to the womens locker room you go...if that is tramatic, here is a counselor for you to work with.
The official response to this position is that you're a bigot.

I can't believe how anyone can, in good faith, defend the hard left's position on this issue. "A teenager with a penis should shower with the boys" is not a statement of hate or bigotry. It's common sense.
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
I think that this is a major misconception for those on the left: every issue where Conservatives disagree with Leftists, the Leftists automatically assume (or at least claim) that it's because of bigotry, racism, hatred, and etc. It's the automatic go-to answer for everything and makes a neat little explanation without having to actually examine or think about the actual reasons those ideas or policies are opposed.

Conservatives aren't against millions of Mexicans illegally flooding our country because we hate Hispanics. We're against it for exactly the same reasons you'd be opposed to a dozen uninvited strangers invading your home and demanding that you accommodate them.

Conservatives aren't against unlimited, endless welfare because we hate Blacks or the poor. We're against it because it's bad for them in the long run as it makes them permanently dependent, destroys their self-reliance, and there's no justification for hard-working people to be forced to permanently support those who are perfectly capable of working and self-reliance, but consistently make poor life choices and refuse to do anything to improve their lot.

Well-said. I can never recognize myself in the stereotypes of others, too.

Knute Rockne: Most men, when they think they are thinking, are merely rearranging their prejudices.
 
Top