ThreePointTakedown

People in your lives that identify as female, how do they feel about you all making these comments and the innuendo involved? Just curious if you actually hold these opinions or that you just feel safer stating them anonymously.

If you were ever honest about the true nature of your positions, our conversations would never become so contentious. Have you noticed that? You make a claim or a comment about something. I ask you to support it. You say something along the lines of, 'did you see this one case? It must prove my point somehow.' I say, 'it doesn't, at least not for anyone that isn't already predetermined to believe it for some underlying reason that they just don't want to admit.' This should be the first red flag. Why are you trying to appeal to anyone that doesn't already agree? What's the point? Who are you dunking on, they all agree with you? Then someone doesn't. Wheels begin to come off the wagon. Because if there is one thing I know about uninformed people. They do not like being called out as such. You confuse one example of an occurrence with your mistaken opinion of the whole group. You mistake correlation with causation and like anyone caught in an emotional loop, you double down and insist that you are correct. Still without providing any compelling evidence to back up that claim either. Then trapped in a corner you try to weasel out with every dishonest trick in the book; arguing semantics, focusing on a point that is not related to the topic, calling names, poisoning the well, or just claiming that you don't have time or interest to continue a discussion that you have made circular by not acknowledging any point contrary to your own. Because we all know that admitting your wrong will force you change your mind. Changing you mind is hard. Makes you question everything you know from that source and what if all that stuff is wrong. The mountain of potential embarrassing things is pretty high. So rather than take that first step and having to go through this process each and every time you change you mind. You just... don't. Because its easier. So the cycle continues. You probably didn't read down to the this part and why would you? From everything I know about you, as soon as you see something you don't agree with or could challenge your opinion you stop, call it crazy so you don't have to take it seriously, and move on. Making sure to offer your opinion so that others can see it and form their opinions on it before reading too. Good luck

Yes. Why wouldn't it have? Is your assertion that it she did not contribute to the building of that fortune? I think the field you are referring to is life, correct me if I am wrong. She grew up lower-middle class in Chicago. Worked hard to get educated and became a successful lawyer. Working for the mayor of Chicago on public projects. I don't want to preach, but c'mon do some homework before you throw your hat in with this crowd. Its embarrassing. The wrestling community can be seen as more than a middle class, white, conservative, crowd. Jerking their knees and clutching their pearls at any and every successful person that doesn't fit that, very specific, mold.

You reposted a comment about a person having three mansions. So I assume, correct me if I am wrong, that you agree that she should not be taken seriously on a subject because of her success. Why does it disqualify her from having knowledge or experience in this field? What is your criteria by which you take someone's opinion on a topic, seriously?

That's all you have is to react because you have no words to counter it. Coward!

All your 'shut up and dribble' remarks are hilarious. All irony aside, as if anyone cares who you think is an authority on the subject or why they should stay in their lane. As you shout your displeasure into the void. Hope it helps. Probably won't. Make sure to vote!

Daughter of water plant employee(notoriously overpaid) and secretary in the south side of Chicago. Why wouldn't we listen to this person about this message? BTW the year the civil rights act was signed. So her parents couldn't vote until Michelle was even born. Russian nesting doll of inequality, notwithstanding, maybe we can take a beat and hear what real world experience Michelle has to pull from in this and other regards.

They did what they thought was politically tenable, politically advantageous, and as much as they could without getting too much blow back. Its not ethical. I don't agree with what happened to Bernie. There should've been a lot more fire brought down on the DNC for how they handled it. I think that race would've gone a different way had Bernie been on the other side of 45. Do they have anything to explain with Kamala? No. Its the party's prerogative to put forth the process as they see fit. There are no laws about it. And in the last 50 years there is no precedent for this situation. Sorry that you're mad that the tables have turned. Its a whole new race and you're scared that the outcome is not what you thought would happen. Life's hard, wear a helmet.

Are you telling her to 'shut up and dribble'? Because that's what it sounds like. In this conversation who would you allow to have an opinion and why?

Not really the issue under discussion. I can remind you of the original point if you need? If a second time home buyer puts in a bid for your house is it still up $50k? Are you doing it to be spiteful? If so, this is exactly what I mean when I mention pools being filled in instead of letting everyone benefit. This would be directly analogues. You don't want others to benefit from a program(you know none of the details of, but just don't like the person suggesting it. It very well could be revenue neutral but you aren't willing to wait around to find out. You've already made up your mind. Tell me I'm wrong and then prove it by siting details of the plan and where you disagree and what impacts those policies will have based on your knowledge of economics). So rather then just let it work and see. You will purposefully sabotage it, still have no effect whatsoever, but feel better that you screwed someone who was already getting screwed by the circumstances that were beyond their control. If this isn't the conservative and right wing agenda, I don't know what is. Considering most of you are waiting around for the end of the world. Clad in the knowledge that it WILL happen before you die. So getting a little satisfaction in the punishment of others(that, again, you are SURE you will be forgiven for) while you're here, is a bonus. This is a common theme with you JRoss and many others that will probably chime in. You don't like who you don't like. Are unwilling to say why it is, exactly, WHY you don't like them. But they are unworthy, for some reason, of getting or receiving help from the government or anywhere. Especially if those resources are coming from you by way of taxes you don't approve of or could be put to better use by benefitting you and your family. Your self-righteousness is a joke. It always has been. Whoever you learned it from knew it too but it was beneficial at the time. Which is probably why you still do it. Prejudice people believe in their hearts that they are doing the right thing until they are taught be someone that actually cares about them, that it isn't. We all know it isn't. If you have a brain in your head, you know that maintaining your bias is wrong and you shouldn't. But changing is hard and requires will. Neither of which you probably have much of any more in those departments. Which is why you addressed a question I didn't ask with an answer you were confident was correct. So now, you just have to convince as many people as possible to believe you. Not because its true of course. You know it isn't. We all know it isn't. Kids know it isn't but need to be convinced at an early age to fear people for silly reasons. So you'll continue fearing and not acknowledging why until you either learn better or die. Best of luck,

Sure it that is THE reason. How can you make that determination, though? How did you in this case? Can you appreciate KH's position? Still having to finish being the VP for the current President while running to take that position. Possibly having differing opinions on issues. Having to support 46 to getting things done and disagreeing with the how/why of those things while campaigning to be 47. Its a tough needle to thread. Interesting policy. My first time hearing about it. Seeing as I wouldn't qualify, I'll still vote for KH. Could your issue with that policy circle back to 'I don't like it because people other than me and/or my friends, will be able to take advantage of it'? Because its something that could make things better for a small group of people. Typically younger. Who have been screwed by the housing market lately. Why are you so against helping people get caught up when they've been put in a hole do to things entirely out of their control?

Why is 'changing your mind' brought up as a bad thing like they can't make up their mind? Isn't it better to admit that you may not have had all the facts when you first made up your mind on an issue? Is changing you mind a weakness?

I'm afraid of your opinions harming people. Which they do. I've pointed that out numerous times. Its a fact. The AMA article describes that. That you are unwilling to admit it makes you dishonest or trying to purposefully harmful. You are wrong. I've proven you wrong numerous times. I'll stop repeating myself. If you can prove that you've grown at all on the topic then I might revisit this with you and hold your hand some more.

Yup. Doing exactly what you are accusing me of. Not addressing my points. Unlike how I responded to you. You've lost the argument. You are a horrible person based on your beliefs about people. And now you are trying to discredit the person that has proven you wrong so you can desperately hold on to your abhorrent ideas. Please talk to a trans person and actually get some info on the topic. I know you won't because of your fear but hears to hoping. Best of luck.

Yup. Trying to insinuate that the most extreme example is, in fact, the norm. Typical overblowing a situation to feed your own fear and in so doing justify it to yourself and others. Shows you know nothing about it but are more than willing to take the most extreme position. Question: do you happen to know what indoctrination is? (hint, reread the paragraph above)

I apologize. Going back to look at it, another poster mentioned that they are afraid. Not you. I'll take that back. What's not true is your take on the situation. If an XY person that passes as a female uses a bathroom/locker room is that something that should not be allowed to happen? Why? And its not a norms thing, those are just made up and change with the wind. Speaking of evidence, you have none and I have provided some from the AMA that kills your position. Societal norms are not that important. Passing laws for good reasons is what holds society together. And holding those accountable so everyone is feels equal. XX and XY bathrooms are not law and you suggest that it should be. Then you will need to check genitals at every bathroom. I'll bet you would disagree with that for your kids. You're clearly not accepting of trans people because you are refusing to accept this part of their lives. They have not been shown to be a danger to anyone by using the bathroom they feel represents them. Again, you have not provided evidence to the contrary that rises to the level that this should be legislated and you won't. It doesn't exist. About your response to the article: this is a response from a privileged person that cannot see themselves in anyone else's shoes. The bathroom conversation is just one in of a number of issues that trans people have to deal with that you clearly don't. Yet you are unwilling or unable to give them grace and understand their plight. You are shameful, but I doubt you can feel that sensation based on this and all previous comments. You are desperately holding to your position for fear of being called a hypocrite that you are passing along horrible ideas of humanity to another generation. That will need to be addressed and undone. But not after causing more harm to those in marginalized communities for the crime of mildly inconveniencing you in a bathroom. You are a clown. And you are questioning the AMA. Rather than saying, 'Seriously' produce some evidence that might prove them wrong. Or shut up. I have provided evidence. Evidence that you don't like because is proves my point. Now you move the goal posts rather than admit defeat. Pretty typical for a cliche such as yourself. You said XX and XY should stick to their bathrooms despite how they present themselves. So yes, those genetic anomalies would, by your logic, force them to use the bathroom of the gender they do not present as in their lives. Which moots your point. There are no such thing as women's sports. Just sports. BTW boys and girls play in each others' sports all the time and not that often. Especially as they grow in age and skill level. You have a solution in search of a problem. Again, typical fear response for someone that clearly refuses to try to branch out and learn anything about the conversation they are interested in having. After being proven to have a position that puts people in danger. You refuse to admit it. And refuse to change your mind. You are, actively, wanting people to be harmed for using a room. That is nefarious. You have no remorse for what will happen if a marginalized group continues to be marginalized. I am not a victim and never have suggested it. But society has deemed this group to be different and up until recently, refused to offer even a bit of solace or comfort for them in the way of legislation or even acknowledgement. That you refuse to admit that being a member of a marginalized group is detrimental to one's health and showing no sympathy or empathy for that. It is clear you don't care. Despite you trying to convince yourself that you do. And that's what THIS is, I feel. A way to try to convince yourself that you aren't the monster that your words have shown you to really be. I do have my opinion. And my opinion will win. And I think you know it. And you're terrified of what else you might lose.

The fear is palpable. Y'all are just terrified.

You did. You said you were afraid. Not only that but your opinions and views on this topic hint of your fear. Because you've been convinced of something that is not at all true. Yet you dig your heels in without offering anything to support your idea other than your emotions. If you are leaning on societal norms why are you not going along with the opposite view? Because it is starting to change societal norms. Making it more and more prevalent that people are ok with trans people using the bathroom/locker room of their choosing. Your opinion is losing support and switching. But since we're on the subject, we don't make laws/policies based on societal norms. But of potential harm. Which, again, you still have not shown is actually a thing other than you clutching your pearls on behalf of others. Careful those things are delicate. Your second paragraph makes no sense. Not sure you really understand circular logic. The AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION says, 'Denying transgender students this access endangers their health, safety and well-being, leads to negative health outcomes and heightens stigma and discrimination, says the amicus brief filed by the AMA, the Oregon Medical Association and a dozen other mental health and health care organizations." https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/population-care/exclusionary-bathroom-policies-harm-transgender-students#:~:text=Denying transgender students this access,health and health care organizations. Lets see you squirm out from under this one. Or just ignore it because it proves you wrong. I know you're pot committed. Sunken cost is a tough gambit. Cis, look it up. Still no response to people with XX chromosomes can have male genitalia and people with XY can have female looking genitalia? What's your take, can they use any bathroom they want or do you have a suggestion?

You are suggesting that they do not deserve the rights to express themselves. In this case through going to the bathroom they feel best fits their needs, simply because you are uncomfortable. Not because its dangerous, because it isn't. Again, you have offered no proof of an epidemic of dangerous situations coming about by trans people using the bathroom of the gender they choose to express(outside of cis people attacking trans people for doing so). So should cis people be forced to use their own bathrooms and locker rooms because they are a danger to trans people? How do you thread that needle? And you site, falsely, that 99.99999% are uncomfortable. I feel you are using such a high number simply to justify YOUR fear, but it doesn't accurately represent reality. You should do some research. You don't get to dictate laws or policies about being comfortable or uncomfortable in a situation. If there is a legitimate danger, we can talk about it. Since there isn't, you don't have a leg to stand on. Be comfortable being uncomfortable. Stop being illogically bias. Teach your kids to be tolerant instead of maintaining their comfort by stepping on the neck of innocent people. Uniformed standards: are that only people you are comfortable using a specific bathroom are allowed to because it makes you uncomfortable otherwise. They must present as and be XX female to use a 'female' bathroom or vise versa for a 'male' bathroom. If there is a danger, site an example or examples, then link the data to a trend that would be remedied by gender checks at bathrooms and locker rooms?

How is it hurting them: for trans people who do not feel they are the gender they were assigned at birth(remember people with male genitalia can be XX and people with female-looking genitalia can be XY) and try to change the way the present their gender expression(hair cut, long for female short for male, clothes feminine for female masculine for male) they're lives are just more difficult, period. Because people are not use to the idea that this is a fluid change that someone would want to make. Yet the more we learn about it is that these people have always existed, much like the groups I mentioned before(I'll get back to them in a second), but have longed for the opportunity, freedom, and acceptance to make those changes without fear of being ostracized or worse. Their rates of self harm is higher. Life expectancy is lower. Social mobility is lower. Educational outcomes are lower. Chances of them being fired, attacked, or kicked out of their homes before they are 18 are higher. I'm saying let them go to the bathroom where they want. Considering its not a large group of people. The conversation has two prongs, those that can 'pass' for the gender they are looking to transition to and those that don't. Those that can 'pass' are seemingly indistinguishable from those cis gendered ones they are trying to emulate. They, I'll bet are not your problem or maybe they still are. Someone that has gone to that much trouble to look the part, I'll bet is not at all interested in making a scene of any kind in a bathroom/locker room so much so that you'd notice. But I feel its those that don't 'pass' but while still in transition would like to use the facilities of the gender they feel best represents them and how they currently feel. That you have no examples of people going out their way to play out the scenarios you are so fearful of, other than the one from Canada of a person minding their own business and not trying to bother anyone. It stands to reason that those are the ones you feel would pose the biggest threat because they are so far outside the norm of whom should be using the facilities. Seems as if you have a solution in search of a problem. There is not a substantive number of occurrences of your situation to warrant banning of everyone from using the bathroom/locker room as you have suggested. Again, if you are so against being mildly inconvenienced so that a marginalized group can feel safe and comfortable in the bathroom, I don't know what to say to you. But you need to grow up. Back to the groups I mentioned before. The list represented marginalized groups that had to fight for legal and cultural protections so that they could be considered equal members of society and culture. They had insults and misinformation spread about them to keep the public fearful and apprehensive of allowing them the same rights and privileges as everyone else. WHICH. IS. WHAT. YOU. ARE. SUGGESTING. OF. TRANS. PEOPLE. Not giving them rights to be safe and comfortable in a room unless they live up to your uninformed standards. We grant all the rights. Then we pull them back one by one. So with trans people. Give them all the same rights as everyone else. People of opposing genders go into gender specific bathrooms all the time. They have since forever. You could try to educate yourself and your brood that they are not to be feared because, duh. Or continue attacking a thing you don't know and don't care to know because, well at this point I think we all know why. You are punching down. Your thoughts and opinions on the topic are dangerous and may well lead to someone getting hurt.

sorry. Here's the article from nearly a decade ago that refutes your points. https://www.vox.com/identities/2016/5/13/17938102/transgender-people-bathrooms-locker-rooms-schools

That you hold this position on this topic does mean you are against this choice, which is part of their lives. This is another version of 'love the sinner, hate the sin' that religious people use to restrict the rights of those they feel are less morally virtuous than they are. That you have no evidence of real, actual danger other than a son or daughter coming out of a locker room with some questions to ask their parent or guardian, yet still holding to your opinion is indicative of a person that cannot see past their own bias. Is more concerned with being mildly inconvenienced rather than supporting a very vulnerable population of your fellow human beings. Who, again, make up a vanishingly small percentage of the population. Hence the punching down. Go into the recent past. Who was treated like this, in their own time; Irish, Italians, Chinese, Japanese(interred during WW2), Gay, AIDS patients, and black? Your reaction is a textbook example of what these groups went through and had to fight against before being considered equal in the eyes of the culture and/or the law. You don't know what you don't know but are 100% sure of your opinion. And seemingly unwilling to learn on the subject considering all the information out there that refutes your position.

Safer. It depends on how you define 'safer'. Immediately, perhaps its safer so they aren't attacked for going against a societal norm by entering the bathroom of the gender they associate with and not necessarily the one they were assigned at birth. But also, they are living a life that is going against societal norms. Living that life, which has become such a cultural touchstone recently, is inherently dangerous. Both from self harm and traditional harm. I understand your need to think that people that fall within the scope of this conversation have 'mental health' issues. A rather typical reaction to groups that seek to buck societal norms and seek equal rights and considerations. I'll bet you can think of other examples of that happening in the recent past. Lets remember, its a vanishingly small percentage of society that is hoping to live a life outside of the one they were assigned at birth. The life you are vehemently against them doing. You're punching down at an already vulnerable group and forcing them to live a life that is not the one they choose. All this out of fear of a tiny population being in a room you feel they don't belong in for a few minutes per day, if that. You can't see how petty you are? That's a shame.

It is. Sorry you disagree. But they're going in there anyway. There's no way for you or anyone to stop them. Save, checking junk before going in. The way that you're going about it is dangerous. Being misinformed and conveying that information to others IS dangerous. On the topic of 'normalizing' if you normalize the othering of a group, it is dangerous. For the person in the group to self harm or someone with anger/mental health issues to lash out at a group that is seen as not as important to the whole. If they see a person that 'no one will miss' it could push someone to act on their violent tendencies. Considering you still haven't offered anything 'dangerous' about the situation you are trying to ban. Other than your typical 'common sense' or 'its not normal for kids to see this'.

It wasn't, ever? In the United States? do you really believe that? Really? It wasn't disavowed or legislated against upon the founding of the country. Which could lead one to believe that it is not abnormal. What's the opposite of abnormal?