ThreePointTakedown

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?

Sorry, no. I cannot read minds. But how you represented someone's post was incorrect. It was pointed out that you thusly. You dug in rather than owning it and make the necessary corrections. Now you are taunting rather than, again, just owning it realizing it may have been a mistake. But the more you dig in, the more we all realize it was on purpose. Which means you are being purposefully dishonest. Hence the 'lying liar who lies', remark. So ya, just reading your words.

Or, the first impression was wrong and needs to be corrected. Can you think of anything that happened in this country that needed to be 'normalized' that wound up being a net benefit for this country? Abolition of slavery, perhaps. Everyone being allowed to vote. What you said is patently false. Each issue must rise or fall on its own merits.

That you haven't thought about it means you ARE!

Maybe in your mind. But that was my point. That what you feel is true in your mind, might not fit the facts of reality. That you admitted to the fear it pretty much guarantees that you are not looking at the situation rationally. Based on your comments on this subject in the past, you definitely aren't logical or rational about this topic. You are acting out of fear and trying to get people to commiserate with you and support you in your fear. That's understandable but, nonetheless, wrong and dangerous. Will you admit that out loud? No, because you've constructed defense mechanisms(calling me names and the like, much like 3rd graders do) to keep you comfortable in your fear bubble. I'm just going to keep pointing it out. Make it glaringly obvious. Even if you can't see it maybe others will see those things in themselves and work to address them. Best of luck

Sorry, if pointing out the fact that you were lying is triggering to you. Take a breath. Understand that you were lying and ask yourself why you were lying. Rather than trying to demean the people that point out that you were lying.

Your post, while filled with reasonable questions by them selves, are not honestly conveying the message of the post you are trying to represent. They don't say 'rather' they fear for their child. If they really did, which I don't doubt their fear, they would at least try to find out if their fear was warranted. If they don't or haven't, they are contributing to the continued misunderstanding of said group they fear. Being emotionally reactive and loud about it is dangerous and may lead to violence for not discernible reason. Considering, they hadn't offered any. Other than, 'that bio-man is in a room with girls/women and I don't like that'. At no point have the 'bathroom bills' worked or curbed any issues that they fear were 'obvious and common sense'. No one is policing an opinion. This is a 'cancel culture' argument. If you eff around and find out the consequences of your words and don't like them. Its not the fault of those holding you accountable. Its yours. On this thread there are few consequences other than being ignored. But if your ideas are not based in fact and the rhetoric that comes from those ideas lead to violence being brought upon a group that is being lied about, you should be held accountable. Again, being called an a$$h073 is about as far as we can go here, but there needs to be more people stepping up and saying so. When the crowd turns on the bully they lose their power. But if a single person stands alone the bully focuses on that person as a threat to their standing. So there is an element of fear involved that people typically don't feel compelled to address. I get it. But when you complain of things trending in the wrong direction. Its probably because we've collectively decided to not sweat the small things(that we could change) and instead whine about the big issues(we probably know little about and have little chance of making any meaningful change). We use that as a metric to determine that the system is broken. While not admitting that we've been derelict in our duties to get involved for the smaller issues. What is transphobic and what isn't: they decided. They admitted it. Its not a difficult determination at that point. They posted something that was derogatory to a trans-person. For no other reason than to have an opportunity to laugh or deride that person and their role. Then admitted that they were afraid. Not of that person, because they have no interaction. It was just an easy way to highlight their bias in a group and how that bias made them feel with regards to their child(ren). Again, have they done their homework and tried to model behaviors that are less bias and hateful then the ones they were probably exposed to? Maybe. Maybe that is a step up. If so, well done. But there's lots of work left to do before they are even in the ballpark of a healthy behavior. And that is point. Ever play the game, "make it black/asian/any other trait or characteristic of people that are not of the people in this specific scenario"? If the first sentence of your second paragraph replaced 'biological man' with (insert any other group based characteristic) how abhorrent would that person be for even suggesting that anyone for any other reason should not be allowed in a room with people. And that's what it comes down to. People not being allowed in a room with people for an arbitrary reason that you've just decided was important. No where else should they care or would they even be aware(and I'll bet they've been in rooms with trans-people and even ones with their children and didn't even know it, with no ill effects) but this situation is special and needs to be policed. Do you see how crazy that sounds!? Now, can we as a society decide to change how locker rooms and bathrooms are thought about today? Sure. Will that take generations to implement and take hold? Again, sure. Will it solve this problem? Probably not. Because people will always find someone to fear and be anxious around. Because they will be convinced to be afraid by people who have an incentive for them to be afraid. Why do you think one party is about fear and otherizing and the opposite party is about acceptance? And why do you think there is such a gulf between the two? One is seen as strong for being scared of everything and the other is weak for begging you to stop being irrationally stupid and fearful of your shadow. Not transphobic, just irrationally fearful of statistically insignificant chance occurrences. I'll bet it stops there though. You aren't outwardly fearful of driving in a car or getting hit by a sharknado. These things are so mundane that you probably don't realize how dangerous they actually are. More so than a bathroom. But for some reason when it comes to people and locker rooms/bathrooms you've decided that only the worst of the worst would be there when I happened to be there. It must be quite stressful living like that. I'm sorry. Whoever or whatever convinced you that it was justifiable to feel that way, I'm sorry. But it isn't. As a parent, fear for your child can be crippling sometimes. Maybe you should talk to someone about it.

Did you read your response before posting? Because you are simultaneously afraid and not at the same time. If that was a typo, ok. But its impossible to be A and not-A at the same time(I understand afraid and A start with the same letter but it is simply a common way to express the sentiment). Since you are transphobic and post hateful things because of it and admit as much, I can longer believe that you have honest or good intentions with your comments. But to continually reconfirm the comforting lie that you keep telling yourself. That same trope that everyone in history has relied on when they have been overtaken by fear of something they CLEARLY don't understand. Best of luck. Hope you can wrest yourself from the grips of fear and come out the other side as a rational and competent adult.

Do you condone the implied transphobia in this post or is it just coincidence?

Do you condone the xenophobia in this post or is it just coincidence?

Why are you clutching your pearls? You being against 'neighborliness' makes you out to be a greedy SOB that would rather see others suffer than to be, even, mildly inconvenienced for the sake of helping them. Back to this train wreck again. Sorry not sorry. You're wrong. Get over it. Its happening. There is no putting the genie back in the bottle. Whine about it as much as you want while the rest of us find more and less inconspicuous ways of ignoring you. Tampons in all the bathrooms. Your conservative/crocodile tears are the most delicious of all. You can't have an abortion and birth. Its a binary thing. A birth is a birth. An abortion is an abortion. The article. I love this article. If you want to talk about a playbook. Are you upset that Minnesota was allowing people to travel to there to get health care that was considered illegal in other states? Cuz that has no implication any other area of health care, WHAT SO FARKING EVER! Every red state that has all but outlawed abortion: 'No, we don't want to make it illegal to travel to another state to get an abortion.' (cue their(and your) outrage at people from state 'A' being allowed to go to state 'B' to receive health care that is illegal in state 'A') HYPOCRITE Oh and the 'take away your kids if you don't allow them to transition' comment from before. Is this the source for it? Cuz if it is and you are referring to JUDGES ruling on custody cases and using the fact that one parent forbid their child from getting health care they needed. That's called BEING A BAD PARENT! And I would support any judge to make that call for those reasons. Yup, you are a steward of your child and that privilege can be taken away if you refuse them health care that they need. Unless you have a sincerely held religious belief. Then you can eff up your kids however you want. Maybe consider going that route next time. Not talking about you specifically just people in general that might consider not supporting their childrens' health care needs.

Well, they were two different posts. So I figured you might be able to differentiate the two. I didn't assume anything, that's why I posed both questions. It wasn't an exhaustive list. Just two options. If you want to just offer your opinions that is also an option. To answer your question, his opinion on abortion is wildly misogynistic. Not being supportive of people who could become pregnant at all. Racist, because he supported 45's comments about VP KH as only recently wanting to be known as a black person as "totally inoffensive". This shows to me that JD is either ok with someone being racist(45 was) and not confronting it or JD agrees with the comment which makes them racist. Also that JD has no empathy for people that could see themselves in VP KH's shoes and that they are perfectly happy making a useless(and racist attack) for political gain. Xenophobic: "We do not consent to an invasion of this country from millions of people who shouldn't be here," Doesn't specifically say who. Just 'them' which is rhetoric used to create a common enemy within a group. I understand that is an opinion to have. But invasion would imply a coordinated plan rooted in violence and with a goal. None of those criteria can be proven at all to have been met in any meaningful way(a family working together to get to the southern border to seek asylum is not a coordinated plan to invade, btw). It might also work to inspire supporters who may be already inclined to take violent action against those they perceive as 'invaders' to do so. That has never been a problem before. Transphobic: https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/icymi-how-jd-vance-betrayed-his-transgender-friend-for-the-sake-of-his-political-ambition this article points out that JD was once an ally to a person going through their transition. Contrasted by all the things JD has said and done since those days in the hopes of gaining more power in a party that does not like, care, or love trans people, immigrants, people of color, or really anyone that doesn't already agree with them. I hope that answers your question. What could 45 do to win and lose your vote? What could VP KH do to win and lose your vote?

Which law? Can you post the law and the language? Because right now all you are doing is asking me to trust you.

What could 45 do to lose your vote? And/or what would Harris need to do to sway you that way?

I support the nomination. I think its a great choice. Pretty much puts the election in the bag. Why do you need this so much? What could it matter that I do or do not support a politician that I know little to nothing about? Lets just get to the next step, respond with your attempted 'gotcha' questions for either answer. You can explain again that I am dodging so you can feel superior again. I hope it helps. I'm a well adjusted person and your poking does nothing to me. Or you could try to have an honest conversation. Which would start with why are you asking the question and why does it matter if I do or do not support this person. #Skeptical

Just curious. What about Bush vs Gore and 45 vs Clinton convinced you to vote like that in those elections? What's done is done. Again, just curious.

The VP doesn't sign anything. I think we've covered this before. Their role is to support the President and the President's agenda. Is the Democratic Party candidate for VP a better person than the GOP VP candidate? Probably. Less homophobic, xenophobic, transphobic, and less of a misogynist? I think so, but I'd be interested to understand reasons a person could hold a contrary opinion. Is there a reason 'need' me to answer this question? Care to answer the question I asked awhile back that you still haven't answered after 3 or 4 times dodging it?

Because if they stray from a, strictly, fear campaign and make it about ideas, policies, and outcomes Republicans can't win.

Why do I have to answer anything you ask me? Are you gonna twist my arm or put any work into answering the question you've been dodging for days, now? Until you do, you get nothing.

I'm not on social media much so this is one of my only real ways of putting my ideas out there for scrutiny. Let me know your thoughts. My theory: Biden picks Harris for VP. Runs the campaign. Wins by a narrow margin. Then starts putting things together to step down in exactly this manner. Gives Harris 3ish years to marinate in the Biden wins(CHIPS, Inflation Reduction, etc.). Getting experience and recognition. Then once 45 is nominated and the convention schedule is solidified. A, way too, early debate is put on the schedule for Biden to purposefully have a bad performance to grow the drama of 'will he, won't he'. People start to get excited about 'who could get the nod?' Biden gets covid. Then they pull the trigger and a huge swell of support builds up behind Harris. A woman of color to go up against a serial racist and misogynist. Who is now the old, doddering fool in the race. To which the GOP will resort to what they always resort to. Which is pretending to be the victim. "We can't run the race we put all our time and effort into running! This isn't fair!"

How is Harris illegitimate? Did the delegates, through the DNC process, vote for and nominate their candidate? People voting for the candidate is a recent phenomenon. Granted it might not look great. But too bad. That's the process. So it is legit in all the ways that matter.

Go back and find it if you're really interested. I know you're not or you would've already done it. You're a dishonest coward. This more than proves it. You get no more of my time. In Roland We Trust!

Says the person that refuses to answer a question, recently. I don't know what they've done. Care to pass along the highlights of their baseball card?