A district judge in Wisconsin has sided with an 11-year-old trans girl over her use of the girls’ toilets and temporarily blocked school officials from preventing her access.

  • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Sigh, you are saying those things. Repeatedly. Instead of acknowledging that I am pointing out that you are, in fact, making these claims, you saying I am being disingenuous and a liar. It’s a classic defense, for sure, to project as such.

    Gender neutrality and the removal of gender and sex from bathrooms is not an inherent risk to anyone and does not subject them to aexual perverts. My evidence are things like the existence of gender neutral bathrooms not being sexual menaces upon people in public. This means that a step towards neutralizing either the gender, genital/sexing of bathrooms does not have an inherent co sequence of allowing perverts more access to bathrooms. It’s a false equivalence and an unreal consequence.

    In fact, it’s closer to say the sexualized spaces of genital specific bathrooms is what actually puts those spaces at risk of perverts. Since you’re missing the point, the circular nature of this self fulfilling prophecy is what I was referencing previously.

    You can scream and sling insults about what you thing I have been doing engaging you here. That’s what makes this a special place.

    • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Sigh, you are saying those things. Repeatedly.

      Show me where. Quote them.

      the removal of gender and sex from bathrooms is not an inherent risk to anyone and does not subject them to aexual perverts

      100% false. It makes female safe spaces no longer that since males can simply come and go as they please. Female safe spaces exist for a reason.

      sexualized spaces of genital specific bathrooms

      Who is saying bathrooms are sexualized? Only you. Very odd. Something being sex based doesn’t “sexualize” it.

      Just more disingenuous arguments and lies from you.

      Me: 1+1=2

      You: No, 1+1=3. You’re saying that 1+1=7 which is wrong.

      Me: No, I’m saying 1+1=2. Where did you get 7 from?

      You: You keep saying 1+1=7.

      • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        “Oh but you see, I have made you the soyjack, and have portrayed myself as the chad.”

        It’s okay if you’re mad. I’m not disappointed.

        FWIW I have explained what I mean in every post and I have asked questions in every post you’ve completely ignored or haven’t answered in the slightest. There clearly is nothing more of value that you can express.

        Your homework, if you choose to accept it, is to read up the thread and live with the questions only rhetorical for you to marinade upon.

        • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          So no, you can’t show me where and you can’t quote them hahaha

          It is hard quoting things that don’t exist.

          • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            “hahaha”

            It’s all there for people to read. Just doing my part in helping you get the ol noggin cranking on why you hold those opinions.

            So anyway, right: the numbers: 1+3 = 4 2+2 = 4

            (You got this!)