|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 05 2015 10:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 10:24 Sbrubbles wrote:
Some/many people are more unconfortable being around a naked/half-dressed person of the opposite sex more than they are someone of their own (hence same-sex bathroom and changing rooms) and naturally this applies to transgenders as well as cis, which leads to this situation. My question is: if the argument is that the transgendered person has the right to use the changing room where he/she is not unconfortable, why can't the same argument be applied to defend the right of the cis person who is now faced with changing in front of someone whose body makes her/him unconfortable (aka the exact same problem the transgendered person was faced with to begin)? Does the answer to this rely around "their rights have to take precedence because they already have it hard enough"?. They're not granted the right to use the bathroom they identify with because the other one will make them feel bad. If the argument was based on minimizing feeling bad then we could kick gays out of the locker room because the straight guys might feel weird about a gay guy seeing their dick. They're allowed to use it because it is the correct bathroom for their gender identity.
I disagree with your analogy, I don't think this is about the person at all, this is about the body. A gay cis man has the body of a straight cis man, hence doesn't generate the problem I described. If a gay man makes someone unconfortable it is for entirely different reasons, ones that I agree are reprehensible but have nothing to do with this.
Also my point was not one of "minimizing feeling bad". My point is: if we define the right as "the right to go to the changing room where everyone else's body does not make you unconfortable", you have an unresolvable paradox (unless you build an additional 2 changing rooms), and the only way to resolve it is to accept that one group has more right than others. You feel it is better to resolve it in favor of the trans person, but I haven't yet seen an argument why exactly that is (only denial that the problem is indeed being resolved in favor of one specific group).
Edit: Plansix puts it straightforward "Sometimes we have to do things that make us uncomfortable in society to accommodate the disenfranchised.". Though I disagree in this specific stance, I can appreciate the sentiment.
|
United States43966 Posts
On December 05 2015 11:04 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 10:41 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2015 10:24 Sbrubbles wrote:
Some/many people are more unconfortable being around a naked/half-dressed person of the opposite sex more than they are someone of their own (hence same-sex bathroom and changing rooms) and naturally this applies to transgenders as well as cis, which leads to this situation. My question is: if the argument is that the transgendered person has the right to use the changing room where he/she is not unconfortable, why can't the same argument be applied to defend the right of the cis person who is now faced with changing in front of someone whose body makes her/him unconfortable (aka the exact same problem the transgendered person was faced with to begin)? Does the answer to this rely around "their rights have to take precedence because they already have it hard enough"?. They're not granted the right to use the bathroom they identify with because the other one will make them feel bad. If the argument was based on minimizing feeling bad then we could kick gays out of the locker room because the straight guys might feel weird about a gay guy seeing their dick. They're allowed to use it because it is the correct bathroom for their gender identity. I disagree with your analogy, I don't think this is about the person at all, this is about the body. A gay cis man has the body of a straight cis man, hence doesn't generate the problem I described. If a gay man makes someone unconfortable it is for entirely different reasons, ones that I agree are reprehensible but have nothing to do with this. Also my point was not one of "minimizing feeling bad". My point is: if we define the right as "the right to go to the changing room where everyone else's body does not make you unconfortable", you have an unresolvable paradox (unless you build an additional 2 changing rooms), and the only way to resolve it is to accept that one group has more right than others. You feel it is better to resolve it in favor of the trans person, but I haven't yet seen an argument why exactly that is (only denial that the problem is indeed being resolved in favor of one specific group). Edit: Plansix puts it straightforward "Sometimes we have to do things that make us uncomfortable in society to accommodate the disenfranchised.". Though I disagree in this specific stance, I can appreciate the sentiment.
I don't define the right like that. It's not about feeling comfortable or uncomfortable. Trans girls are girls and are entitled to access to the same things that cis girls are. Comfort has nothing to do with it. The paradox only exists with a misunderstanding of my point. Trans girls are allowed to use the girls bathroom because it is the correct bathroom for them to use. They are girls. They go in the girls bathroom.
|
So it's ok if we just rename bathrooms to be the Penis Room and the Vagina Room? Restrooms aren't the same as changing rooms.
|
On December 05 2015 11:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 10:58 cLutZ wrote:On December 05 2015 10:48 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2015 10:14 AngryMag wrote:On December 05 2015 10:09 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2015 10:05 AngryMag wrote:On December 05 2015 10:02 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2015 09:59 AngryMag wrote:On December 05 2015 09:55 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2015 09:51 AngryMag wrote:
[quote]
Other dude is right, you are being or pretend to be obtuse. If you are a hermaphrodit you visit the bathroom of your dominant sex/ sexual identity.. Not that would be what we are talking about in this specific thread.
And it is not unfortunate for me, I don't care. So far no one over here really turned this into an issue aaand I am in the workforce where even fewer people care to invest time and ressources into an non issue that won't even concern 1% of the workforce. If the need arises people will just find an individual solution.
So according to you hermaphrodites get to visit the bathroom that most closely matches their identity, not necessarily what they have going on down below. Interesting. Unfortunately for you it is not that simple.Some people are fifty/fifty. They can choose according to their sexual identity. Others have dominant biological sexes, they choose their bathroom according to their dominant sex. Please try again. Yeah that comes across really smug And what about the parents of the children crying out "she may identify as a girl but she has a penis" in the case of one who chooses? You understand that you lost this one right when you said that someone could choose according to their sexual identity, right? That was my point. You claimed that there was no element of choice, it was always one or the other, black or white. I challenged you to define biological sex to get you to this point where you admit that it's not always so simple and some people will always break that model. Here we are and you have lost. No what you did is you simply moved the goalpost from people we are talking about in this thread aka one biological sex to people with both biological sexes and left the assumptions from the thread related discussion aka one biological sex unchanged and get even more smug about it on top of that. I didn't move the goalposts, we're still talking about trans people. I used the example of intersex people to disprove the idea that there can be a universal rule that defines which bathroom people use and makes all parents comfortable. The reason I brought up intersex people is because you proposed a universal rule which was disproven by them. Imagine we were talking about dogs and then you said "all animals have four legs". If I then said "what about snakes?" you couldn't then go "yeah but we're talking about dogs here, why do you have to bring up snakes". Same situation. We're still talking about trans people but your universal bathroom rule to satisfy the concerns of parents regarding their kids seeing something that doesn't match what they have going on doesn't work. A rigidly defined separation based on biological sexual characteristics isn't going to work because there is no clear definition to work with. Nope, we were talking about one sex transgender people (you know the thread, the article linked in the thread and the whole discussion up to the point of you starting to change the subject to intersex people) and bathroom stuff until you decided to move the goalpost from one biological sex to two sexes and starting to argue points which were made under different assumption aka one biological sex. It is the text book definition of a straw man argument So just to clarify, you think trans people should be forced to use the bathroom of their assigned sex at birth to make sure that nobody sees anything not like theirs and gets offended but at the same time you think intersex people should get to choose which bathroom they use? And your reasoning for this is that everyone has to use their biological bathroom. Let me know when you see the relevance of the intersex counterexample. It's not a straw man. No, its not a straw man. Its you asking a hard question for someone's position, that they admit is a hard question. However you do not propose a values system in which that is not a hard question. So I don't understand your point. How does "let people use the facilities that match their gender identity" not resolve the issue caused by biological sex not being binary? He proposed a strict binary system to resolve a problem that is not binary but rather a spectrum and results in people being assigned something they know to be wrong. My solution addresses the spectrum by allowing people to self define (albeit with rather more effort than a facebook status update, they would need a GID diagnosis).
So, we finally get somewhere. The "choice" of gender, so far as it is, must be concrete. So you say that a person needs a diagnosis. I would raise the bar to diagnosis + judge's decree because of the high level of quackery in this area, but this is arguing about the edges. In either case you admit that there should be a fairly high bar of proof.
However, earlier (no I may be ascribing someone else's outrage to you) said "Look at this school violating other trans kids civil rights" and that is the point, what level of proof should we require. And there is a significant % of trans activists that say "no proof".
Edit. Which is, hilariously, the Huckabee situation.
|
Canada11509 Posts
On December 05 2015 09:12 heliusx wrote:
It is an interesting thought, you let the trans person use female's bathroom because she is uncomfortable in the men's bathroom but then should her feeling uncomfortable be more important than the ciswoman's who are uncomfortable with someone born as a male using their bathroom? Whatcha gonna do? Make some trans only bathrooms? That's a bit too 1960s America.
I suspect the long term solution is to forget the signs and forget multiple occupancy changerooms: single-occupant changerooms only. In the mean time we'll have a merry go round chase of who is uncomfortable with whom.
|
On December 05 2015 11:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 11:04 Sbrubbles wrote:On December 05 2015 10:41 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2015 10:24 Sbrubbles wrote:
Some/many people are more unconfortable being around a naked/half-dressed person of the opposite sex more than they are someone of their own (hence same-sex bathroom and changing rooms) and naturally this applies to transgenders as well as cis, which leads to this situation. My question is: if the argument is that the transgendered person has the right to use the changing room where he/she is not unconfortable, why can't the same argument be applied to defend the right of the cis person who is now faced with changing in front of someone whose body makes her/him unconfortable (aka the exact same problem the transgendered person was faced with to begin)? Does the answer to this rely around "their rights have to take precedence because they already have it hard enough"?. They're not granted the right to use the bathroom they identify with because the other one will make them feel bad. If the argument was based on minimizing feeling bad then we could kick gays out of the locker room because the straight guys might feel weird about a gay guy seeing their dick. They're allowed to use it because it is the correct bathroom for their gender identity. I disagree with your analogy, I don't think this is about the person at all, this is about the body. A gay cis man has the body of a straight cis man, hence doesn't generate the problem I described. If a gay man makes someone unconfortable it is for entirely different reasons, ones that I agree are reprehensible but have nothing to do with this. Also my point was not one of "minimizing feeling bad". My point is: if we define the right as "the right to go to the changing room where everyone else's body does not make you unconfortable", you have an unresolvable paradox (unless you build an additional 2 changing rooms), and the only way to resolve it is to accept that one group has more right than others. You feel it is better to resolve it in favor of the trans person, but I haven't yet seen an argument why exactly that is (only denial that the problem is indeed being resolved in favor of one specific group). Edit: Plansix puts it straightforward "Sometimes we have to do things that make us uncomfortable in society to accommodate the disenfranchised.". Though I disagree in this specific stance, I can appreciate the sentiment. I don't define the right like that. It's not about feeling comfortable or uncomfortable. Trans girls are girls and are entitled to access to the same things that cis girls are. Comfort has nothing to do with it. The paradox only exists with a misunderstanding of my point. Trans girls are allowed to use the girls bathroom because it is the correct bathroom for them to use. They are girls. They go in the girls bathroom.
I don't think you're thinking properly about why sex-specific intimate rooms exists in the first place. I don't think it's a simple "so that men don't sexually abuse women", it is a response to a deep feeling of what society considers, as Bigtony put it, modest and intimate. Those feelings have little to do with what the person thinks of himself, what the person thinks of others or what others think of the person, it has everything to do with the body he/she is carrying. A less prude society obviously wouldn't care about such things and likely wouldn't have sex-specific intimate rooms in the first place.
Though I obvious don't know the specifics of the transgendered person at the heart of the incident, I would venture a guess that she wants to go to the girls bathroom because she feels unconfortable in the boy's bathroom, not because she wants to demonstrate to the world that she is indeed a girl.
On December 05 2015 11:23 Bigtony wrote:
So it's ok if we just rename bathrooms to be the Penis Room and the Vagina Room? Restrooms aren't the same as changing rooms.
I would find that solution satisfactory and hilarious.
|
United States43966 Posts
On December 05 2015 11:24 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 11:02 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2015 10:58 cLutZ wrote:On December 05 2015 10:48 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2015 10:14 AngryMag wrote:On December 05 2015 10:09 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2015 10:05 AngryMag wrote:On December 05 2015 10:02 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2015 09:59 AngryMag wrote:On December 05 2015 09:55 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
So according to you hermaphrodites get to visit the bathroom that most closely matches their identity, not necessarily what they have going on down below. Interesting. Unfortunately for you it is not that simple.Some people are fifty/fifty. They can choose according to their sexual identity. Others have dominant biological sexes, they choose their bathroom according to their dominant sex. Please try again. Yeah that comes across really smug And what about the parents of the children crying out "she may identify as a girl but she has a penis" in the case of one who chooses? You understand that you lost this one right when you said that someone could choose according to their sexual identity, right? That was my point. You claimed that there was no element of choice, it was always one or the other, black or white. I challenged you to define biological sex to get you to this point where you admit that it's not always so simple and some people will always break that model. Here we are and you have lost. No what you did is you simply moved the goalpost from people we are talking about in this thread aka one biological sex to people with both biological sexes and left the assumptions from the thread related discussion aka one biological sex unchanged and get even more smug about it on top of that. I didn't move the goalposts, we're still talking about trans people. I used the example of intersex people to disprove the idea that there can be a universal rule that defines which bathroom people use and makes all parents comfortable. The reason I brought up intersex people is because you proposed a universal rule which was disproven by them. Imagine we were talking about dogs and then you said "all animals have four legs". If I then said "what about snakes?" you couldn't then go "yeah but we're talking about dogs here, why do you have to bring up snakes". Same situation. We're still talking about trans people but your universal bathroom rule to satisfy the concerns of parents regarding their kids seeing something that doesn't match what they have going on doesn't work. A rigidly defined separation based on biological sexual characteristics isn't going to work because there is no clear definition to work with. Nope, we were talking about one sex transgender people (you know the thread, the article linked in the thread and the whole discussion up to the point of you starting to change the subject to intersex people) and bathroom stuff until you decided to move the goalpost from one biological sex to two sexes and starting to argue points which were made under different assumption aka one biological sex. It is the text book definition of a straw man argument So just to clarify, you think trans people should be forced to use the bathroom of their assigned sex at birth to make sure that nobody sees anything not like theirs and gets offended but at the same time you think intersex people should get to choose which bathroom they use? And your reasoning for this is that everyone has to use their biological bathroom. Let me know when you see the relevance of the intersex counterexample. It's not a straw man. No, its not a straw man. Its you asking a hard question for someone's position, that they admit is a hard question. However you do not propose a values system in which that is not a hard question. So I don't understand your point. How does "let people use the facilities that match their gender identity" not resolve the issue caused by biological sex not being binary? He proposed a strict binary system to resolve a problem that is not binary but rather a spectrum and results in people being assigned something they know to be wrong. My solution addresses the spectrum by allowing people to self define (albeit with rather more effort than a facebook status update, they would need a GID diagnosis). So, we finally get somewhere. The "choice" of gender, so far as it is, must be concrete. So you say that a person needs a diagnosis. I would raise the bar to diagnosis + judge's decree because of the high level of quackery in this area, but this is arguing about the edges. In either case you admit that there should be a fairly high bar of proof. However, earlier (no I may be ascribing someone else's outrage to you) said "Look at this school violating other trans kids civil rights" and that is the point, what level of proof should we require. And there is a significant % of trans activists that say "no proof". Edit. Which is, hilariously, the Huckabee situation.
Haven't schools always required a doctor's note for pretty much any medical claim. The standard for using a changing room different to your birth sex should be at least as high as the standard for not doing gym class. GID is a real diagnosis, it exists and that's a really powerful tool in the arsenal of trans people because they can get a piece of paper that says "no, really, I have this issue that I need you to work with and it's signed by someone in authority better informed than you". A diagnosis seems a perfectly reasonable minimum standard.
|
Dr.'s note not required (in my state at least), which is relevant in cases where a child expresses a gender identity but the parents are not supportive.
|
On December 05 2015 10:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 10:24 Sbrubbles wrote:
Some/many people are more unconfortable being around a naked/half-dressed person of the opposite sex more than they are someone of their own (hence same-sex bathroom and changing rooms) and naturally this applies to transgenders as well as cis, which leads to this situation. My question is: if the argument is that the transgendered person has the right to use the changing room where he/she is not unconfortable, why can't the same argument be applied to defend the right of the cis person who is now faced with changing in front of someone whose body makes her/him unconfortable (aka the exact same problem the transgendered person was faced with to begin)? Does the answer to this rely around "their rights have to take precedence because they already have it hard enough"?. They're not granted the right to use the bathroom they identify with because the other one will make them feel bad. If the argument was based on minimizing feeling bad then we could kick gays out of the locker room because the straight guys might feel weird about a gay guy seeing their dick. They're allowed to use it because it is the correct bathroom for their gender identity.
Most people don't know others are gay while changing. We live in a society that vastly prioritizes the comfort of the minority over the majority though, so if they were uncomfortable they'd be punished by the government for expressing that anyway.
I agree with the sentiment that the real solution to issues of change rooms is just to have individual ones. A more cost effective one would be to just merge men's and women's change rooms into one big one and convince everyone to get over nudity. Won't happen though, especially with how society views sexual harassment.
|
On December 05 2015 11:45 KwarK wrote:
Haven't schools always required a doctor's note for pretty much any medical claim. The standard for using a changing room different to your birth sex should be at least as high as the standard for not doing gym class. GID is a real diagnosis, it exists and that's a really powerful tool in the arsenal of trans people because they can get a piece of paper that says "no, really, I have this issue that I need you to work with and it's signed by someone in authority better informed than you". A diagnosis seems a perfectly reasonable minimum standard.
I think we've identified one of the main problems. You are far more reasonable than many of your allies on this issue, and until these last set of posts you haven't differentiated yourself from that POV. Which is what my line of questioning kept going towards: line drawing. Very few people particularly mind your line, except in the context of a slippery slope, which in LGBT issues has been fairly well demonstrated it is not a fallacy, just a reflection of the mindset of the advocates (i.e. they pivoted immediately from winning the right of gay marriage to compelling bakers to cater to them).
|
I just find it funny that Kwark responds to hypothetical parent objections of type: "I don't want a penis near my daughter" with arguments that "trans girls are entitled to access to the same things as cis girls." Everyone who has actually given serious, critical thought to this issue should know that this is hardly a response at all.
I think the Penis Room and the Vagina Room are the underlying social reality of these rooms, which are named "Men's" and "Women's" Rooms out of decorum, not out of some gender-identity sorting. If you want to debate where intersex people should go when they have to choose between the Penis Room and the Vagina Room that's a debate we can have, but simply saying that people should go to the one identical with their gender identity is borderline moronic. Kwark makes a big deal about how there is no "biological definition of sex" but then pretends that everyone is either Male or Female. How can you leave a hole that gaping in your argument? Where are gender-queer people supposed to go Kwark? Can they go to either depending on their mood that day? Is a zhe/gender-queer/fluctuating gender not real or something? Is it not sufficiently medicalized enough for you to warrant the hallowed status of "human right"?
|
Just send them all to the same goddamn room and tell them that genitals aren't scary.
|
That's an option.
I should also say that I understand why a trans woman would want to use a women's restroom or a trans man a men's restroom, and since those have individuals stalls I don't see why it should be a problem at all. Changing rooms where people get naked are different. And while I don't think we should necessarily be separating the sexes at all in these rooms, I understand the logic behind the Penis Room and the Vagina Room when they are separated.
|
I think it has to do with a very insecure idea of sexuality, because that's when the whole splitting up stuff starts, no one divides 5 year olds in dressing rooms. It kind of sense a message of "you can't handle being around the other sex without being weird", so we're taking precaution and going to split you up.
If people are getting into conflicts because of their gender or perception thereof that's where we should start instead of reinforcing the problems. A lot of problems transgender people face I think happen because they have the same "outcast" status that other groups had historically and people don't really know how to react to them. There needs to be interaction for that to stop from a young age.
|
United States43966 Posts
On December 05 2015 12:59 IgnE wrote:
I just find it funny that Kwark responds to hypothetical parent objections of type: "I don't want a penis near my daughter" with arguments that "trans girls are entitled to access to the same things as cis girls." Everyone who has actually given serious, critical thought to this issue should know that this is hardly a response at all.
It is a response. If you say "I don't want a penis anywhere near my daughter" that's fine. if you say "I don't want a penis anywhere near my daughter so take rights away from trans girls", that's where you lose my support. Some girls have penises. Cis ones don't and they are the vast majority but trans girls do exist. The rights of trans girls trump the discomfort of the parents of other girls. It is a response, some girls have penises, get over it.
|
On December 05 2015 13:10 Nyxisto wrote:
Just send them all to the same goddamn room and tell them that genitals aren't scary.
^^^^ SO this!
That and no one in my school district ever got naked in the changing rooms anyway besides girls going from bras to sports bras and back nothing beyond what's exposed by a swimsuit ever came out.
If people were less prudish it would go a long way not just to sort out problems like this but with sexual education and beyond.
I personally get a kick out of the campaign to replace exposed women's nipples with men's nipples in an effort to show how absurd the fear of the human (especially women's) body is.
You could show an alien bursting through someones stomach leaving them a bloody pile of guts and it's fine, but have two men kiss or show a bloody tampon and everyone loses their mind.
You can't even say the word "Vagina" in tampon advertisements ffs....
|
On December 05 2015 13:53 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 12:59 IgnE wrote:
I just find it funny that Kwark responds to hypothetical parent objections of type: "I don't want a penis near my daughter" with arguments that "trans girls are entitled to access to the same things as cis girls." Everyone who has actually given serious, critical thought to this issue should know that this is hardly a response at all. It is a response. If you say "I don't want a penis anywhere near my daughter" that's fine. if you say "I don't want a penis anywhere near my daughter so take rights away from trans girls", that's where you lose my support. Some girls have penises. Cis ones don't and they are the vast majority but trans girls do exist. The rights of trans girls trump the discomfort of the parents of other girls. It is a response, some girls have penises, get over it.
It's not a response that is meaningful because you aren't addressing the objection. The objection is not about "girls" and "boys" changing rooms or showers. It's about the de facto "vaginas" and "penises" changing rooms that you are turning into some nebulous gender rights issue.
I'll interpret your silence on the other half of my post, regarding the arbitrariness of your rights breakdown, to mean that you haven't much thought about it.
|
That's one thing i never have, and never will understand with american people. Apparently, blood, gore, flying bodyparts and whatnot are fine to show your kids - but they better not dare to show cleavage.
That and the (pardon me) idiotic fake smile that doesn't mean anything. Two mysteries i'll never solve.
edit: as for the transgender problem: that's actually extremely easy to solve. And not expensive, as someone stated.
All you need are a couple of curtain rods, and some curtain. Done. Now, not for the single transgender in the room. You can make 10 cabins for like 100 bucks. Problem solved.
|
United States43966 Posts
On December 05 2015 14:01 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 13:53 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2015 12:59 IgnE wrote:
I just find it funny that Kwark responds to hypothetical parent objections of type: "I don't want a penis near my daughter" with arguments that "trans girls are entitled to access to the same things as cis girls." Everyone who has actually given serious, critical thought to this issue should know that this is hardly a response at all. It is a response. If you say "I don't want a penis anywhere near my daughter" that's fine. if you say "I don't want a penis anywhere near my daughter so take rights away from trans girls", that's where you lose my support. Some girls have penises. Cis ones don't and they are the vast majority but trans girls do exist. The rights of trans girls trump the discomfort of the parents of other girls. It is a response, some girls have penises, get over it. It's not a response that is meaningful because you aren't addressing the objection. The objection is not about "girls" and "boys" changing rooms or showers. It's about the de facto "vaginas" and "penises" changing rooms that you are turning into some nebulous gender rights issue. I'll interpret your silence on the other half of my post, regarding the arbitrariness of your rights breakdown, to mean that you haven't much thought about it.
Speaking from personal experience alone I feel no more comfortable naked in front of my own gender than the opposite. Generally I try to avoid both with strangers. This seems like it'd be totally subjective though.
|
I don't see how 'it makes some people uncomfortable' is meaningful in any way. To me I think the same thing as when someone says 'I am offended by what you just said', which is 'so what'. There is no law that says you have the right to not feel uncomfortable, and no law that someone else has to change their behavior because it makes you uncomfortable. The correct answer to these complaints, as has been said, is to say 'get over it'.
I know non-compassionate and primitive thinking folks don't like it when they are told 'you are being retarded, get over it', but that is just something else thy will have to get over as that is often the best way to deal with the willfully ignorant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
