(Gee, I wonder why anyone would put a limitation on a right. Rolleyes Bet it has something to do with some sort of repercussion of the right)
When people seek to limit gun rights, they seek to codify those limitations into the appropriate law.
Why are they seeking to limit gun rights? It's due to the repercussions of gun ownership, i.e. death. Your response only discussed what they were doing, or the process they are taking to change those laws. Nothing in my post discussed the process people use to change laws. Your response was nonsensical to my post.
(Gee, I wonder why anyone would put a limitation on a right. Bet it has something to do with some sort of repercussion of the right)
When people seek to limit gun rights, they seek to codify those limitations into the appropriate law. If you want to limit the rights of transgender students to use bathrooms, that has to start with a repeal or revision of Title IX. Until then, those students have a right that cannot be ignored because of pragmatic concerns.
I'm sorry, your response is nonsensical to the context we are discussing.
The only reason to trump a right is because it conflicts with some other value. When you make a determination using both of those values, you are making a trade off or determination using pragmatism. Pragmatism is the only way you can balance rights that conflict.
If there are two rights that are in conflict, then we need a way to balance them. But there aren't two rights in conflict here - there's one right, the Title IX right of the transgender students, and one feeling of discomfort or offense. You don't have the right to not be uncomfortable, and we don't "pragmatically" limit rights whenever they might make someone feel uncomfortable.
Do you understand, your entire objection to my argument earlier was entirely focused on not even acknowledging the potential repercussions becasue, a right is a right.....damn the repercussions.
Yes, a right is a right. Damn the repercussions. That is not the same as saying a right cannot include limitations. But if the right does not include limitations you might want, then too bad. A right is a right.
In circles we go...
So you oppose all new gun regulation?
(Gee, I wonder why anyone would put a limitation on a right. Bet it has something to do with some sort of repercussion of the right)
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. How do you possibly read "pragmatism does not trump rights" to mean "rights cannot include limitations"?
The only reason to trump a right is because it conflicts with some other value. When you make a determination using both of those values, you are making a trade off or determination using pragmatism. Pragmatism is the only way you can balance rights that conflict.
Pragmatic limitations can certainly be included in rights, but we can't just create new limitations that aren't in the law whenever we find ourselves in an awkward or uncomfortable situation involving that right.
Pragmatism does not trump rights.
That's what makes something a right - if you only get to exercise a "right" when it's the most pragmatic option, then it's not a right at all.
Do you understand, your entire objection to my argument earlier was entirely focused on not even acknowledging the potential repercussions becasue, a right is a right.....damn the repercussions.
I'm saying that I reject the pragmatic tradeoff you propose, because it amounts to simply stripping transgender students of their rights.
You completely ignored my argument, i.e. pragmatism versus ideology. Do you really want to argue that right is inalienable? As I said, I understand the ideological argument and agree people should not be discriminated against, but in the same token, I live in the real world where I and everyone else conform to societal norms despite not necessarily agreeing with them ideologically. You assert freedom to choose a bathroom in junior high is worth all the possible repercussions that will result.
I didn't ignore your argument - I'm saying that I reject the pragmatic tradeoff you propose, because it amounts to simply stripping transgender students of their rights. Pragmatism does not trump rights. That's what makes something a right - if you only get to exercise a "right" when it's the most pragmatic option, then it's not a right at all.
I refute the premise that you can not possibly have a limited right. I would surmise you disagree with all forms of gun control.
We comprise our rights all the time for social norms. The label on most segregated bathrooms are discriminatory.
If a transgender student would prefer to forgo the right to use the bathroom of their gender in order to avoid making a splash, that's certainly their prerogative to make that compromise. However, if a school district is going to compel them to do that, then that's not really a compromise, is it? That's just someone's rights being taken away from them.
I understand the ideological argument in regards to equality and discrimination, but there is some serious issues this raises. I would not be comfortable with a kid in junior high sharing a bathroom with the opposite sex. A kid is not emotionally mature, a kid is impulsive, a kid has dramatic changes occurring that constantly questions their identity and sexuality. These issues are not being projected upon tran-gender kids, this is all kids. It also questions whether or not we should be politicizing where kids go to the bathroom. It's also a matter of the very nature of what trangender is and I'm not sure kids are equipped to understand it. Needless to say, I think there are more variables than just a right to use a bathroom of ones choice.
I went to school with someone who pretended to be gay just to be unique and stand out. There is nothing wrong with that, but when you are making policy decision that can dramatically alter social norms, that can invoke some serious responses, responses a kid should not have to make in junior high school.
Transgender students exist regardless of whether kids are "equipped to understand it". We can't simply close our eyes and pretend they aren't there and don't have rights in order to avoid making students confront the issue. If a school is worried that students are going to have trouble understanding the issues faced by a transgender student, then educate the students on the topic.
You completely ignored my argument, i.e. pragmatism versus ideology. Do you really want to argue that right is inalienable? As I said, I understand the ideological argument and agree people should not be discriminated against, but in the same token, I live in the real world where I and everyone else conform to societal norms despite not necessarily agreeing with them ideologically. You assert freedom to choose a bathroom in junior high is worth all the possible repercussions that will result.
As many people are aware, in politics one of the first rules it to label or define your opponent. Obama, purposely or not, is forcing the members of congress to takes sides. Once they pick, the labels are going to start flying. I believe this action polarizes and expands this issue needlessly. I've yet to see ANY empirical evidence that indicate transgender folks are having considerable problems using the bathroom with any degree of frequency.
The Title IX right in question is an individual right. Even if it were the case that only a single person in the entire country would be effected, that person is still guaranteed that right, and the DoJ would still be compelled to issue the same directive.
We comprise our rights all the time for social norms. The label on most segregated bathrooms are discriminatory. I understand the ideological argument in regards to equality and discrimination, but there is some serious issues this raises. I would not be comfortable with a kid in junior high sharing a bathroom with the opposite sex. A kid is not emotionally mature, a kid is impulsive, a kid has dramatic changes occurring that constantly questions their identity and sexuality. These issues are not being projected upon tran-gender kids, this is all kids. It also questions whether or not we should be politicizing where kids go to the bathroom. It's also a matter of the very nature of what trangender is and I'm not sure kids are equipped to understand it. Needless to say, I think there are more variables than just a right to use a bathroom of ones choice.
I went to school with someone who pretended to be gay just to be unique and stand out. There is nothing wrong with that, but when you are making policy decision that can dramatically alter social norms, that can invoke some serious responses, responses a kid should not have to make in junior high school. This will lead to more fights in school.
It's a bombshell for a number of reasons, most of them actually not related to transgender rights in of itself imo.
But, as far as the transgender rights is concerned- it's a bombshell for precisely the reason you wrote- People are now making this into a serious policy issue and Obama basically forced everyone's hands by making a big announcement from the very top.
S.C.'s law was a big deal, but it ultimately remained on the state level and isolated to S.C. Obama just forced every state and its political heads to deal with this. It's a big deal.
I think you nailed it.
As many people are aware, in politics one of the first rules it to label or define your opponent. Obama, purposely or not, is forcing the members of congress to takes sides. Once they pick, the labels are going to start flying. I believe this action polarizes and expands this issue needlessly. I've yet to see ANY empirical evidence that indicate transgender folks are having considerable problems using the bathroom with any degree of frequency.
Stop thinking in the terms of conclusions and start thinking about the process to which you come to your conclusion, becasue that is what I am fundamentally challenging
So you are simply flailing on the keyboard, not attempting to contribute to the debate. Good to know.
You should look up the words "premise", "methodology" and "reasoning". If you can not defend the merits of your premise, methodology, and reasoning behind your conclusions, those conclusions tend to have very little value in debate. It's unfortunate you think someone challenging the premise to which someone presents a conclusion is nothing more than "flailing at the keyboard". I've answered you in good faith, your only concern is for me to answer the same question, only worded differently, to which three times I've refuted the premise of the question and explained why and my purpose for doing so. Obviously, you feel the discussion can only focus on the answer to the question, as opposed to how you got the answer. You do not care to respond to those arguments I've presented (outright ignoring them), which is okay, but stop asking the same question and expecting a different result, especially when your only desire it to get an answer I possible cant give, for the aforementioned reasons. Great achievements are great, but the process to which they were achieved are much more important....and in my mind, more interesting. Debates are not won or lost in conclusions, (i.e. whether or not I support gender neutral bathrooms), they are won with sound reasoning and empirical evidence.
Personally, I find it odd that you think we should identify bathrooms with some form of gender reference to participate in the debate.
EDIT: You may also want to look up what a contrarian is. There are two popular opinions on this issue, I share neither but are similar, in some regards, to both.
Most here do not think the same as me. It's important for you to identify it as a "gender neutral bathroom", its important to me not to label a bathroom. That is where I stand ideologically.
Regardless of what you are choosing to call the concept, you are arguing in favor of bathrooms which are not segregated by gender, yes?
I've answered this question three times now.
No. Stop thinking in the terms of conclusions and start thinking about the process to which you come to your conclusion, becasue that is what I am fundamentally challenging, to which you and others keep ignoring with the hope that I agree with the conclusion. Conclusions are a dime a dozen, I want people to show their work and back it up. I have an issue with labels, and people who cant say why they want that label other than platitudes like "major problem".
If I say I support gender neutral bathrooms, do you get some sort of victory or something? Am I part of the team?
How about a human being who just wants to choose where they go to the bathroom? The persons gender, sex, identity, race, ethnic back ground should be irrelevant, but you are finding ways to make it relevant by putting some label on someone who is not like you, or like you. The toilet does not know any difference. Shouldn't we promote the same attitude as the toilet? Until we get to that point as a society, we will continue to hit our heads against the wall with discrimination.
So you agree with the premise of the thread?
Who are you arguing with exactly? Because (as I far as I can tell) pretty much everyone here either thinks the same thing or thinks something quite similar.
Most here do not think the same as me. It's important for you to identify it as a "gender neutral bathroom", its important to me not to label a bathroom. That is where I stand ideologically. I also have asked for compelling evidence that using the bathroom is a major issue. No one can provide any data to indicate the frequency a trans faces discriminatory behavior in the bathroom. I would venture to guess, I too would be discriminated and harassed if I, as a male born male, used a female labeled bathroom at will. It's breaking a societal norm. There are many norms we all conform to, despite not necessarily agreeing with it. My other argument is, the people who are dismissive of the women who are discomforted using the bathroom with a trans, simply because they feel her discomfort is unwarranted. Obviously, there are many who feel the trans discomfort is unwarranted as well, but that would be identified as homophobic or bigoted. Many in the world pick and choose which persons discomfort they care about when they decide to pass laws. I do not think the logic in that is solid.
How about a human being who just wants to choose where they go to the bathroom? The persons gender, sex, identity, race, ethnic back ground should be irrelevant, but you are finding ways to make it relevant by putting some label on someone who is not like you, or like you. The toilet does not know any difference. Shouldn't we promote the same attitude as the toilet? Until we get to that point as a society, we will continue to hit our heads against the wall with discrimination.
Why are they seeking to limit gun rights? It's due to the repercussions of gun ownership, i.e. death. Your response only discussed what they were doing, or the process they are taking to change those laws. Nothing in my post discussed the process people use to change laws. Your response was nonsensical to my post.
I'm sorry, your response is nonsensical to the context we are discussing.
In circles we go...
So you oppose all new gun regulation?
(Gee, I wonder why anyone would put a limitation on a right. Bet it has something to do with some sort of repercussion of the right)
The only reason to trump a right is because it conflicts with some other value. When you make a determination using both of those values, you are making a trade off or determination using pragmatism. Pragmatism is the only way you can balance rights that conflict.
Do you understand, your entire objection to my argument earlier was entirely focused on not even acknowledging the potential repercussions becasue, a right is a right.....damn the repercussions.
Okay, so you oppose all forms of gun control and any limitations on a right? Soon as you limit a right, you've done so pragmatically.
EDIT: The point is, we make trade-off all the time.
I refute the premise that you can not possibly have a limited right. I would surmise you disagree with all forms of gun control.
You completely ignored my argument, i.e. pragmatism versus ideology. Do you really want to argue that right is inalienable? As I said, I understand the ideological argument and agree people should not be discriminated against, but in the same token, I live in the real world where I and everyone else conform to societal norms despite not necessarily agreeing with them ideologically. You assert freedom to choose a bathroom in junior high is worth all the possible repercussions that will result.
We comprise our rights all the time for social norms. The label on most segregated bathrooms are discriminatory. I understand the ideological argument in regards to equality and discrimination, but there is some serious issues this raises. I would not be comfortable with a kid in junior high sharing a bathroom with the opposite sex. A kid is not emotionally mature, a kid is impulsive, a kid has dramatic changes occurring that constantly questions their identity and sexuality. These issues are not being projected upon tran-gender kids, this is all kids. It also questions whether or not we should be politicizing where kids go to the bathroom. It's also a matter of the very nature of what trangender is and I'm not sure kids are equipped to understand it. Needless to say, I think there are more variables than just a right to use a bathroom of ones choice.
I went to school with someone who pretended to be gay just to be unique and stand out. There is nothing wrong with that, but when you are making policy decision that can dramatically alter social norms, that can invoke some serious responses, responses a kid should not have to make in junior high school. This will lead to more fights in school.
I think you nailed it.
As many people are aware, in politics one of the first rules it to label or define your opponent. Obama, purposely or not, is forcing the members of congress to takes sides. Once they pick, the labels are going to start flying. I believe this action polarizes and expands this issue needlessly. I've yet to see ANY empirical evidence that indicate transgender folks are having considerable problems using the bathroom with any degree of frequency.
You should look up the words "premise", "methodology" and "reasoning". If you can not defend the merits of your premise, methodology, and reasoning behind your conclusions, those conclusions tend to have very little value in debate. It's unfortunate you think someone challenging the premise to which someone presents a conclusion is nothing more than "flailing at the keyboard". I've answered you in good faith, your only concern is for me to answer the same question, only worded differently, to which three times I've refuted the premise of the question and explained why and my purpose for doing so. Obviously, you feel the discussion can only focus on the answer to the question, as opposed to how you got the answer. You do not care to respond to those arguments I've presented (outright ignoring them), which is okay, but stop asking the same question and expecting a different result, especially when your only desire it to get an answer I possible cant give, for the aforementioned reasons. Great achievements are great, but the process to which they were achieved are much more important....and in my mind, more interesting. Debates are not won or lost in conclusions, (i.e. whether or not I support gender neutral bathrooms), they are won with sound reasoning and empirical evidence.
Personally, I find it odd that you think we should identify bathrooms with some form of gender reference to participate in the debate.
EDIT: You may also want to look up what a contrarian is. There are two popular opinions on this issue, I share neither but are similar, in some regards, to both.
I've answered this question three times now.
No. Stop thinking in the terms of conclusions and start thinking about the process to which you come to your conclusion, becasue that is what I am fundamentally challenging, to which you and others keep ignoring with the hope that I agree with the conclusion. Conclusions are a dime a dozen, I want people to show their work and back it up. I have an issue with labels, and people who cant say why they want that label other than platitudes like "major problem".
If I say I support gender neutral bathrooms, do you get some sort of victory or something? Am I part of the team?
Most here do not think the same as me. It's important for you to identify it as a "gender neutral bathroom", its important to me not to label a bathroom. That is where I stand ideologically. I also have asked for compelling evidence that using the bathroom is a major issue. No one can provide any data to indicate the frequency a trans faces discriminatory behavior in the bathroom. I would venture to guess, I too would be discriminated and harassed if I, as a male born male, used a female labeled bathroom at will. It's breaking a societal norm. There are many norms we all conform to, despite not necessarily agreeing with it. My other argument is, the people who are dismissive of the women who are discomforted using the bathroom with a trans, simply because they feel her discomfort is unwarranted. Obviously, there are many who feel the trans discomfort is unwarranted as well, but that would be identified as homophobic or bigoted. Many in the world pick and choose which persons discomfort they care about when they decide to pass laws. I do not think the logic in that is solid.