# Thread: Trump sez: Transgenders B gone!

1. Originally Posted by fool
But why not rush in?
If you think there's a danger then don't you need to address it now?
that's the problem - in today's society, this ("men" using women's restrooms) has become normalized, so the reaction my dad (and virtually any other decent man) would have had thirty years ago - to drag the pervert out of the women's restroom and bodily throw him out into the parking lot - is considered to be the "wrong" response. Instead, those of us who are concerned for the safety of our loved ones are expected to wait until the alarm is raised.

2. ## The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ok doser For Your Post:

fool (October 26th, 2018),JudgeRightly (October 26th, 2018)

3. Originally Posted by fool
OK, now that we've solidified that we go back to the diagram.

Let's make it crystal clear to everyone what the expectation is with the rest room.

We put an XX on one door and an XY on the other door.

Simple enough yes?

Here comes the XXY, looks to me like they can use either rest room.

XX present? (checks chromosomes) YES. Enters rest room.

XY present? (checks chromosomes) YES. Enters rest room.

There's the point, and it's not even a point it's an observation of reality.

Objections? Anyone?
Whoa whoa whoa.

What happened to the "diagram" (Punnett Square) you were going to go back to?

You're jumping to your own conclusion, which isn't supported by the diagram.

That's not how Punnett squares work.

You put one chromosome (or trait) (X or Y) per row/column, not two or three. Like this:

A mother with XX and a Father with XY have a child. There is a 50% chance that the child will be XX, a little baby girl, and a 50% chance that the child will be XY, a little baby boy. (In reality, the percentage is slightly higher that it will be a boy than a girl.

If you want to do parents with more than 2 Chromosomes (which is an abnormality) you can do larger Punnett Squares, but the results will still be children with XX or XY (as far as Punnett squares are concerned).

4. ## The Following User Says Thank You to JudgeRightly For Your Post:

fool (October 26th, 2018)

5. Originally Posted by ok doser
that's the problem - in today's society, this ("men" using women's restrooms) has become normalizedd, so the reaction my dad (and virtually any other man) would have had thirty years ago - to drag the pervert out of the women's restroom and bodily throw him out into the parking lot - is considered to be the "wrong" response. Instead, those of us who are concerned for the safety of our loved ones are expected to wait until the alarm is raised.
Thirty years ago when my cousin came out as gay his parents threw him out and disowned him.
Times change.

But back to the bathroom. What if you see someone and you're really not sure if it's a man or a woman? We've all seen these. Are you alarmed?

6. Originally Posted by fool
Thirty years ago when my cousin came out as gay his parents threw him out and disowned him.
Times change.

But back to the bathroom. What if you see someone and you're really not sure if it's a man or a woman? We've all seen these. Are you alarmed?

i'd probably be more alert - it would depend

and in either case, if they came out and my elderly mother/twelve year old daughter didn't, I'd probably knock on the door and call in to make sure they were ok

7. ## The Following User Says Thank You to ok doser For Your Post:

fool (October 26th, 2018)

8. Originally Posted by JudgeRightly
Whoa whoa whoa.
Whoaing.

What happened to the "diagram" (Punnett Square) you were going to go back to?
We're back.

You're jumping to your own conclusion, which isn't supported by the diagram.
I'm pointing out that the diagram is incomplete.

That's not how Punnett squares work.
They need to get their act together.
You put one chromosome (or trait) (X or Y) per row/column, not two or three. Like this:

A mother with XX and a Father with XY have a child. There is a 50% chance that the child will be XX, a little baby girl, and a 50% chance that the child will be XY, a little baby boy. (In reality, the percentage is slightly higher that it will be a boy than a girl.
Not correct. As Doser showed us in post #78;
XXY prevalence is estimated at 1:500

that's 0.2%

small percentage, large when extrapolated to the total population = 15,200,000 worldwide

651,400 in the states

If you want to do parents with more than 2 Chromosomes (which is an abnormality) you can do larger Punnett Squares, but the results will still be children with XX or XY (as far as Punnett squares are concerned).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinef...ome#Variations
Klinefelter syndrome usually occurs randomly.[3] An older mother may have a slightly increased risk of a child with KS.[3] The condition is not typically inherited from one's parents.[3] The underlying mechanisms involves at least one extra X chromosome in addition to a Y chromosome such that the total chromosome number is 47 or more rather than the usual 46.[9] KS is diagnosed by the genetic test known as a karyotype.[4]

9. Originally Posted by ok doser
i'd probably be more alert - it would depend

and in either case, if they came out and my elderly mother/twelve year old daughter didn't, I'd probably knock on the door and call in to make sure they were ok
In the case of the 12 year old you could just text them or check their Instagram feed.

10. ## The Following User Says Thank You to fool For Your Post:

ok doser (October 26th, 2018)

11. So, to circle back to this;

Originally Posted by ok doser
so what I'm getting here is that they're people with errors in their genetic code and they're not normal

i think both jr and fool would agree on that much
I agree and if I add them up and inflate it a little I'm going to say .5% including all the other survivable combinations.
Like;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_syndrome

to me, the question becomes "how does society deal with the non-normal?"
And there my friend, is the heart of the question.
That really is the only question that matters and is the root of everything.
"How do we treat each other?"

to many (not saying you, fool) the insistence is that they be viewed as variants of normal and accommodated in ways that the majority finds problematic
They need to be viewed as human beings who didn't want or ask for any of this.

because of feelings, etc
Because of abnormalities.

12. ## The Following User Says Thank You to fool For Your Post:

quip (October 28th, 2018)

13. Originally Posted by fool
So, to circle back to this;

I agree and if I add them up and inflate it a little I'm going to say .5% including all the other survivable combinations.
Like;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_syndrome

And there my friend, is the heart of the question.
That really is the only question that matters and is the root of everything.
"How do we treat each other?"

They need to be viewed as human beings
As far as I can tell, no one has said otherwise.

who didn't want or ask for any of this.
What about those who simply "self-identify" as transgender, but are genetically "normal?" Pretty sure they did ask for this.

Because of abnormalities.
Which brings us back to this question from Glass.

Originally Posted by glassjester
I don't see why that should have any bearing on your response to my question. Should only individuals with genetic anomalies (ie, XXY) be considered "transgender"?
Originally Posted by glassjester
Let's get to it now. Your conversation with JR can continue, unaffected. Should only the individuals with genetic anomalies (ie, XXY) be considered "transgender"?
In addition to that, then what about all the people who claim to be "transgender" but genetically are XX (female) or XY (male)?

14. Look . Some humans have been having sex with members of the same gender from the the very beginning of the human race abut 200,000 years ago . And they always will .
Trying to legislate homosexuality out of existence is both stupid and destructive .
Homosexuality is found in hundreds of animal species . But humans are the only species which hates others for engaging in homosexual sex . Every day, children are born who will grow up to be gay .

15. ## The Following User Says Thank You to The Horn For Your Post:

quip (October 28th, 2018)

16. Originally Posted by The Horn
Look . Some humans have been having sex with members of the same gender from the the very beginning of the human race abut 200,000 years ago.
Humans weren't around 10,000 years ago, let alone 200,000.

And they always will.
Wishful thinking.

Trying to legislate homosexuality out of existence is both stupid and destructive.
Homosexuality has been illegal for the past 3500 years. Only within the last 50 or so has it been legalized.

Homosexuality is found in hundreds of animal species.
So is eating one's own young. Yet humans don't because we're NOT ANIMALS.

We are creatures made in God's image and likeness. No other creature is.

But humans are the only species which hates others for engaging in homosexual sex.
Because it's immoral, filthy, and disgusting, not to mention dangerous, and an abomination to God.

Every day, children are born who will grow up to be gay.
Correlation does not equal causation.

By the way, how many of those who "will grow up to be" (your words, not mine, implying that they're not born homosexual (because they're truly not) (see, even a broken clock is right twice a day...)) homosexual become that way because a relative molested or raped them when they were young?

No, we will not "get over it." Homosexuality is a threat to normal society. We don't have to tolerate something that threatens society.

17. Originally Posted by The Horn
Look . Some humans have been having sex with members of the same gender from the the very beginning of the human race abut 200,000 years ago . And they always will .
Trying to legislate homosexuality out of existence is both stupid and destructive .
Homosexuality is found in hundreds of animal species . But humans are the only species which hates others for engaging in homosexual sex . Every day, children are born who will grow up to be gay .
People rape babies....don't let it bother you, right? People lie, cheat and steal. Just mind your own business. To each his own. I don't care, do you?

18. ## The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to glorydaz For Your Post:

Grosnick Marowbe (November 8th, 2018),JudgeRightly (October 26th, 2018)

19. Originally Posted by JudgeRightly
Which brings us back to this question from Glass.
He's not going to answer. We haven't "got there" yet.

20. ## The Following User Says Thank You to glassjester For Your Post:

JudgeRightly (October 26th, 2018)

21. Originally Posted by fool
That really is the only question that matters and is the root of everything.
"How do we treat each other?"
in a way that doesn't make the other feel uncomfortable?

in a way that recognizes normalcy as desirable and that those who are abnormal shouldn't insist that society recognize them as "variants of normal"?

They need to be viewed as human beings....
those who don't insist that society accept them as "normal" don't have any problem

if you look like the second human being (from my example above), you use the men's restroom

if you look like the first human being, you use the women's restroom

...who didn't want or ask for any of this.
i didn't ask to be born with a genetic disorder that makes me grossly obese

but if i were, it would be folly to insist that society accommodate me, all 750 pounds of me, and call me "normal"

Because of abnormalities.
we all have abnormalities of some sort or another - I, for example, am legally blind without corrective lenses

again, it would be folly for me to insist that society accept my blindness as "normal" and allow me to drive, etc without glasses

22. ## The Following User Says Thank You to ok doser For Your Post:

JudgeRightly (October 27th, 2018)

23. @The Horn lobs a familiar softball:

Originally Posted by The Horn
Look . Some humans have been having sex with members of the same gender from the the very beginning of the human race abut 200,000 years ago .
i know you believe this is true, but there's no scientific evidence to support it

so this one falls into the "unsupportable claim" bucket

And they always will .
again, impossible to prove

another for the "unsupportable claim" bucket

Trying to legislate homosexuality out of existence is both stupid and destructive .
clearly not a logical consequence of your two prior unsupportable claims

thus, another for the "unsupportable claim" bucket

Homosexuality is found in hundreds of animal species .
same sex mating occurs in other animal species, yes

from beetles to beagles

But humans are the only species which hates others for engaging in homosexual sex .
I know from personal experience that my female beagle, who often liked "attention" from male dogs, decidedly shunned female dogs who gave her the same "attention", pushing them away and snapping at them

so this statement of yours falls into the "that's a lie" bucket

sorry

Every day, children are born who will grow up to be gay .
this statement appears to be true, at least for the foreseeable future

get over what?

so, to summarize, your diatribe consisted of three unsupportable claims, two true statements, one outright falsehood and a cryptic command

not very impressive horn

care to explain exactly what you meant by "it" in your "get over it"?

24. ## The Following User Says Thank You to ok doser For Your Post:

JudgeRightly (October 27th, 2018)

25. Originally Posted by ok doser
care to explain exactly what you meant by "it" in your "get over it"?
I'll take a stab at it.

I think he's saying that because many people engage in homosexual activity, you should accept it (and maybe even approve of it).

But that's a weird rationale, isn't it? Simply because behavior X exists, I should accept behavior X? Nah. There are plenty of unacceptable human behaviors that have "always" existed.

26. ## The Following User Says Thank You to glassjester For Your Post:

JudgeRightly (October 27th, 2018)

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)