User Tag List

Page 7 of 19 FirstFirst ... 4567891017 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 276

Thread: Trump sez: Transgenders B gone!

  1. #91
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    20,813
    Thanks
    2,062
    Thanked 5,838 Times in 4,263 Posts

    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147731
    Quote Originally Posted by fool View Post
    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. #92
    Gold level Subscriber JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    7,429
    Thanks
    24,133
    Thanked 6,829 Times in 4,290 Posts

    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147603
    Quote Originally Posted by fool View Post
    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. #93
    Over 5000 post club fool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,389
    Thanks
    230
    Thanked 872 Times in 594 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    277753
    Quote Originally Posted by ok doser View Post
    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?
    Everyman is a voice in the dark.
    I II III IV

  6. #94
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    20,813
    Thanks
    2,062
    Thanked 5,838 Times in 4,263 Posts

    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147731
    Quote Originally Posted by fool View Post
    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. #95
    Over 5000 post club fool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,389
    Thanks
    230
    Thanked 872 Times in 594 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    277753
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    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]
    Everyman is a voice in the dark.
    I II III IV

  9. #96
    Over 5000 post club fool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,389
    Thanks
    230
    Thanked 872 Times in 594 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    277753
    Quote Originally Posted by ok doser View Post
    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.
    Everyman is a voice in the dark.
    I II III IV

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

    ok doser (October 26th, 2018)

  11. #97
    Over 5000 post club fool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,389
    Thanks
    230
    Thanked 872 Times in 594 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    277753
    So, to circle back to this;

    Quote Originally Posted by ok doser View Post
    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.
    Everyman is a voice in the dark.
    I II III IV

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

    quip (October 28th, 2018)

  13. #98
    Gold level Subscriber JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    7,429
    Thanks
    24,133
    Thanked 6,829 Times in 4,290 Posts

    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147603
    Quote Originally Posted by fool View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by glassjester View Post
    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"?
    Quote Originally Posted by glassjester View Post
    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. #99
    Over 1000 post club The Horn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    New Rochelle,NY.
    Posts
    1,290
    Thanks
    232
    Thanked 343 Times in 244 Posts

    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    188374
    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 .
    Get over it and please mind your own business !

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

    quip (October 28th, 2018)

  16. #100
    Gold level Subscriber JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    7,429
    Thanks
    24,133
    Thanked 6,829 Times in 4,290 Posts

    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147603
    Quote Originally Posted by The Horn View Post
    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?

    Get over it and please mind your own business !
    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. #101
    TOL Subscriber glorydaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    23,187
    Thanks
    14,327
    Thanked 36,680 Times in 18,299 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    97 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147799
    Quote Originally Posted by The Horn View Post
    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 .
    Get over it and please mind your own business !
    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. #102
    Over 4000 post club glassjester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    4,747
    Thanks
    586
    Thanked 1,298 Times in 1,020 Posts

    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    279131
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    Which brings us back to this question from Glass.
    He's not going to answer. We haven't "got there" yet.
    Your "catholic" is showing. - Sozo

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

    JudgeRightly (October 26th, 2018)

  21. #103
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    20,813
    Thanks
    2,062
    Thanked 5,838 Times in 4,263 Posts

    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147731
    Quote Originally Posted by fool View Post
    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. #104
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    20,813
    Thanks
    2,062
    Thanked 5,838 Times in 4,263 Posts

    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147731
    @The Horn lobs a familiar softball:

    Quote Originally Posted by The Horn View Post
    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 it and please mind your own business !
    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. #105
    Over 4000 post club glassjester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    4,747
    Thanks
    586
    Thanked 1,298 Times in 1,020 Posts

    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    279131
    Quote Originally Posted by ok doser View Post
    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.
    Your "catholic" is showing. - Sozo

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

    JudgeRightly (October 27th, 2018)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us