Did you hear the one whereby, they, are, in certain states in the USA, now putting, TAMPON dispensers, in the boys toilets in schools!!!!! (by legislation)
Would someone explain this to me like I'm five, please?
My only guess is in case a girl decides to use boys toilet she can comfortably dispense her tampon. Am I off the mark, and there is another reason for putting those dispensers in?
It's for transgender boys to use. So girls who have transitioned to boys. Otherwise they wouldn't have access to them, unless relying on other girls to provide them.
So whether you agree or disagree with the whole transgender topic, especially whether a girl can transition as a boy or not, then at least ideally they can still have access to tampons while others deliberate the validity of their gender identity. For example if you still see the transboy as a girl, then hopefully you can agree they should still have access to sanitary products at the same time.
I personally don't see how this is so controversial, whether it's the case of a transboy wanting access to tampons, or a girl who considers themself a boy... just let them have what they need surely.
ok, there is at least some logic in a girl, who want to
pretend "transition" to be a boy (which is obviously not possible) , still needing a tampon...
Well, there's your answer to why there are tampons in boys bathrooms then, and it's really not as controversial or insane as it sounds. I do get the legitimate concern that other boys (who don't need tampons) will flush them down the toilet for a joke, this has always been the issue with immature boys. But if you really worry about this, then it's best to remove the toilet roll as well for the same reason.
However...... it is a school, public resource, public money... it is other peoples money that pays for the whole shebang. There are shops out there in the world where they can buy them.
Sure, this is the argument for not having any tampons in girls or boys bathrooms. But it has little to nothing to do with the transgender issue.
Annnd then, the other issue is the fact is exposes other children, some of whom may be younger, to the whole thing.. which other parents may have an issue with.
Sure, parents find issues with everything and anything. There is always a karen or two to rely on for a complaint. Probably best to segregate all the gay kids too, as this exposes children to homosexuality.
These kids , all of them are under the age of consent for pretty much everything.... (alcohol, voting, driving, etc etc) so why is this different ? why is this not a case of, do what you want when you are 18?
Pretty sure this is why medical transitioning is forbidden until kids are adults.
Also, I also see that, in some states and schools in the USA , they are now allowing children, who self identify as cats, dogs, and other types of "furries" to wear "furries costumes" and not speak, and to sit out PE, and to do things like sit at their gym teachers feet and lick their feet rather than doing their gymnastics/football or whatever.
This isn't really true though, is it? There are no rights for humans identifying as other animals, or any institutions actually affirming that.
Also, what about the rights of the parents who have children in those schools, that do not want their kids around little Juan, who is prancing around in a dress at age x at school, or little Jenny who is walking around and in class and now called Juan, and they do not want their kids exposed to such an influence when they are still a child?
If we're going to give parents the rights not to have children around transgenderism, then are we going to give them the same rights to not have children around homosexuality as well? What about all the parents who don't want their children exposed to heterosexuality or cisgenderism? Should we just segregate all these kids based on their sexuality and perceived genders?
There aren't enough schools, only enough Karens...
...and "send them to another school" cannot be the answer shirley... , sorry I mean surely
No, its not the answer. Ideally just get all the kids that "normal" ie heterosexual and cis-gendered let's say, and put all the rest in permanent isoaltion. That's bound to work
"don't call me Shirley"
Hi Shirley
Where do you draw the line?
After Shirley.
I mean, next will it be cool for kids to smoke crack at age 13 in class room jus cos?
Probably. One minute kids are identifying as a different gender - next you know they are all crack smoking prostitutes, happens all the time
Also.... the deeper underlaying issue here is as follows....... men, cannot ever be women, and women cannot ever be men. It is just not possible, it is not reality. No matter what cosmetic or hormone treatment, it just is not ever so. It just isn't.
So someone can have a dick and a beard and still not be considered a man? Or breasts and a vagina and not be a women? Sounds ridiculous to me tbh. Sure there are inconsistencies; transmen don't have testicles, transwomen don't have ovaries, but ability to reproduce isn't exactly the definition of sex. Sex is usually defined by the sexual organs someone possesses.
So, asking why do people have a problem with it.... is a bit on one level like saying, why cant we just be cool with people who say "I identify as a giraffe" ....... well bro, its because you are not a giraffe, and even if I wanted to be cool about it, and would love to make it so, it just is not so.
Reminds me about the arguments against homosexuality decades ago. If men can fuck other men, then what next? Let them fuck cat and dogs too? Where do draw the line?
But really, the line is pre-determined with transgenderism, it starts with gender and it ends with gender. Transpeciesism is a different topic if it concerns you.
These are just straw-man arguments basically.
There is a problem with society, just arbitrarily trying to change, or pretending to change these things, and like I alluded to earlier, it can be dangerous.
Transpeople have existed for thousands of years, so I agree here - changing the acceptance of transpeople is a dangerous precedent.
Hitler, and co, tried to make out that certain people were subhuman... it was a distortion of reality.... and people played along... that it what happens when people play along with distortions of reality, things can get dangerous.
Exactly, that's why Hitler also persecuted the transpeople. Because he saw them as "less human" or abnormal, along with gays, jews, romani gypsies etc. Hitler is probably rolling around is in grave knowing that tampons are accessible in boys bathrooms. He probably never recovered from gays getting rights either. Poor guy, his dream fell apart.
I really have no problem with people, doing and wanting to be what they want, where they want, when they are adults... I DO have a problem, when people try and force the view, that biology for example, gender, man and women, do not exist. If a person wants to say, "look I am going to go around , dressed and acting and behaving like another sex, because I want to" then ok, all the power to you... the problem comes when people start saying "NO , I AM A WOMAN!!!" and you must accept that, rather than, "I am a man who wants to dress up as a woman" and I do not see why people cannot just accept that , rather than just trying to change basically the laws of biology, of which there is little ambiguity about (yes a tiny minority of people are intersex I know)
Ok, so someone wants to identify as another gender, then you have no issue with that. But you do have an issue when people try and force their views onto you, while you are trying to force your views onto them? It's ironic to say the least. You have also confused gender and sex here in your statement. Gender is a social construct, sex is a biological classification, they are related and interlinked but distinctly different. So transpeople aren't trying to say that gender doesn't exist, quite the opposite, they are trying to emphasis that it does exist - and is more relevant than someone's sex (whether right or wrong).
It merely sounds like you are trying to force your view that gender is based on biology, when it isn't and never was. Sex is biology (ask a biologist). A biologist won't know anything about social constructs like gender, you'd need to consult a specialist in this field aka a sociologist (who have discussed gender for decades already fortunately). The summary is gender is more to do with male/female stereotypes, social and cultural differences. It's fine if you think being male or female has nothing to do with gender, only sex, but at least be realistic with your argument. At least that's where the anti-trans argument lies for reference sake.
Poll
