A fact of reality in not a matter of belief. It has nothing to do with "decency". Your saying so is simple prejudice. It has nothing to do with PC. Your group being larger than mine has nothing to do with what is true in reality. Did you miss that part of objectivist philosophy?

That is the real reason crazy things like this take off. it is pure manipulation and theater. They do it so they can continue their real work, dismantling what little is left of the old U.S.

Thats true, been that way for 40 years or so...

Do what we want or we'll destroy what is most precious to you...

Well covered in the chapter "White Blackmail". This is why the Dems fixate on your kids.

You're welcome...

I apologize...

There was no reason for me to attempt to force my values on you. The fact that I pulled the "children" card just shows how little I thought, before replying.

I will now stop trying to win you over to my side of the argument.

Thank you for offering your insight into the issue.

It deals with beliefs, does it not? And beliefs which conflict with the reality there in the DNA no less.

It's always about your kids. Notice that?

The issue never existed. What this is about is forced acceptance, not tolerance. And yes, you're right, this is about diversion from more important matters that deserve attention. AKA slight of hand.

It is another personal choice being manipulated to be some grand social issue.

It is a manipulated issue, but real when you go to a swimming pool and some "wmana" comes in your locker room and strips down in front of your 12 yo, and you have to explain why "she" is different. That is what raises the fear of so many, they then see their kids at risk. It is a valid concern, when personal respect and courtesy is at an all time low.

I am not sure "up skirt potty cam" matches transgendered access. It does illustrate what the mainstream is afraid of.

Randys position is as valid as yours, Suzanne. The fact he does not want to accept the imposition the Obamanation is trying is not imposing anything on you. Nor is it denigrating. Your position is a valid as his. It mirrors the larger issue as well, a neutral solution is needed that respects both views, for real freedom to be found.

Susanne, I do not object or argue your point. I share that view as well, it is no big deal. I lived in Sweden in 1969, and went to lakes where everyone ran around nakid. No issue there. I have seen some TS's that are absolutely beautiful. Maybe they should have been female. Maybe not. It is a personal decision, it is a personal view and framework that they need. I am ok with that. I am not ok with then taking that person and allowing them to then impose themselves on functional women, or men. Those others have not been consulted or asked how THEY feel. It is as wrong to impose it upon them, ans to restrict the others. That is why the solution is never imposition, but some neutral answer that protects all rights. The problem is even when that is suggested, and lot of minority groups will say "not good enough". They want the full approval of all society, and that just will not happen, and is not fair to that society. It is a case of yin and yang, and the person who is adamant they do not a male equipped female in their locker room has as much right as the one who wants to be in there. So, the solution MUST always be as close to neutral as possible, if we are to protect individual rights. That is where the problem comes from. What you see as some people being prejudiced or judgemental, is just an expression of another part of the social whole. You will have a wide window of response, and in reality, no response is wrong, it is as valid as any other. Acceptance does not constitute approval. People have as much right to be prejudiced as not. It is the imposition of the prejudice on others that is wrong. The opposite is as true as well, those different have no right to impose that difference on others.

Indeed, government should not be able to impose any rules or laws not required for the country's protection and security. It is also that idea that gets abused and manipulated to the point picking up trash becomes a national security issue. Back to the corrupt politician problem...

Indeed, one solution. For communal facilities, one that is "use at your own risk". That way the people who do not object, can use it, the ones who don't, don't. freedom for all. But that means the minority does not get the reaffirmation they are "normal", when they are not. A man who is a woman, but equipped as a man, is not "normal" when that term means equipped only. As such, moms do not want their daughters exposed to that, and vice versa. That is what the minority does not want to have to see that, they just want the doors thrown wide open and all variations treated as whatever they want to be, even if they are not. That is where it all falls apart, most people are not willing to give up their own right to privacy and security, just to entertain a small groups need to impose themselves to be validated.

I do not think that is the issue. I have no issues with any persons identity, race color, religion. I do have an issue when they percieve that they must ram it in my face and have me both acknowledge and approve of it. The fact that someone has the need to ram their difference into society, by forcing everyone to bend to their will and allow them to do anything they deem needed to validate their person, is what I object to. The use of force to inject their perception into the world is what we are speaking of here. The government has no right to force a group to approve and allow a minority group to force their norms to change, just to suit them. It is the lowest form of pandering. Liberty and justice means that some accommodation should be made for these people, but not at the expense of everyone else. It is true of every minority group in society, the tools today is to use force, intimidation, bending the law, and making people "celebrate their differences" whether they want to or not. The majority groups needs go by the wayside, just to make sure the minority doesn't end up "feeling bad". All this does is make it more and more harder for anyone to become mainstream, as the mainstream cannot, and should not, have to change in whatever way the minority wants. Accommodate, accept, allow, yes. But do not force compliance. In this case, males and females of the mainstream have a body taboo that is ingrained in the culture. There are fears of even the smallest group that will use this to gain access to others to abuse. There are no provisions for addressing that, and when bad things happen, the majority has lost all confidence that something will be done to prevent it re-occurring. Until the political elite start to respect ALL opinions, and become consensus builders, instead of consensus destroyers, this will continue to be an issue. I rarely run into anyone who "hates" gays or transgendered people. They may not approve, endorse or want to associate with them. That cannot be changed by force. It has to be changed with slow discussion, debate, and a form of consensus building. There is an intense lack of respect or concern for the individual today, political power wants to manipulate in blocks, so they set gays against straight, black against white and then roll out some "wonderful" forceful solution (a law or fine) for one or the other, and now have bought their loyalty. That is the issue we see here.