For people who think bathrooms should be segregated by birth sex, are passing trans men entitled to use the women's bathroom?

submitted by [deleted] from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]inkling 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

No, I’m saying HP’s comment with all of the links looks to have been made before you asked me for sources

It wasnt.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Odd that I saw her comment literally seconds after I made my comment (before the edit) and the time stamp indicated it had been there for two hours but again, okay buddy. You’ve been wrong allover this post so if you need a W, we can pretend you’re right on this.

Sure. Her comment was made after mine. There must just be a time stamp glitch on saidit or something.

[–]inkling 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

....do you want me to take screenshots for you? What a weird hill to die on

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Why are you so hell bent on focusing on time stamps? Are you avoiding addressing what matters?

I already said you can be right if you need to be. I don’t care.

It’s hilarious that you’re the one who can’t let this go when- it doesn’t even matter. By now you’ve had time to read her links. Most of what I referred was linked by her. And all of this happens yesterday or before. So by today, now, you’ve had a while to read the links and shouldn’t need them anymore.

You’re deflecting. Poorly.

[–]inkling 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

How am I not the one letting it go when Im just responding to the comments youre making? It takes two to have a conversation.

I already said you can be right if you need to be

Uh Im right because you can objectively look at the order of the comments and see that Im right

By now you’ve had time to read her links

And I responded to that comment. Seriously this is the weirdest hill for you to die on.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Im the one saying to move on lmao

This is stupid. You’re really trying to avoid the actual debate. It’s sad. I’m not going back and forth over this anymore. If you want to actually debate we can.

[–]inkling 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Im just responding to your points. You want the last word so badly that you want to make your points and then not receive any response apparently.

Edit: as for the actual debate I have asked for data many times and havent gotten any, so if you can provide that maybe we can continue.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

So you’ve never heard of any of the thing so referenced?

And are unwilling to google them?

Because you’d rather me link them just to… why? Why can’t you google things for yourself?

It’s not data- it’s actual events. Easily found. If it were data, I’d link it. You can just google the names. It’s not hard. You don’t want to. Because you already know who they are.

[–]inkling 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

So you have no data to back up your position? Lets just be very clear about this

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Considering your own sources are less than legit, this “source? Source please? Does anyone have a source for this?” schtick isn’t much of an argument.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There’s ample stories and articles on what I mentioned- because data is the wrong word in this situation- out there. So even if you think me not looking it up to paste here for you means Im wrong- anyone who knows what I referenced knows Im not.

Everyone but you knows who those people are and what they did. We all know about the rape shelter. And I suspect you do too

Eta- I think if people make a claim as if it’s a fact and that factuality is in dispute, then there’s obligation to link sources. If someone references something specific that You just don’t personally know about, it’s on You to look it up. For example- if I say brain sex is a thing, absolutely ask me to cite my sources. But if I say "Dana rivers murdered an entire family", You either know who that is or you don’t. And if you don’t, look it up.