It could also be for reasons of modesty or for any one of a dozen reasons. Got that?
Calm yourself. You made it very clear that you are only concerned with the rights of this girl, and not that of her classmates or her parents.
How are the rights of any of the other girls being violated? How are the rights of the parents of any of the other girls being violated? They're being made to feel "uncomfortable"---not that we actually know through the story that they do feel uncomfortable, because the gym teacher made that assumption on her own.If none of the girls knew this one girl was a lesbian, nothing would be in play here. Are you suggesting the knowledge that someone is a lesbian under these circumstances violates someone's rights? If so, exactly what right? The right not to be made uncomfortable?
I believe your words were to the effect that the other girls should just suck it up and carry on. Who cares what they think, right? They're only heterosexuals, and they have to be forced to overcome whatever discomfort they might feel, in spite of the fact that changing rooms are segregated due to peep show reasons. We cannot challenge the left wing, homosexual lobby orthodoxy on this either, right comrade?
Yeah, right. Makes as much sense as your libertarian-statist groaner.
You've got it backwards. You are trampling on the rights of the other girls and their parents by refusing to even take their viewpoint on board.
I see. So somewhere in the Constitution it says something to this effect: The right of the people to feel secure in their surroundings, and comfortable around others, and not offended by any other person, organizations, or anything else, shall not be violated.
I'm pointing out the inconsistency in what you are saying. Why is it that lesbians are so much more trustworthy than heterosexual males to you?
Say what? I have no reason to believe a lesbian is more trustworthy than anyone else on the planet. What are you talking about?
No, my calculus is simple - if you are going to divide the sexes for good reasons regarding not turning a locker room into a "peep show", you ought to be consistent in that policy, not assuming some special saintliness on someone's part because they have an atypical sexuality.
So I guess your argument has nothing to do with the story in the thread at all, nor have you been arguing the points of the story with me on this thread.
And why would modesty be an element if the "peep show" issue wasn't at the heart of it? Come now, really.
How are the rights of any of the other girls being violated? How are the rights of the parents of any of the other girls being violated? They're being made to feel "uncomfortable"---not that we actually know through the story that they do feel uncomfortable, because the gym teacher made that assumption on her own.
You said earlier that the reason why people were segregated into men's and women's changing rooms was for reasons of "comfort". If that is your operating principle, then it should be respected and the girls consulted. If the operating principle is of not having a peep show, then that should be respected and the girls consulted. In any event, the girls should be consulted - rather than having some libertarian or bureaucrat ram it down their throats.
Yeah, right. Makes as much sense as your libertarian-statist groaner.
I am the one calling for consultation, not the one who is snootily making pronouncements from on high about what the majority of these girls must do without asking them or their parents.
I see. So somewhere in the Constitution it says something to this effect: The right of the people to feel secure in their surroundings, and comfortable around others, and not offended by any other person, organizations, or anything else, shall not be violated.
You are insisting that the lesbian be made comfortable and secure in her surroundings. Furthermore, earlier in this thread you insisted that the other girls were the ones who needed to grow up. Perhaps you never were a child, but in case you hadn't noticed, kids can be cruel in general - the slightest difference from the norm can be the grounds for teasing. A kid who wears glasses can be made very uncomfortable, called "four eyes" - but I don't see you saying that they are discriminating against the partially sighted and the teasers should be forced to stop.
Worse, you demand also that a societal norm - that when changing facilities are made available that they aren't potentially turned into some burlesque, be undone, but not in general, just for gays and lesbians.
Say what? I have no reason to believe a lesbian is more trustworthy than anyone else on the planet. What are you talking about?
You obviously feel that they can be trusted with the "peep show" element more than heterosexual boys can.
So I guess your argument has nothing to do with the story in the thread at all, nor have you been arguing the points of the story with me on this thread.
Yep, typical libertarian. A refusal to look facts in the face, a refusal to acknowledge that any critique is valid, and trying to alter facts and common sense to suit your purposes.
Ivan