Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: MadIvan
You are insisting that the lesbian be made comfortable and secure in her surroundings.

Wrong. I'm insisting that the lesbian girl has as much right to attend a gym class as a straight girl does.

Furthermore, earlier in this thread you insisted that the other girls were the ones who needed to grow up.

They do. Life doesn't owe them, or you, or me, or anyone else for that matter a certain level of "comfort." So there's a lesbian girl among them---big deal---the world's not going to stop spinning about on its axis because of it, and it sounds like had one big-mouthed girl not even brought it up, nobody involved would've known there was a lesbian among them. As a matter of fact, when you get right down to it, I'd wager it's not the girls themselves who feel uncomfortable about having a lesbian in their dressing room, but the girls' parents who feel uncomfortable about having a lesbian among their daughters.

You can squirm around all you want, but at the end of the day there's no denying the fact that you're advocating punishing a girl not because of what she did, but because of who she is.

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.

Yeah? No kidding. But you've got it exactly bass-ackwards. You're sticking up for the "right" of the kids who'd be doing the teasing to dis-associate themselves from the kid they'd be teasing. You honestly don't see how your stance on this issue puts you fully on the side of the sensitivity gestapo---the group that insists that every politically uncorrect comment or joke about a member of a class of person whose "feelings" are protected is an actionable offense? The next time some gay group claims their feelings were hurt and that they were made to feel uncomfortable and less good about themselves because someone famous made a gay joke, are you going to rush in on the side of the glass-jawed gays?

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.

Do you belong to a gym? Does that gym have separate changing facilities for straight males and homosexual males? If not, every time you changed clothes you performed in a "burlesque" show for any gay males who happened to be in there at the time.

How does that make you feel? Violated?

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.

A typical non-libertarian. A refusal to look at the facts of a case, a refusal to discuss what actually went on instead of what could have gone on, an insistence that hurt feelings equal a violation of someone's rights, and a strong desire to steer the argument elsewhere.

210 posted on 12/19/2002 1:37:58 PM PST by Hemingway's Ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies ]


To: Hemingway's Ghost
Wrong. I'm insisting that the lesbian girl has as much right to attend a gym class as a straight girl does.

Wrong. You're insisting she uses the same changing facilities as the other girls, regardless of their opinion.

They do. Life doesn't owe them, or you, or me, or anyone else for that matter a certain level of "comfort."

It doesn't owe the lesbian girl any level of comfort either. She made a choice to come out of the closet. There may be consequences with that choice regarding her changing facilities. Rather than accept those consequences, she is running to nanny government to protect her. And you, as a libertarian, are defending this course of action.

You can squirm around all you want, but at the end of the day there's no denying the fact that you're advocating punishing a girl not because of what she did, but because of who she is.

Not at all. I proposed a reasonable standard regarding the changing facilities. Since these facilities are segregated on the basis of "comfort" anyway, surely it is sensible to ask those who use them what they are comfortable with anyway? Or if you don't accept that standard, surely the consistency of the standard of it not being a potential peep show should be maintained.

If the girls feel otherwise, that's fine - all along, I've been arguing, ASK THEM. All along you've been demanding that your standard be shoved down their throats.

You honestly don't see how your stance on this issue puts you fully on the side of the sensitivity gestapo---the group that insists that every politically uncorrect comment or joke about a member of a class of person whose "feelings" are protected is an actionable offense?

No I don't. But then again, I'm not pandering to a special interest group in anything I've proposed.

Do you belong to a gym? Does that gym have separate changing facilities for straight males and homosexual males? If not, every time you changed clothes you performed in a "burlesque" show for any gay males who happened to be in there at the time.

There is a key difference here - for all I know, the other blokes in the locker room could all be straight, or could all be gay - there is no way to tell by looking. The equation is "Don't ask, don't tell" - what I don't know cannot make me wonder if I am being peeped at or not unless it is truly blatant. This girl did let it be known, and thus there are consequences associated with it - she opened the door to the possiblity that they are being peeped at, and thus, discomfort, and thus the whole reason for having a separate changing room in the first place, the prevention of a "peep show", is debased. I dare say if she had found a way not to answer the question, the discussion would be moot - it wouldn't have been a controversy whatsoever.

A typical non-libertarian. A refusal to look at the facts of a case, a refusal to discuss what actually went on instead of what could have gone on, an insistence that hurt feelings equal a violation of someone's rights, and a strong desire to steer the argument elsewhere.

My my, aren't we touchy. You still haven't explained why this lesbian has more right to use the girl's changing room than boys do, if the very principle of having separate changing rooms is the preservation of modesty.

Ivan

211 posted on 12/19/2002 2:03:07 PM PST by MadIvan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies ]

To: Hemingway's Ghost; MadIvan; homeschool mama
My husband and I went a few rounds on this topic last night, about undressing in front of strangers or acquaintances in a locker room setting, and this the order of our comfort level, in order from LEAST uncomfortable to MOST uncomfortable:

HE:
1. Lesbian
2. Straight man
3. Straight woman
4. Gay man

SHE:
1. Straight woman
2. Lesbian
3. Gay man
4. Straight man

I find it interesting that my husband's comfort level has to do with the sexual preference of the other people, while my comfort level has to do with the sex of the other people. I'm more comfortable undressing around strange women, period, than strange men. He's more comfortable undressing around strange people who prefer women, than strange people who prefer men.



How about you guys? If you're married or with "significant other" see what they think and let me know your findings.


212 posted on 12/19/2002 2:04:34 PM PST by wimpycat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson