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
Wrong again. I'm insisting that the girl has as much right to attend a gym class as the straight girls do.
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.
Wrong, and more proof you're not really interested in arguing about the story. The girl didn't make the choice to come out of the closet. Another girl in the locker room blurted it out before she had a chance to respond.The consequences of that girl's action were: the lesbian girl got kicked out of gym class because, according to no one but the gym teacher, the other girls might feel uncomfortable changing in front of her.
And yes, as one familiar with the concept of "rights," I'm defending someone's rights in this instance, not someone's "feelings" or "comfort level."
No I don't. But then again, I'm not pandering to a special interest group in anything I've proposed.
Who's pandering? Are you suggesting that defending a lesbian's rights necessarily means I'm pandering? This suggestion probably says more about what you really think than you'd care to admit.
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.
You didn't read the story, did you . . . "Don't ask, don't tell" was solidly in place in this instance up until some other girl outed her.But that's beside the point: you've stated there's a good chance you yourself have changed in front of homosexuals. Knowing that, have you been damaged? Have you been wronged? Have your rights been violated in any way?
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.
Why haven't I? It probably has something to do with the fact that I never argued a lesbian has more right to use the girl's changing room than boys do. But that's just a guess.