CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I only care about what a person does inside their "personal quarters", that is, as long as it's legal and no one gets hurt …. on EITHER side of the door!
Now, you take Trump …. (please! :-) … I don't know what he does inside the bedroom (except what I've heard from Stormy :-), but, outside, "grabbin' pussies" without consent, is illegal, immoral, and un-Democratic! (Not to mention un-Presidential!)! We've thrown our people out of office for "almost" grabbin' mammary glands! But, that's because the "party of the people" respects Jim OR Sally …. or anyone in between ;-) I guess that's the difference between an "actually" free society and a "conservatively" free society ;-) ??
I do NOT want a Jim to become a Sally, never did. However, that's "JIM'S" decision, not yours or mine.
The difference between a Jim and a Sally is, apparently, a happier person. That's okay with me. I've never heard a Sally say they didn't like being Sally after being an unhappy Jim, have YOU?? What business is it of yours? How do YOU know more than the medical / psychological community …. other than being a psycho?? ;-)
I never said you believed in hate. I'll even allow that you're tolerant. But that alone doesn't make you an accepting or respectful person, which is my point.
It's not just that you have a different opinion, but that the content of your opinion concerns the validity of another's existential experience. You are privileging your own beliefs about their existence over their experience of their existence, in a way that often has social consequences for that person (i.e. when we are rendered incoherent we have to spend more energy than others justifying and defending our existence).
Lol. The Chinaman wants to talk about gender problems instead of the actual news. What a shock. ROFLMAO.
Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump's impeachment defense is being stripped away plank by plank by some of the administration officials caught up in his scheme to pressure Ukraine for political favors.
A dramatic reversal by Republican donor turned diplomat Gordon Sondland, who now says that a quid pro quo was needed from Kiev to free up military aid, rocked Washington Tuesday and undercut GOP strategy.
In testimony released by impeachment investigators, the US ambassador to the European Union also testified that he assumed it would be "illegal" for Trump's fixer and personal attorney Rudy Giuliani to push Ukraine to investigate the President's political opponents.
Sondland's adjusted testimony did much to dismantle the President's core and repeated defense: that he did not hold up aid to Kiev to force it to open a probe into Joe Biden and that any suggestion to the contrary is simply the "crazed" delusion of "Never Trumpers."
No one is saying Jim can't become Sally, but then again, you are clinically deceptive, and the reason everyone should have you on a ban list.
What rational people are saying is that Jim has no right going in to our public schools indoctrinating our children to think Transgenderism is an ok thing.
But you already know this because we have told you a thousand times.
What rational people are saying is that Jim has no right going in to our public schools indoctrinating our children to think Transgenderism is an ok thing.
Why? You seem to think you have the right to tell our children that it's not. Personally I'd rather they be accepting of people who are different then thinking it's wrong.
I HAVE NEVER STATED THAT WE SHOULD BE IN SCHOOLS TELLING OUR CHILDREN THAT TRANSGENDERISM, OR HOMOSEXUALITY, PEDOPHILIA, OR ANY OTHER UNNATURAL SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS BAD.
I KEEP SAYING TO KEEP ANY MENTION OF IT OUT OF SCHOOLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is why you are banned. You can not debate me on the facts so you must ALWAYS twist the facts to try and make yourself correct.
I have said many times that we should be teaching our children to be accepting of all people, not bullying, etc. etc. WITHOUT giving special mention to any political activist groups.
ALL PEOPLE DESERVE TO BE TREATED WITH RESPECT... NO NAMES NEEDED!
No group should be lifted up over other groups just because the Left is pushing their agendas!
Mint_Tea you like you some transsexuals. I think the government should tell us all what to think. You have some thought process on that there Democrat.
I am somewhat open to transgenderism and certainly support the rest of LGBT (I even think consensual incest should be legal and that in general the urges shouldn't be the target of law, whether via cartoon depiction or erotica, instead we should focus solely on those who act on it rather than getting their fantasy outlet).
The problem is that you can't simplify shit by going 'oh just accept them'. I also seriously, deeply worry for someone who wants to cut their beautiful penis off in order to have a makeshit vagina formed with the flesh-wound. I loathe genital mutilation of any kind, I believe all variants of circumcision should be outlawed unless done for medical purposes like a foreskin being too tight or something.
When you have male toilets and female toilets and entire leagues in sports for females, to make it fairer on them, you can't just go 'oh he's a a she names Sally now and is totally female.' Things are not that fucking simple. It's not about hating transgenderism or oppressing them, it's about realising things are a lot more complicated than they appear at times. Just as it's simple-minded pigheadedness that makes people go 'oooh you're born with genitalia Pp or Vv and that means you are to act as a masculine man or feminine woman, it's also simple minded to go 'oh you transferred? You're now a fully legal woman.'
The first thing to do is change the term 'Gender' on passports (and other official documents) to become 'Sex'. This is very important, because then you could have 'Gender' as a separate category that even has a 'it's complicated' category if need be on social media etc, while biological sex is an absolute, legally binding thing linked to the XX or Xy chromosome variants. If Hermaphrodite, they must undergo the hormonal treatment to fully become the 'sex' they otherwise would be, perhaps surgically removing testicles from the vagina or idk what (yes, you read that right).
Not everything fits into the Republican-Democract dichotomy you've got going. Some positions are so unpopular that neither camp wants anything to do with them.
Democrats are truly free to be gender confused but pushing their confusion on the American people like bathroom issues , shower issues and girl sports just does not work to well.
Denying your fixations will only give them more power over you. Soon, you will flee in fear from the gaping maws of public restrooms and cry like a little girl when encountering little girls. Don't say you weren't warned.
ELKHART, Ind. (Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Wednesday the decision to direct public schools to allow transgender students to use the bathrooms of their choice was based on the law and the best interests of the children.
ELKHART, Ind. (Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Wednesday the decision to direct public schools to allow transgender students to use the bathrooms of their choice was based on the law and the best interests of the children.
And... here you are, going on about bathrooms again.
Who supported the gender confused Democrats.
Not me. I'm not a democrat and I don't participate in politics.
For transgender students returning to school this week, the rules on which bathrooms they can use remain unsettled.
An attempt by the Obama Administration to set recommended guidelines for school districts to follow was blocked by a Texas judge Sunday, one day before the first day of school in many districts across the country.
Diego Sanchez, director of policy at PFLAG National, an organization of LGBTQ individuals, families and allies, said that means many students will be returning to schools that will not allow them to use the bathroom that fits their gender identity.
PFLAG is concerned with bathrooms. Can you keep up Democrat.
You sure have a mighty need to dictate the terms of existence to other people, don't you? If you're not telling people where they can piss or dictating their gender to them, you're insisting that they're democrats. I'll just be over here doing a hearty roflmao in the meantime.
The government says that as a condition of receiving federal funds, schools must comply with Title IX, which says schools may not discriminate based on a student's sex. Friday's guidance says that the departments of Education and Justice "treat a student's gender identity as the student's sex for purposes of Title IX."
In part, that means the departments expect schools, if they have separate restrooms and locker rooms for males and females, to allow transgender students access to whatever facility corresponds with their gender identity.
Not only are Democrats concerned with restrooms but locker rooms as well.
WASHINGTON -- Public schools must permit transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity, according to an Obama administration directive issued amid a court fight between the federal government and North Carolina.
The guidance from leaders at the departments of Education and Justice says public schools are obligated to treat their transgender students in a way that matches their gender identity, even if their education records or identity documents indicate a different sex.
Democrats have the bathroom issues but that is something new to you.
Not everything fits into the Republican-Democract dichotomy you've got going. Some positions are so unpopular that neither camp wants anything to do with them. I am a registered Democrat, but I agree with you. I disagree with my Party on some things.
I (also?) don't see what concern it is of the law whether individuals participate in voluntary incest either.
I also don't see what your discomfort with genital alteration has to do with what individuals voluntarily choose to do with their own genitals. Your squeem is your own personal issue. Notably, you're not even consistent in this position since you subsequently advocate the forcible genital alteration of intersex people for non-medical reasons.
Restrooms don't strike me as complicated in the least. We all piss and shit, and a toilet is quite adequate for the task regardless of sex. We've been using unisex restrooms just fine for quite a while now. It's only an ''issue" when transgender people are brought up because some people have unresolved discomfort around sex and/or gender. It's really nothing to do with the facilities, and again about other people making their discomfort someone else's problem.
Athletics is more nuanced. However, the egalitarian standard used to justify placing transgender women in men's leagues is not consistently applied. If it were, leagues would be based strictly on demonstrated relative physical ability rather than sex. The inconsistent and indirect application of this principle requires a further justification that I've yet to see presented persuasively by anyone. I think a desexed relative ability metric would produce more interesting leagues, but at the end of the day I'm not very invested in how this one shakes out.
The distinction between sex and gender is a useful one, and I agree that where it is relevant to document sex it should be referred to as sex rather than gender (e.g. medical records). I disagree that there is any legitimate state interest in sex differentiation. Certainly, I disagree that there is any legitimate interest that justifies the involuntary (and medically unnecessary) genital alteration of intersex persons to conform their phenotypic appearance to the false beliefs others have about biological sex.
