And so it starts

[BTSinAustin]

Man parades dick in front of women and children in Women's locker room

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNterJmIHJs&t=92s

[risky biz]

On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 8:09:47 AM UTC-7, BTSinAustin wrote:
> Man parades dick in front of women and children in Women's locker room
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNterJmIHJs&t=92s

He's just trying to help the Democrats win the mid-terms. OH!!! FUCK ME!!! I said 'he'!!!

[BTSinAustin]

Nothing soccer moms love more than perverts' in the locker room with their kids. Should be a lock for AOC

[BillB]

On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 8:09:47 AM UTC-7, BTSinAustin wrote:

> Man parades dick in front of women and children in Women's locker room
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNterJmIHJs&t=92s

How are we supposed to know what really happened?

[BTSinAustin]

Don't be racist, why else would a black woman talk shit like this? There were other women, many of them demanded their money back.

I head a good analogy, when a young woman/girl is flashed on the street they will offer a phycologist to handle the issues. But in a locker room no?

[BillB]

I just can't tell what really happened from that video. To me it sounds like just another Republican woman going on an unhinged rant. What...she's never seen a dick before?

[BTSinAustin]

So if it doesn't fit the narrative she must be a republican?

[BillB]

She just seemed like one to me from her demeanor. One thing I do know...most indecent exposure cases involve white, married males, have nothing to do with transgenderism, and do not occur in public restrooms or change rooms. I mean, if you want to expose yourself, do you really need a transgender-friendly bathroom to do it? Cherry-picking a case like this (if it even is a case?) seems like a very weak attempt to link transgenders with sex criminals.

[BTSinAustin]

My guess and it's only that, is this guy was not a trans but a perv. But defending his perv "rights" is one more way the dems are going to fuck this up. Hell the black woman may become a republican.

A pre-op trans man could use a men's locker room with no problems at all, just STFU about it and go about his business. Post Op he she just switches to the women's.

[halfpastdead9]

On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 8:09:47 AM UTC-7, BTSinAustin wrote:

> Man parades dick in front of women and children in Women's locker room
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNterJmIHJs&t=92s

JJiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiD ~~

[BillB]

From what I understand, there is far more evidence of crimes committed against formerly male transgenders using men's restrooms than there is of formerly male transgenders committing crimes in women's washrooms. But if you have data showing otherwise, I'd love to see it. A nebulous youtube video about one supposed incident really doesn't cut it from a social science perspective.

Your logic about losing votes is dangerously close to jerrytard's logic that we'll lose police if we don't let them have their fun beating up on black men in the street. If that's the case, so be it. My attitude would be, "good riddance." Besides, it's unclear to me if the trangender policy will in fact cost votes anyway:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/446373-poll-majority-support-law-allowing-transgender-people-to-use-bathrooms-that

[BTSinAustin]

LOL, just add it up, defund, men in women's locker rooms, letting rioters and looters off scot free, and having the leader of the squad say that talk of the crime wave is hysterics... all these little things add up to people bolting. 2022 is going to be a shock.

I seriously doubt that many real trans m to f are going to parade around a locker room full of women and kids with a dick out, much more likely to hide it. Now a perv, yes. Do you really want to be on record as defending pervs?

[BillB]

But I am not defending pervs. I'm defending the policy that , apparently, a healthy majority of Americans support. I don't think forcing female trangenders to risk a beating (or worse) in a men's restroom is going to do anything to reduce perverted behaviors. If someone is a pervert, I feel pretty confident that they'll find a way to ply their trade with or without transgender restrooms.

America is steadily becoming more progressive, and the dinosaurs are just going to have to deal with it. There were the same kind of objections and hysteria when state-sponsored segregation was slowly phased out. I think 2022 is going to buck the usual mid-term trend, thanks to Trump. Look at Biden's approval rating. My sense is that most sane Americans don't want to return to the madness that was the Trump years.

[risky biz]

~ My sense is that most sane Americans don't want to return to the madness that was the Trump years.

Or the madness of the Obama years when women and female children didn't have to tolerate some asshole parading their dick around in womens bathrooms?

LOL@'madness'.

[VegasJerry]

On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 10:15:08 AM UTC-7, BTSinAustin wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 12:59:26 PM UTC-4, BillB wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 9:42:04 AM UTC-7, BTSinAustin wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 12:36:00 PM UTC-4, BillB wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 9:25:56 AM UTC-7, BTSinAustin wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 11:55:06 AM UTC-4, BillB wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 8:41:06 AM UTC-7, BTSinAustin wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 11:33:19 AM UTC-4, BillB wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 8:09:47 AM UTC-7, BTSinAustin wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Man parades dick in front of women and children in Women's locker room
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNterJmIHJs&t=92s
> > > > > > > > How are we supposed to know what really happened?
> > > > > > > Don't be racist, why else would a black woman talk shit like this? There were other women, many of them demanded their money back.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I head a good analogy, when a young woman/girl is flashed on the street they will offer a phycologist to handle the issues. But in a locker room no?
> > > > > > I just can't tell what really happened from that video. To me it sounds like just another Republican woman going on an unhinged rant. What...she's never seen a dick before?
> > > >
> > > > > So if it doesn't fit the narrative she must be a republican?
> > > > She just seemed like one to me from her demeanor. One thing I do know...most indecent exposure cases involve white, married males, have nothing to do with transgenderism, and do not occur in public restrooms or change rooms. I mean, if you want to expose yourself, do you really need a transgender-friendly bathroom to do it? Cherry-picking a case like this (if it even is a case?) seems like a very weak attempt to link transgenders with sex criminals.
> > > My guess and it's only that, is this guy was not a trans but a perv. But defending his perv "rights" is one more way the dems are going to fuck this up. Hell the black woman may become a republican.
> > >
> > > A pre-op trans man could use a men's locker room with no problems at all, just STFU about it and go about his business. Post Op he she just switches to the women's.
> > From what I understand, there is far more evidence of crimes committed against formerly male transgenders using men's restrooms than there is of formerly male transgenders committing crimes in women's washrooms. But if you have data showing otherwise, I'd love to see it. A nebulous youtube video about one supposed incident really doesn't cut it from a social science perspective.


> > Your logic about losing votes is dangerously close to jerrytard's logic that we'll lose
> > police if we don't let them have their fun beating up on black men in the street.

JFC! Is BackupBillB still making up positions for me?
See what happens when you show what a ignorant fool his is?
He's jealous of me and jealous of cops.
He can't get my bitch slapping him off his weak little mind...

What will he make up next?

LOL

[risky biz]

On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 9:42:04 AM UTC-7, BTSinAustin wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 12:36:00 PM UTC-4, BillB wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 9:25:56 AM UTC-7, BTSinAustin wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 11:55:06 AM UTC-4, BillB wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 8:41:06 AM UTC-7, BTSinAustin wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 11:33:19 AM UTC-4, BillB wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 8:09:47 AM UTC-7, BTSinAustin wrote:
> > > > > > > Man parades dick in front of women and children in Women's locker room
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNterJmIHJs&t=92s
> > > > > > How are we supposed to know what really happened?
> > > > > Don't be racist, why else would a black woman talk shit like this? There were other women, many of them demanded their money back.
> > > > >
> > > > > I head a good analogy, when a young woman/girl is flashed on the street they will offer a phycologist to handle the issues. But in a locker room no?
> > > > I just can't tell what really happened from that video. To me it sounds like just another Republican woman going on an unhinged rant. What...she's never seen a dick before?
> >
> > > So if it doesn't fit the narrative she must be a republican?
> > She just seemed like one to me from her demeanor. One thing I do know...most indecent exposure cases involve white, married males, have nothing to do with transgenderism, and do not occur in public restrooms or change rooms. I mean, if you want to expose yourself, do you really need a transgender-friendly bathroom to do it? Cherry-picking a case like this (if it even is a case?) seems like a very weak attempt to link transgenders with sex criminals.

~ My guess and it's only that, is this guy was not a trans but a perv. But defending his perv "rights" is one more way the dems are going to fuck this up. Hell the black woman may become a republican.
>

Do you really think it will be long before we start hearing how oppressive it is to have laws against flashers exposing their sex organs to children in public?

~ A pre-op trans man could use a men's locker room with no problems at all, just STFU about it and go about his business. Post Op he she just switches to the women's.

And be tolerant to the 99.5% who aren't transgender? Isn't that asking too much? It's much more acceptable to force the 99.5% to tolerate them.

[Bill Vanek]

On Jun 29, 2021, BillB wrote
(in article<bdbd1638-277e-400e...@googlegroups.com>):

> On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 9:25:56 AM UTC-7, BTSinAustin wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 11:55:06 AM UTC-4, BillB wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 8:41:06 AM UTC-7, BTSinAustin wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 11:33:19 AM UTC-4, BillB wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 8:09:47 AM UTC-7, BTSinAustin wrote:
> > > > > > Man parades dick in front of women and children in Women's locker room
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNterJmIHJs&t=92s
> > > > > How are we supposed to know what really happened?
> > > > Don't be racist, why else would a black woman talk shit like this? There
> > > > were other women, many of them demanded their money back.
> > > >
> > > > I head a good analogy, when a young woman/girl is flashed on the street
> > > > they will offer a phycologist to handle the issues. But in a locker room
> > > > no?
> > > I just can't tell what really happened from that video. To me it sounds
> > > like just another Republican woman going on an unhinged rant. What...she's
> > > never seen a dick before?
>
> > So if it doesn't fit the narrative she must be a republican?
>
> She just seemed like one to me from her demeanor. One thing I do know...most
> indecent exposure cases involve white, married males,

I’m sure you’ve done careful research on that, so could you share your
work? And those white guys were all liberals, right?

> have nothing to do with
> transgenderism, and do not occur in public restrooms or change rooms. I mean,
> if you want to expose yourself, do you really need a transgender-friendly
> bathroom to do it?

You are getting dumber and more dishonest by the minute. “Exposing
yourself” is generally a crime, and can get you arrested and maybe beaten
to a pulp. But it’s not a crime - in fact, it’s protected - in today’s
Progressive utopia, and those little girls and women in the spa don’t
present much of a physical threat, now do they? In other words, high risk in
one case, almost zero risk in the other. But no need for BillB to make any
such distinction.

[Bill Vanek]

On Jun 29, 2021, BillB wrote

(in article<cc3bc899-70da-473a...@googlegroups.com>):

Fucking liar. About what percentage of people anywhere support guys waving
their dicks in front of their mothers, wives, sisters, and kids? If your
fearsome black drug dealer waves his dick in Bernita’s face outside that
pot shop, you’d what, just laugh it off, and tell Bernita to get woke?

[BillB]

Uh, I didn't say anything like that. I cited a poll that said the majority of Americans support transgender people using the restroom of the gender with which they identify. You pretend you are intelligent, yet you can't read at a third grade level.

If your
> fearsome black drug dealer

Why do you persist with this fantasy after you were already proven to be a liar? You are obviously projecting again. It is you who fears black people, not me.

waves his dick in Bernita’s face outside that
> pot shop, you’d what, just laugh it off, and tell Bernita to get woke?

Moving the goalposts again?

[BillB]

It's generally a crime but it's not a crime?? Sorry, I don't follow.

[Satoshi Popinjay]

On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 4:18:09 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:


> It is you who fears black people, not me.

I know some you would fear, tough guy.

[BillB]

If I did, it wouldn't have a thing to do with their melanin levels.

[Satoshi Popinjay]

Yes it would.

[BillB]

No, it wouldn't. I am not afraid of melanin. You are projecting like vanek.

[risky biz]

On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 4:41:29 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 4:39:24 PM UTC-7, Satoshi Popinjay wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 4:30:49 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 4:26:51 PM UTC-7, Satoshi Popinjay wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 4:18:09 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > It is you who fears black people, not me.
> > > > I know some you would fear, tough guy.
> > > If I did, it wouldn't have a thing to do with their melanin levels.
> > Yes it would.

~ No, it wouldn't. I am not afraid of melanin. You are projecting like vanek.

My God- what a spastic moron.

[risky biz]

On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 4:20:31 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:

~ It's generally a crime but it's not a crime?? Sorry, I don't follow.

You can't read straightforward English but you claim to have a license to practice law. That seems to be a fishy assertion.

[BillB]

On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 11:03:07 AM UTC-7, VegasJerry wrote:

> He's jealous of me and jealous of cops.

Surely even jerrytard can't be this delusional. Can he?

[BillB]

There is nothing "straightforward" about saying something is a crime and not a crime simultaneously. If you were a lawyer you would know that.

[BillB]

<yawn> he has nothing, again!

[risky biz]

Your English reading skills are negligible. You're mentally ill.

[BillB]

lol...he has nothing again.

[VegasJerry]

Um... What do you mean by tolerate them?

"I don't want them around so get rid of them?"
"I don't was a person with a pussy to dress up like a man with/without knowing?

[VegasJerry]

On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 12:24:21 PM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:

> Progressive utopia...

'I’m sure you’ve done careful research on that, so could you share your work?"

[VegasJerry]

"LOL he has nothing again."

[Bill Vanek]

On Jun 29, 2021, BillB wrote

(in article<e741e57b-8aba-4c74...@googlegroups.com>):

Sure, walk into the ladies room, and lock the door. I don’t think the poll
asked if it’s okay to walk into an all women spa with kids present, and
wave your dick around. But you can’t read, so you don’t see that. How do
you suppose that would go over in a poll?

> You pretend you are intelligent,

I don’t pretend. You pretend. What’s even funnier is that I now know you
thought my IQ was about 85. So if you are 2 SD’s higher as you claim, that
means you are way up there at 115! Holy shit! That’s nearly as high as
Jerry’s 120!

> yet you can't read at a
> third grade level.
>
> If your
> > fearsome black drug dealer
>
> Why do you persist with this fantasy after you were already proven to be a
> liar?

Hilarious. You “proved" me to be a liar by telling your one side of the
story. That must have been the full truth, eh? You should go back to
kindergarten.

> You are obviously projecting again. It is you who fears black people,
> not me.
>
> waves his dick in Bernita’s face outside that
> > pot shop, you’d what, just laugh it off, and tell Bernita to get woke?
>
> Moving the goalposts again?

Why don’t you answer the question? Is it okay if some guy waves his dick in
her face, and then tells you he identifies as female? You seem to be alright
with it when it happens to other (unawoke) people.

[Bill Vanek]

On Jun 29, 2021, BillB wrote

(in article<3ba36577-3d18-4d95...@googlegroups.com>):

Of course not. You’re stupid. You failed at law, and that’s why.

[BillB]

LOL...more vanek low-IQ fantasies about me. And of course he ran away from his moronic "crime-no crime" comment. Did you expect anything else from him?

[BillB]

I said the majority of Americans support a policy in which transgenders can use the restroom for the gender with which they identify. The rest you just invented. That's exactly what a low-IQ person would do.

> > You pretend you are intelligent,
> I don’t pretend. You pretend. What’s even funnier is that I now know you
> thought my IQ was about 85. So if you are 2 SD’s higher as you claim, that
> means you are way up there at 115! Holy shit! That’s nearly as high as
> Jerry’s 120!

More vanek stupidity. I didn't say any of that, except that I thought the moron's IQ was about 85. Anyone disagree with me?

> > yet you can't read at a
> > third grade level.
> >
> > If your
> > > fearsome black drug dealer
> >
> > Why do you persist with this fantasy after you were already proven to be a
> > liar?

> Hilarious. You “proved" me to be a liar by telling your one side of the
> story. That must have been the full truth, eh? You should go back to
> kindergarten.

Yes, I proved you a liar. You have repeatedly misrepresented what I said and replaced it with projection. No big victory. I think everyone already knew you were a liar anyway.

> > You are obviously projecting again. It is you who fears black people,
> > not me.
> >
> > waves his dick in Bernita’s face outside that
> > > pot shop, you’d what, just laugh it off, and tell Bernita to get woke?
> >
> > Moving the goalposts again?

> Why don’t you answer the question?

Because it has nothing to do with what we were talking about.

>Is it okay if some guy waves his dick in
> her face, and then tells you he identifies as female? You seem to be alright
> with it when it happens to other (unawoke) people.

Who did that happen to? Is this yet another one of your made up fantasies?

[risky biz]

~ LOL...more vanek low-IQ fantasies about me. And of course he ran away from his moronic "crime-no crime" comment. Did you expect anything else from him?

Only a moron could misread what he said as what you say he said. Do you think there's anyone at all who doesn't think what you are saying he said is moronic?

[risky biz]

On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 7:10:42 PM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:
> On Jun 29, 2021, BillB wrote
> (in article<e741e57b-8aba-4c74...@googlegroups.com>):
> > On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 12:28:48 PM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:

> > You pretend you are intelligent,

~ I don’t pretend. You pretend. What’s even funnier is that I now know you

> thought my IQ was about 85. So if you are 2 SD’s higher as you claim, that
> means you are way up there at 115! Holy shit! That’s nearly as high as
> Jerry’s 120!

I doubt that Blabbermouth breaks 110.

[BillB]

I didn't misread anything, which is why both of you idiots are dancing around like the fools you are.

[Splashie]

What Vanek said is a complete lie. Exposing yourself IN PUBLIC is indeed a crime (under most circumstances). Not so in a locker room. Now, if there are underage people present, then an adult exposing themselves may be committing a crime but that is a different scenario. And no "progressive" excuses harassment, sexual assault, or indecent behavior in front of minors just because someone is transgender - contrary to Vanek's claim.

Michael

[Splashie]

On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 8:55:06 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 8:41:06 AM UTC-7, BTSinAustin wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 11:33:19 AM UTC-4, BillB wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 8:09:47 AM UTC-7, BTSinAustin wrote:
> > > > Man parades dick in front of women and children in Women's locker room
> > > >
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNterJmIHJs&t=92s
> > > How are we supposed to know what really happened?
> > Don't be racist, why else would a black woman talk shit like this? There were other women, many of them demanded their money back.
> >
> > I head a good analogy, when a young woman/girl is flashed on the street they will offer a phycologist to handle the issues. But in a locker room no?
> I just can't tell what really happened from that video. To me it sounds like just another Republican woman going on an unhinged rant. What...she's never seen a dick before?

Score one for you: https://www.instagram.com/p/CGAixw3FguR/?utm_medium=copy_link

Michael

[BillB]

Yup, a Trumpster. That one was hard to see from a mile away. It's the logical equivalent of being clinically insane. Did you notice the ironic post she made?

"Be careful who you feel sorry for. Some people are so good at lying and playing the victim. They are called "Distractions"."

[Bill Vanek]

On Jun 30, 2021, Splashie wrote
(in article<b2238c90-7b7d-4c6d...@googlegroups.com>):

> On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 8:19:51 PM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 7:43:18 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 7:11:18 PM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:
>
> > > > > > You are getting dumber and more dishonest by the minute. “Exposing
> > > > > > yourself” is generally a crime, and can get you arrested and maybe
> > > > > > beaten
> > > > > > to a pulp. But it’s not a crime - in fact, it’s protected - in
> > > > > > today’s
> > > > > > Progressive utopia, and those little girls and women in the spa don’t
> > > > > > present much of a physical threat, now do they? In other words, high
> > > > > > risk in
> > > > > > one case, almost zero risk in the other. But no need for BillB to make
> > > > > > any
> > > > > > such distinction.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's generally a crime but it's not a crime?? Sorry, I don't follow.
> > > > Of course not. You’re stupid. You failed at law, and that’s why.

> > > LOL...more vanek low-IQ fantasies about me. And of course he ran away from
> > > his moronic "crime-no crime" comment. Did you expect anything else from
> > > him?
> >
> > Only a moron could misread what he said as what you say he said. Do you
> > think there's anyone at all who doesn't think what you are saying he said
> > is moronic?
>
> What Vanek said is a complete lie. Exposing yourself IN PUBLIC is indeed a
> crime (under most circumstances). Not so in a locker room. Now, if there are
> underage people present, then an adult exposing themselves may be committing
> a crime but that is a different scenario. And no "progressive" excuses
> harassment, sexual assault, or indecent behavior in front of minors just
> because someone is transgender - contrary to Vanek's claim.
>
> Michael

Every time I start to think you have some sense, you come up with this sort
of shit. This all revolves around the idiot calling me out because I said
that something is “generally” a crime. He said it must either be a crime,
or not. Do you agree with that? Is everything either a crime everywhere in
every circumstance, or simply not a crime at all? You should try to follow
along before you try to suck the idiot’s dick. His exact words are still
above in this post: "It's generally a crime but it's not a crime?? Sorry, I
don't follow.” In the very post where you trash me, you give a fucking
example. It’s clear you do follow, but you have to agree with him? Are you
afraid of him? WTF is wrong with you?

[BillB]

No, this is what you said, liar:

"Exposing yourself” is generally a crime, and can get you arrested and maybe beaten
to a pulp. But it’s not a crime - in fact, it’s protected - in today’s

Progressive utopia...:

You clearly said it was generally a crime but it's not a crime. Now you are running away from it as fast as you can, as you always do when you are called out for posting nonsense (which is basically every day).

[Splashie]

I’m making no comment on his interpretation. Your claim that the same behavior that is normally considered a crime (as well as risking getting beat up) is no longer considered a crime because “progressive utopia” is disingenuous at best. Being naked in a locker room - which is not a public place where nudity alone is considered indecent exposure - is not a crime unless it is accompanied by lewd behavior and/or purposefully done in front of minors.

IF the person being complained about was deliberately parading about and trying to shock or offend the (other) women, I’d fully support them being expelled from the spa and/or subject to arrest. But someone who ignorantly claims that there is no such thing as trans women (as the complainant did in her video) is quite likely not telling the truth about their behavior.

Michael

[BillB]

Oh, by the way, if it were truly a "Progressive utopia" then bigoted garbage people like you wouldn't be allowed to live in it and benefit from it.

[BillB]

On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 7:10:42 PM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:

> I don’t pretend. You pretend. What’s even funnier is that I now know you
> thought my IQ was about 85. So if you are 2 SD’s higher as you claim, that
> means you are way up there at 115! Holy shit! That’s nearly as high as
> Jerry’s 120!

Just so everyone knows that vanek is either a liar or incredibly stupid (or both, as if I haven't proved it enough times), here is what he said LESS THAN A MONTH AGO:

"I remember you claiming here that you were at least 3 SD’s above mine."

I had also told him that even though I thought his IQ was probably in the 85-90ish range (very generous for a bigoted right-winger), I gave him credit for 100 when I made that estimation just to be extremely conservative. Notice how he conveniently left that part out. He also deleted the "at least" from my estimation, and he changed 3 SDs to 2 SDs. That was all within a month! So you tell me...is he a compulsive liar, or just plain dumb as your average bigoted right-winger?

[risky biz]

~ to a pulp. But it’s not a crime - in fact, it’s protected - in today’s
> Progressive utopia...:

Explain why you edited out half of that last sentence.

[risky biz]

On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 2:21:26 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 7:10:42 PM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:
>
> > I don’t pretend. You pretend. What’s even funnier is that I now know you
> > thought my IQ was about 85. So if you are 2 SD’s higher as you claim, that
> > means you are way up there at 115! Holy shit! That’s nearly as high as
> > Jerry’s 120!
> Just so everyone knows that vanek is either a liar or incredibly stupid (or both, as if I haven't proved it enough times), here is what he said LESS THAN A MONTH AGO:
>
> "I remember you claiming here that you were at least 3 SD’s above mine."
>

~ I had also told him that even though I thought his IQ was probably in the 85-90ish range (very generous for a bigoted right-winger), I gave him credit for 100 when I made that estimation just to be extremely conservative. Notice how he conveniently left that part out. He also deleted the "at least" from my estimation, and he changed 3 SDs to 2 SDs. That was all within a month! So you tell me...is he a compulsive liar, or just plain dumb as your average bigoted right-winger?

I'm not going to undertake a forensic search and audit of Vanek's previous posts. Based on past experience you're probably lying and you're just digging a rabbit hole and inviting readers to jump in to divert attention from your own compulsive lying in the current thread that's right here in front of us.

[BillB]

Says the other habitually lying moron.

[BillB]

Because it changes nothing and adds nothing. Duh.

[risky biz]

On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 8:53:55 PM UTC-7, Splashie wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 8:19:51 PM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 7:43:18 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 7:11:18 PM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:
>
> > > > > > You are getting dumber and more dishonest by the minute. “Exposing
> > > > > > yourself” is generally a crime, and can get you arrested and maybe beaten
> > > > > > to a pulp. But it’s not a crime - in fact, it’s protected - in today’s
> > > > > > Progressive utopia, and those little girls and women in the spa don’t
> > > > > > present much of a physical threat, now do they? In other words, high risk in
> > > > > > one case, almost zero risk in the other. But no need for BillB to make any
> > > > > > such distinction.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's generally a crime but it's not a crime?? Sorry, I don't follow.
> > > > Of course not. You’re stupid. You failed at law, and that’s why.
> > ~ LOL...more vanek low-IQ fantasies about me. And of course he ran away from his moronic "crime-no crime" comment. Did you expect anything else from him?
> >
> > Only a moron could misread what he said as what you say he said. Do you think there's anyone at all who doesn't think what you are saying he said is moronic?

~ What Vanek said is a complete lie. Exposing yourself IN PUBLIC is indeed a crime (under most circumstances). Not so in a locker room. Now, if there are underage people present, then an adult exposing themselves may be committing a crime but that is a different scenario.

What vague hogwash. So when a transgender breezes into a locker room mothers are expected to scramble and clear their children out immediately? Is there a legal penalty if they don't do that and, instead, mistakenly expect that they have the right for their children to use a locker room without a male exposing his sex organs to their children? Or will the transgender be charged with a crime if a 5-year-old girl is exposed to his sex organ in a locker room?

Neither of those will happen and the mothers will just have to flee with their children when the consecrated 1/2 of 1% suddenly appear with the blessing of law.

But someone exposing themselves to children somewhere else is a crime- as if a cock looks different in different locations.

Good luck with the mid-terms. I have no use for a political party that promotes such stupid shit.

[risky biz]

Oh, that clears it up then? It's the 'other'?

'Four legs good, two legs bad.'

[risky biz]

On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 6:59:36 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 6:44:59 AM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:

> > Explain why you edited out half of that last sentence.

~ Because it changes nothing and adds nothing. Duh.

Yeah. All it adds is what he actually said. You're a liar and you're mentally ill.

[BillB]

On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 7:16:09 AM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
> On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 6:59:36 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 6:44:59 AM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
>
> > > Explain why you edited out half of that last sentence.
> ~ Because it changes nothing and adds nothing. Duh.
>
> Yeah. All it adds is what he actually said. You're a liar and you're mentally ill.

Take an ESL course. It changes nothing and adds nothing to the point. Notice that both his contradictory statements are in the present tense. It IS generally a crime and IT IS not a crime - in fact, it’s protected - in today’s Progressive utopia.

[Splashie]

On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 7:11:47 AM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 8:53:55 PM UTC-7, Splashie wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 8:19:51 PM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 7:43:18 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 7:11:18 PM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > You are getting dumber and more dishonest by the minute. “Exposing
> > > > > > > yourself” is generally a crime, and can get you arrested and maybe beaten
> > > > > > > to a pulp. But it’s not a crime - in fact, it’s protected - in today’s
> > > > > > > Progressive utopia, and those little girls and women in the spa don’t
> > > > > > > present much of a physical threat, now do they? In other words, high risk in
> > > > > > > one case, almost zero risk in the other. But no need for BillB to make any
> > > > > > > such distinction.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's generally a crime but it's not a crime?? Sorry, I don't follow.
> > > > > Of course not. You’re stupid. You failed at law, and that’s why.
> > > ~ LOL...more vanek low-IQ fantasies about me. And of course he ran away from his moronic "crime-no crime" comment. Did you expect anything else from him?
> > >
> > > Only a moron could misread what he said as what you say he said. Do you think there's anyone at all who doesn't think what you are saying he said is moronic?
> ~ What Vanek said is a complete lie. Exposing yourself IN PUBLIC is indeed a crime (under most circumstances). Not so in a locker room. Now, if there are underage people present, then an adult exposing themselves may be committing a crime but that is a different scenario.
>
> What vague hogwash. So when a transgender breezes into a locker room mothers are expected to scramble and clear their children out immediately? Is there a legal penalty if they don't do that and, instead, mistakenly expect that they have the right for their children to use a locker room without a male exposing his sex organs to their children? Or will the transgender be charged with a crime if a 5-year-old girl is exposed to his sex organ in a locker room?
>
> Neither of those will happen and the mothers will just have to flee with their children when the consecrated 1/2 of 1% suddenly appear with the blessing of law.
>
> But someone exposing themselves to children somewhere else is a crime- as if a cock looks different in different locations.

You seem to be inordinately focused on people's genitals. So let me just clear the air with a couple of questions:

1) If the transgender person has had an operation to remove their penis, is it ok for them to be naked in the women's locker room? Yes or no?

2) Is it ok for an adult male to walk around naked in the men's locker room in areas where he knows underage boys are allowed to be? Yes or no?

Michael

[Splashie]

I've already said if she's not lying and the person she's complaining about was "parading around" exposing themselves, especially in front of underage kids, that person should be expelled from the spa at a minimum and possibly arrested. But being a MAGA religious nut makes it more likely she's not telling the truth, especially since she denies the existence of transgender people. This sounds like all the GOP legislators trying to ban trans athletes from girls' sports and CRT and change voting laws even though they have no evidence that there is an actual problem with any of these things.

https://www.al.com/news/2021/06/whitmire-alabama-lawmaker-wants-to-ban-critical-race-theory-so-i-asked-him-what-it-is.html

Michael

[Pierre Trudeau]

On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 11:59:26 AM UTC-5, BillB wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 9:42:04 AM UTC-7, BTSinAustin wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 12:36:00 PM UTC-4, BillB wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 9:25:56 AM UTC-7, BTSinAustin wrote:

> > > > On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 11:55:06 AM UTC-4, BillB wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 8:41:06 AM UTC-7, BTSinAustin wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 11:33:19 AM UTC-4, BillB wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 8:09:47 AM UTC-7, BTSinAustin wrote:
> > > > > > > > Man parades dick in front of women and children in Women's locker room
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNterJmIHJs&t=92s
> > > > > > > How are we supposed to know what really happened?
> > > > > > Don't be racist, why else would a black woman talk shit like this? There were other women, many of them demanded their money back.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I head a good analogy, when a young woman/girl is flashed on the street they will offer a phycologist to handle the issues. But in a locker room no?
> > > > > I just can't tell what really happened from that video. To me it sounds like just another Republican woman going on an unhinged rant. What...she's never seen a dick before?
> > >

> > > > So if it doesn't fit the narrative she must be a republican?

> > > She just seemed like one to me from her demeanor. One thing I do know...most indecent exposure cases involve white, married males, have nothing to do with transgenderism, and do not occur in public restrooms or change rooms. I mean, if you want to expose yourself, do you really need a transgender-friendly bathroom to do it? Cherry-picking a case like this (if it even is a case?) seems like a very weak attempt to link transgenders with sex criminals.
> > My guess and it's only that, is this guy was not a trans but a perv. But defending his perv "rights" is one more way the dems are going to fuck this up. Hell the black woman may become a republican.
> >
> > A pre-op trans man could use a men's locker room with no problems at all, just STFU about it and go about his business. Post Op he she just switches to the women's.
> From what I understand, there is far more evidence of crimes committed against formerly male transgenders using men's restrooms than there is of formerly male transgenders committing crimes in women's washrooms. But if you have data showing otherwise, I'd love to see it. A nebulous youtube video about one supposed incident really doesn't cut it from a social science perspective.
>
> Your logic about losing votes is dangerously close to jerrytard's logic that we'll lose police if we don't let them have their fun beating up on black men in the street. If that's the case, so be it. My attitude would be, "good riddance." Besides, it's unclear to me if the trangender policy will in fact cost votes anyway:
>
> https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/446373-poll-majority-support-law-allowing-transgender-people-to-use-bathrooms-that

Imagine a supposedly intelligent person thinking that surgery can change a person from male to female. Cutting their dick off just changed them to a mutilated male. No amount of hormones can change that. No matter what is done to a male's body, you can't change XY to XX

[BillB]

Is it ok for children to be at a nude or clothing optional beach? It certainly is in Vancouver.

I get the feeling riskytard is from a distant era and has a lot of hangups over sexuality and nudity. Either that or he's a child molester who is trying to overcompensate for his deviant behaviors by being bigoted toward transsexuals.

[Pierre Trudeau]

Imagine a supposedly intelligent man thinking that surgery and hormones can change a male to a female. Cutting off a dick just changes them to a mutilated male. Hormones do nothing but mask biology. Nothing will ever change an XY to an XX

[BillB]

Imagine a supposedly intelligent person thinking XY and XX is all there is to gender. Actually, I've tried. I just can't picture it.

[Pierre Trudeau]

LOL Gender is primarily a social construct. Transgenderism is a mental issue. No amount of surgery or hormone treatment will treat the mental issue

[Bill Vanek]

On Jul 1, 2021, BillB wrote
(in article<d91f8740-db9c-4e42...@googlegroups.com>):

> On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 7:16:09 AM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 6:59:36 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> > > On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 6:44:59 AM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
> >
> > > > Explain why you edited out half of that last sentence.

> > > Because it changes nothing and adds nothing. Duh.
> >
> > Yeah. All it adds is what he actually said. You're a liar and you're
> > mentally ill.
>
> Take an ESL course. It changes nothing and adds nothing to the point. Notice
> that both his contradictory statements are in the present tense. It IS
> generally a crime and IT IS not a crime - in fact, it’s protected - in
> today’s Progressive utopia.

So you apparently think this utopia actually exists in the real world, and is
not just another aspiration of the retarded left? People who think like you
would never make it in law. Oh, yeah...

[BillB]

Yes, it is. So are sex segregated restrooms.

>Transgenderism is a mental issue. No amount of surgery or hormone treatment will treat the mental issue

A mental issue?? Treatment?? What are you...some kind of throwback from a distant era? It sounds like you are confusing transgenderism with gender dysphoria, ust like riskytard did. You don't want to be perceived as stupid as him, do you?

[Bill Vanek]

On Jul 1, 2021, BillB wrote

(in article<d5bd4324-7a0a-4ffa...@googlegroups.com>):

>
> Is it ok for children to be at a nude or clothing optional beach? It
> certainly is in Vancouver.

Holy shit? So you are aware of those things? Is it a crime to "expose
yourself" at one of those? Is it a crime to expose yourself on Main Street?
Are you going to tell me that it’s a crime, AND it’s not a crime at the
same time, depending on circumstances? Did you learn something, you dishonest
retard?

[BillB]

You said "today's Progressive utopia." That implies it does exist in the present, although the use of the word "utopia" is obvious sarcasm.
Yes, we now live in a progressive era, compared to the backward times you are apparently stuck in.

[BillB]

I think Splashie already explained all this to you. Like virtually all crimes, it is a matter of intent.

[Bill Vanek]

On Jul 1, 2021, BillB wrote

(in article<4d2bcd28-1bce-4d5e...@googlegroups.com>):

So drunken drivers who are sentenced to prison intended to kill their
victims? Failed lawyer...

[BillB]

On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 9:40:09 AM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:
> On Jul 1, 2021, BillB wrote
> (in article<4d2bcd28-1bce-4d5e...@googlegroups.com>):
> > On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 9:09:21 AM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:
> > > On Jul 1, 2021, BillB wrote
> > > (in article<d5bd4324-7a0a-4ffa...@googlegroups.com>):
> > > >
> > > > Is it ok for children to be at a nude or clothing optional beach? It
> > > > certainly is in Vancouver.
> > > Holy shit? So you are aware of those things? Is it a crime to "expose
> > > yourself" at one of those? Is it a crime to expose yourself on Main Street?
> > > Are you going to tell me that it’s a crime, AND it’s not a crime at the
> > > same time, depending on circumstances? Did you learn something, you
> > > dishonest
> > > retard?
> >
> > I think Splashie already explained all this to you. Like virtually all
> > crimes, it is a matter of intent.
> So drunken drivers who are sentenced to prison intended to kill their
> victims? Failed lawyer...

The intent is intentionally drinking and intentionally deciding to drive. A person is deemed to intend the natural and reasonable foreseeable consequences of their deliberate behaviors. You are clearly unaware of the different types of intent in criminal law, which makes sense, because you have already proven over and over again that you are an uneducated man who knows absolutely nothing about the US justice system.

[Tim Norfolk]

What about XYY's and XXY's?

[risky biz]

On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 8:11:19 AM UTC-7, Splashie wrote:

> On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 7:11:47 AM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 8:53:55 PM UTC-7, Splashie wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 8:19:51 PM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 7:43:18 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 7:11:18 PM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > > You are getting dumber and more dishonest by the minute. “Exposing
> > > > > > > > yourself” is generally a crime, and can get you arrested and maybe beaten
> > > > > > > > to a pulp. But it’s not a crime - in fact, it’s protected - in today’s
> > > > > > > > Progressive utopia, and those little girls and women in the spa don’t
> > > > > > > > present much of a physical threat, now do they? In other words, high risk in
> > > > > > > > one case, almost zero risk in the other. But no need for BillB to make any
> > > > > > > > such distinction.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's generally a crime but it's not a crime?? Sorry, I don't follow.
> > > > > > Of course not. You’re stupid. You failed at law, and that’s why.
> > > > ~ LOL...more vanek low-IQ fantasies about me. And of course he ran away from his moronic "crime-no crime" comment. Did you expect anything else from him?
> > > >
> > > > Only a moron could misread what he said as what you say he said. Do you think there's anyone at all who doesn't think what you are saying he said is moronic?
> > ~ What Vanek said is a complete lie. Exposing yourself IN PUBLIC is indeed a crime (under most circumstances). Not so in a locker room. Now, if there are underage people present, then an adult exposing themselves may be committing a crime but that is a different scenario.
> >
> > What vague hogwash. So when a transgender breezes into a locker room mothers are expected to scramble and clear their children out immediately? Is there a legal penalty if they don't do that and, instead, mistakenly expect that they have the right for their children to use a locker room without a male exposing his sex organs to their children? Or will the transgender be charged with a crime if a 5-year-old girl is exposed to his sex organ in a locker room?
> >
> > Neither of those will happen and the mothers will just have to flee with their children when the consecrated 1/2 of 1% suddenly appear with the blessing of law.
> >
> > But someone exposing themselves to children somewhere else is a crime- as if a cock looks different in different locations.

~ You seem to be inordinately focused on people's genitals. So let me just clear the air with a couple of questions:

If you're uncomfortable with discussing male genitals why are you in a thread about male genitals? Wow. Get dumb.

And if you're uncomfortable with DISCUSSING male genitals why is it a 'human right' that other people's little girls are required by law in some locations (hyperbolically, progressive utopias) to be exposed to them by SIGHT?

>
> 1) If the transgender person has had an operation to remove their penis, is it ok for them to be naked in the women's locker room? Yes or no?

They wouldn't be transgender anymore, they'd be transsexual. Pending further consideration, I will say for now that it's basically acceptable. If that's the case, mothers will need to figure out the best way to educate their little girls as to why some people have mutilated genitals.

> 2) Is it ok for an adult male to walk around naked in the men's locker room in areas where he knows underage boys are allowed to be? Yes or no?
>
> Michael

It's legal but when I was underage I would have preferred to see a lesbian walking around naked. How about you?

[risky biz]

On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 8:56:55 AM UTC-7, Pierre Trudeau wrote:

~ LOL Gender is primarily a social construct. Transgenderism is a mental issue. No amount of surgery or hormone treatment will treat the mental issue

Do you have a social construct between your legs? Out of scientific interest, that's something I'd like to see. How does it differ?

[risky biz]

On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 8:26:28 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:

~ Is it ok for children to be at a nude or clothing optional beach? It certainly is in Vancouver.

A nude beach is a segregated location that someone goes to voluntarily knowing full well what they will encounter. If an adult takes their child to one the state generally doesn't interfere in the parent's decision. You're a moron and this is one more example of why.

>
~ I get the feeling riskytard is from a distant era and has a lot of hangups over sexuality and nudity. Either that or he's a child molester who is trying to overcompensate for his deviant behaviors by being bigoted toward transsexuals.

You have bandied the term 'faggot' at RGP. I have never. You admitted at RGP that you are uncomfortable with gays. You're a fake.

[Splashie]

On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 10:38:40 AM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
> On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 8:11:19 AM UTC-7, Splashie wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 7:11:47 AM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 8:53:55 PM UTC-7, Splashie wrote:

> > > ~ What Vanek said is a complete lie. Exposing yourself IN PUBLIC is indeed a crime (under most circumstances). Not so in a locker room. Now, if there are underage people present, then an adult exposing themselves may be committing a crime but that is a different scenario.
> > >
> > > What vague hogwash. So when a transgender breezes into a locker room mothers are expected to scramble and clear their children out immediately? Is there a legal penalty if they don't do that and, instead, mistakenly expect that they have the right for their children to use a locker room without a male exposing his sex organs to their children? Or will the transgender be charged with a crime if a 5-year-old girl is exposed to his sex organ in a locker room?
> > >
> > > Neither of those will happen and the mothers will just have to flee with their children when the consecrated 1/2 of 1% suddenly appear with the blessing of law.
> > >
> > > But someone exposing themselves to children somewhere else is a crime- as if a cock looks different in different locations.
> ~ You seem to be inordinately focused on people's genitals. So let me just clear the air with a couple of questions:
>
> If you're uncomfortable with discussing male genitals why are you in a thread about male genitals? Wow. Get dumb.
>
> And if you're uncomfortable with DISCUSSING male genitals why is it a 'human right' that other people's little girls are required by law in some locations (hyperbolically, progressive utopias) to be exposed to them by SIGHT?

Who said I was uncomfortable discussing it? I'm saying you're inordinately focused on it. Seeing a flaccid penis is hardly something to get hysterical about. Jeez, don't let this poor little girls see any Renaissance statues. They'll be scarred for life.

> >
> > 1) If the transgender person has had an operation to remove their penis, is it ok for them to be naked in the women's locker room? Yes or no?
> They wouldn't be transgender anymore, they'd be transsexual. Pending further consideration, I will say for now that it's basically acceptable. If that's the case, mothers will need to figure out the best way to educate their little girls as to why some people have mutilated genitals.

OK, so as I suspected, you think it is traumatizing for a woman or a young girl to see a flaccid penis even if the possessor of said penis is not acting in a lewd manner. That's unbelievably Puritan and regressive of you but OK.

> > 2) Is it ok for an adult male to walk around naked in the men's locker room in areas where he knows underage boys are allowed to be? Yes or no?
> >
> > Michael
> It's legal but when I was underage I would have preferred to see a lesbian walking around naked. How about you?

Sure, I'd rather see a naked woman than a naked man any day. But how come the underage boys aren't traumatized by seeing grown men walk around naked? My "progressive utopia" would be that anybody could use the bathroom and locker room for their intended purposes and anybody who attempts to engage in lewd conduct would be arrested. The only reason to bar men from women's bathrooms is because too many men are unable to control themselves and behave appropriately around others. But plenty of places have had co-ed bathrooms and locker rooms without incident. Then the whole transgender question would become moot.

Michael

[risky biz]

On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 9:07:36 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 8:56:55 AM UTC-7, Pierre Trudeau wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 10:34:00 AM UTC-5, BillB wrote:

~ It sounds like you are confusing transgenderism with gender dysphoria, ust like riskytard did. You don't want to be perceived as stupid as him, do you?

'Gender Dysphoria Vs. Transgender: Are They The Same?
Having gender dysphoria does not necessarily mean that an individual is a transgender. The vast majority of transgender individuals typically struggle with gender dysphoria, but the two are not mutually exclusive.'
https://www.mind-diagnostics.org/blog/gender-dysphoria/gender-dysphoria-vs-transgender-whats-the-difference

You remain a moron and have compiled an impressive defense against being categorized otherwise.

[risky biz]

On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 11:12:00 AM UTC-7, Splashie wrote:
> On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 10:38:40 AM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:

> > ~ You seem to be inordinately focused on people's genitals. So let me just clear the air with a couple of questions:
> >
> > If you're uncomfortable with discussing male genitals why are you in a thread about male genitals? Wow. Get dumb.
> >
> > And if you're uncomfortable with DISCUSSING male genitals why is it a 'human right' that other people's little girls are required by law in some locations (hyperbolically, progressive utopias) to be exposed to them by SIGHT?

~ Who said I was uncomfortable discussing it? I'm saying you're inordinately focused on it.

You're discomfort with it is clearly demonstrated by you saying that I'm 'inordinately focused on people's genitals' in a thread which is SPECIFICALLY about peoples genitals.

~ Seeing a flaccid penis is hardly something to get hysterical about. Jeez, don't let this poor little girls see any Renaissance statues. They'll be scarred for life.

It's big of you AND the state to decide that for both them and their parents.

> > >
> > > 1) If the transgender person has had an operation to remove their penis, is it ok for them to be naked in the women's locker room? Yes or no?
> > They wouldn't be transgender anymore, they'd be transsexual. Pending further consideration, I will say for now that it's basically acceptable. If that's the case, mothers will need to figure out the best way to educate their little girls as to why some people have mutilated genitals.
> OK, so as I suspected, you think it is traumatizing for a woman or a young girl to see a flaccid penis even if the possessor of said penis is not acting in a lewd manner. That's unbelievably Puritan and regressive of you but OK.
> > > 2) Is it ok for an adult male to walk around naked in the men's locker room in areas where he knows underage boys are allowed to be? Yes or no?
> > >
> > > Michael
> > It's legal but when I was underage I would have preferred to see a lesbian walking around naked. How about you?
> Sure, I'd rather see a naked woman than a naked man any day. But how come the underage boys aren't traumatized by seeing grown men walk around naked? My "progressive utopia" would be that anybody could use the bathroom and locker room for their intended purposes and anybody who attempts to engage in lewd conduct would be arrested. The only reason to bar men from women's bathrooms is because too many men are unable to control themselves and behave appropriately around others. But plenty of places have had co-ed bathrooms and locker rooms without incident. Then the whole transgender question would become moot.
>
> Michael

You and Blabbermouth keep bringing up 'co-ed bathrooms and locker rooms'. A bathroom or locker room with segregated stalls is obviously not applicable to what we're discussing if there is no exposure. That's a clumsy red herring.

[risky biz]

On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 11:12:00 AM UTC-7, Splashie wrote:
> On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 10:38:40 AM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:

~ Seeing a flaccid penis is hardly something to get hysterical about.

That's a mischaracterization. The woman in the video is not 'hysterical' about seeing a flaccid penis. She's angry about being forced by the state, or anyone else, to be exposed to male penises when she doesn't choose to be so exposed.

And it's also obvious that she had a slew of other women with her who agreed with her. The only one disagreeing with her was the conformist male dick who wanted to display his openmindedness in deciding FOR them what they should find acceptable.

~ Jeez, don't let this poor little girls see any Renaissance statues. They'll be scarred for life.

People CHOOSE to see Renaissance statuary.

> > >
> > > 1) If the transgender person has had an operation to remove their penis, is it ok for them to be naked in the women's locker room? Yes or no?
> > They wouldn't be transgender anymore, they'd be transsexual. Pending further consideration, I will say for now that it's basically acceptable. If that's the case, mothers will need to figure out the best way to educate their little girls as to why some people have mutilated genitals.

~ OK, so as I suspected, you think it is traumatizing for a woman or a young girl to see a flaccid penis even if the possessor of said penis is not acting in a lewd manner. That's unbelievably Puritan and regressive of you but OK.

Then why do you consider it not 'regressive' and 'traumatizing' for someone with a penis, a transgender, to just use a locker room where they will see other people with a penis which looks just like theirs? Your need to conform seems to have created a weird logic bifurcation in you.

[Splashie]

"The only reason to bar men from women's bathrooms is because too many men are unable to control themselves and behave appropriately around others."

Transgender women are at higher risk of harassment and sexual assault if forced to use men's bathrooms. There's no inconsistency. It's not about having a penis or not having a penis, it's about idiots like you who are more outraged by someone just trying to live their life than actual rapists like Bill Cosby and Kobe Bryant.

My desire for co-ed bathrooms/locker rooms to be more normalized is based on a hope that men would learn to moderate their behavior if they actually had to be around women and children, but that's probably asking too much.

Michael

[BillB]

LOL...look at this fool, scouring the internet for incorrect information.

"According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, gender dysphoria prevalence accounts for 0.005–0.014% of the population for biological males and 0.002–0.003% for biological females."

"This report utilizes data from the CDC’s Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) to estimate the percentage and number of adults who identify as transgender nationally and in all 50 states. We find that 0.6% of U.S. adults identify as transgender."

"Vast majority" indeed. Have a third grader explain the math to you. We've all already seen that third grade arithmetic is well beyond your skill level.

[BillB]

On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 11:09:46 AM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
> On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 8:26:28 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
>
> ~ Is it ok for children to be at a nude or clothing optional beach? It certainly is in Vancouver.
>
> A nude beach is a segregated location that someone goes to voluntarily knowing full well what they will encounter. If an adult takes their child to one the state generally doesn't interfere in the parent's decision. You're a moron and this is one more example of why.
>

A public restroom is a segregated and anyone who chooses to use one in this day and age knows full well that it is open to transgender individuals.

> ~ I get the feeling riskytard is from a distant era and has a lot of hangups over sexuality and nudity. Either that or he's a child molester who is trying to overcompensate for his deviant behaviors by being bigoted toward transsexuals.
>
> You have bandied the term 'faggot' at RGP.

I would have to see the context. That's not a word I would normally use.

>I have never.

Bully for you. That means you aren't a bigot?

>You admitted at RGP that you are uncomfortable with gays.

I doubt I said that. I think I said I was uncomfortable with male homosexual behavior. That would be more accurate. I think most heterosexual men are uncomfortable with homosexual behavior. That doesn't mean I approve of prejudice against gay people or transsexuals. There are plenty of things that make me personally uncomfortable that I acknowledge people have every right to embrace.

> You're a fake.

Not at all. I'm as genuine as they come.

[risky biz]

On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 12:28:27 PM UTC-7, Splashie wrote:
> On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 12:17:33 PM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 11:12:00 AM UTC-7, Splashie wrote:
> > > On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 10:38:40 AM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
> > ~ Seeing a flaccid penis is hardly something to get hysterical about.
> >
> > That's a mischaracterization. The woman in the video is not 'hysterical' about seeing a flaccid penis. She's angry about being forced by the state, or anyone else, to be exposed to male penises when she doesn't choose to be so exposed.
> >
> > And it's also obvious that she had a slew of other women with her who agreed with her. The only one disagreeing with her was the conformist male dick who wanted to display his openmindedness in deciding FOR them what they should find acceptable.
> >
> > ~ Jeez, don't let this poor little girls see any Renaissance statues. They'll be scarred for life.
> >
> > People CHOOSE to see Renaissance statuary.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) If the transgender person has had an operation to remove their penis, is it ok for them to be naked in the women's locker room? Yes or no?
> > > > They wouldn't be transgender anymore, they'd be transsexual. Pending further consideration, I will say for now that it's basically acceptable. If that's the case, mothers will need to figure out the best way to educate their little girls as to why some people have mutilated genitals.
> > ~ OK, so as I suspected, you think it is traumatizing for a woman or a young girl to see a flaccid penis even if the possessor of said penis is not acting in a lewd manner. That's unbelievably Puritan and regressive of you but OK.
> >
> > Then why do you consider it not 'regressive' and 'traumatizing' for someone with a penis, a transgender, to just use a locker room where they will see other people with a penis which looks just like theirs? Your need to conform seems to have created a weird logic bifurcation in you.
> "The only reason to bar men from women's bathrooms is because too many men are unable to control themselves and behave appropriately around others."

~ Transgender women are at higher risk of harassment and sexual assault if forced to use men's bathrooms.

What's remarkable is that you without question assume that someone that is transgender, or claims to be, COULDN'T POSSIBLY TURN OUT TO BE A PERPETRATOR OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT OR SEXUAL ASSAULT. Oh, no- just not part of your neat little ideal world.

~ There's no inconsistency. It's not about having a penis or not having a penis, it's about idiots like you who are more outraged by someone just trying to live their life than actual rapists like Bill Cosby and Kobe Bryant.

>
> My desire for co-ed bathrooms/locker rooms to be more normalized is based on a hope that men would learn to moderate their behavior if they actually had to be around women and children, but that's probably asking too much.
>
> Michael

You're the idiot. That's why you have to grasp at stupid shit like implying that I have ever said or even implied anything positive about Bill Cosby. You're as lame and dishonest as Blabbermouth.

As for Kobe Bryant, I believe that he did nothing more than engage in consensual sex. If you want to believe the story of his accuser, who was a surprisingly obvious slut, be my guest.

[risky biz]

The person who reviewed that has a doctorate and counsels individuals who have personal issues with the entire panoply of gender designations. It's very likely a lead cinch bet that you think you know more about it than he does.

It isn't an arithmetic problem. The problem is your inability to read English, which, BTW, has been evidenced 4 or 5 times by you in the last week, or so.

The author said, 'The vast majority of transgender individuals typically STRUGGLE with gender dysphoria..'

The author DIDN'T say, 'The vast majority of transgender individuals typically IDENTIFY as gender dysphoric.'

Does that help you identify where your error is? I hope so.

It's no wonder there are people who doubt your claim that you're an attorney. If you ever argued a jury trial almost all the jurors would surely be looking at the defendant and thinking, 'That guys in trouble. His lawyer is a spastic hot air balloon, a compulsive liar, and an idiot'.

[risky biz]

~ Not at all. I'm as genuine as they come.

Lie, dodge, run and fake. That's what you are.

[Pierre Trudeau]

Neither of those relatively rare conditions have anything to do with transgenderism. And no, no amount of surgery or hormone therapy will change those conditions either

[Pierre Trudeau]

No, I have a sex organ between my legs. And no, you can't see it, touch it or play with it.

[BillB]

On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 4:42:52 PM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
> On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 1:44:57 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 11:26:26 AM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
> > > On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 9:07:36 AM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 8:56:55 AM UTC-7, Pierre Trudeau wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 10:34:00 AM UTC-5, BillB wrote:
> > > ~ It sounds like you are confusing transgenderism with gender dysphoria, ust like riskytard did. You don't want to be perceived as stupid as him, do you?
> > >
> > > 'Gender Dysphoria Vs. Transgender: Are They The Same?
> > > Having gender dysphoria does not necessarily mean that an individual is a transgender. The vast majority of transgender individuals typically struggle with gender dysphoria, but the two are not mutually exclusive.'
> > > https://www.mind-diagnostics.org/blog/gender-dysphoria/gender-dysphoria-vs-transgender-whats-the-difference
> > >
> > > You remain a moron and have compiled an impressive defense against being categorized otherwise.
> > LOL...look at this fool, scouring the internet for incorrect information.
> >
> > "According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, gender dysphoria prevalence accounts for 0.005–0.014% of the population for biological males and 0.002–0.003% for biological females."
> >
> > "This report utilizes data from the CDC’s Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) to estimate the percentage and number of adults who identify as transgender nationally and in all 50 states. We find that 0.6% of U.S. adults identify as transgender."
> >
> > "Vast majority" indeed. Have a third grader explain the math to you. We've all already seen that third grade arithmetic is well beyond your skill level.

> The person who reviewed that has a doctorate and counsels individuals who have personal issues with the entire panoply of gender designations. It's very likely a lead cinch bet that you think you know more about it than he does.
>

You got it off some mickey mouse comercial website that seels an app that supposedly tells you how depressed you are. LOLOLOL
I'm pretty sure the people who wrote the DSM-5 and who are medical doctors at the CDC are slightly more qualified and unbiased.

> It isn't an arithmetic problem.

Uh, ya, it is. And you have used the VERY SAME numbers in the past week or so (after I explained the difference between the two to you).

> The problem is your inability to read English, which, BTW, has been evidenced 4 or 5 times by you in the last week, or so.

More riskytard projection

> The author said, 'The vast majority of transgender individuals typically STRUGGLE with gender dysphoria..'

Yes, if you struggle with a disorder you have that disorder.

> The author DIDN'T say, 'The vast majority of transgender individuals typically IDENTIFY as gender dysphoric.'

You fucking twit. "Identify" has nothing to do with it. It's a DISORDER. It's a diagnoses.

"Gender dysphoria is a diagnosis listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), a manual published by the American Psychiatric Association to diagnose mental conditions."

> Does that help you identify where your error is? I hope so.

My error is wasting my time trying to educate an abject fool like you.

> It's no wonder there are people who doubt your claim that you're an attorney.

Who doubts it? The three stooges? LOLOL

>If you ever argued a jury trial almost all the jurors would >surely be looking at the defendant and thinking, 'That guys in trouble. His lawyer >is a spastic hot air balloon, a compulsive liar, and an idiot'.

Sure they would. Most riskytard fantasies.

[BillB]

I never do any of those things. Try to formulate a post WITHOUT lying or fantasizing.

[Bill Vanek]

On Jun 30, 2021, risky biz wrote
(in article<7fa63adb-91da-4d6c...@googlegroups.com>):

> On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 7:10:42 PM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:
> > On Jun 29, 2021, BillB wrote
> > (in article<e741e57b-8aba-4c74...@googlegroups.com>):
> > > On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 12:28:48 PM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:
>
> > > You pretend you are intelligent,
>
> > I don’t pretend. You pretend. What’s even funnier is that I now know you
> > thought my IQ was about 85. So if you are 2 SD’s higher as you claim, that
> > means you are way up there at 115! Holy shit! That’s nearly as high as
> > Jerry’s 120!
>
> I doubt that Blabbermouth breaks 110.

Coin flip.

[Bill Vanek]

On Jul 1, 2021, BillB wrote

(in article<bfa3b27b-1af0-4b42...@googlegroups.com>):

No, dummy, it’s an abstraction - an aspiration of the left, and over your
head.

[BillB]

So something that does not exist today? LOL

[Bill Vanek]

On Jul 1, 2021, Splashie wrote
(in article<2697acce-ce0f-421e...@googlegroups.com>):

> On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 10:04:07 PM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:
> > On Jun 30, 2021, Splashie wrote
> > (in article<b2238c90-7b7d-4c6d...@googlegroups.com>):

> > > On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 8:19:51 PM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 7:43:18 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 7:11:18 PM UTC-7, Bill Vanek wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > > You are getting dumber and more dishonest by the minute. “Exposing
> > > > > > > > yourself” is generally a crime, and can get you arrested and maybe
> > > > > > > > beaten

> > > > > > > > to a pulp. But it’s not a crime - in fact, it’s protected - in
> > > > > > > > today’s

> > > > > > > > Progressive utopia, and those little girls and women in the spa
> > > > > > > > don’t
> > > > > > > > present much of a physical threat, now do they? In other words, high
> > > > > > > > risk in
> > > > > > > > one case, almost zero risk in the other. But no need for BillB to make
> > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > such distinction.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's generally a crime but it's not a crime?? Sorry, I don't follow.
> > > > > > Of course not. You’re stupid. You failed at law, and that’s why.

> > > > > LOL...more vanek low-IQ fantasies about me. And of course he ran away
> > > > > from
> > > > > his moronic "crime-no crime" comment. Did you expect anything else from
> > > > > him?
> > > >
> > > > Only a moron could misread what he said as what you say he said. Do you
> > > > think there's anyone at all who doesn't think what you are saying he said
> > > > is moronic?
> > >

> > > What Vanek said is a complete lie. Exposing yourself IN PUBLIC is indeed a
> > > crime (under most circumstances). Not so in a locker room. Now, if there
> > > are
> > > underage people present, then an adult exposing themselves may be
> > > committing

> > > a crime but that is a different scenario. And no "progressive" excuses
> > > harassment, sexual assault, or indecent behavior in front of minors just
> > > because someone is transgender - contrary to Vanek's claim.
> > >
> > > Michael
> > Every time I start to think you have some sense, you come up with this sort
> > of shit. This all revolves around the idiot calling me out because I said
> > that something is “generally” a crime. He said it must either be a
> > crime,
> > or not. Do you agree with that? Is everything either a crime everywhere in
> > every circumstance, or simply not a crime at all? You should try to follow
> > along before you try to suck the idiot’s dick. His exact words are still
> > above in this post: "It's generally a crime but it's not a crime?? Sorry, I
> > don't follow.” In the very post where you trash me, you give a fucking
> > example. It’s clear you do follow, but you have to agree with him? Are you
> > afraid of him? WTF is wrong with you?
>
> I’m making no comment on his interpretation. Your claim that the same
> behavior that is normally considered a crime (as well as risking getting beat
> up) is no longer considered a crime because “progressive utopia” is
> disingenuous at best.

Progressives want it to be accepted and decriminalized. “Exposing
yourself” has connotations that imply perversion, but at the same time,
people expose themselves all the time in places where it is not criminal, or
offensive to anyone. You and the idiot seem to be confused about this. A guy
walking into a women only spa naked with his dick hanging out is going to be
taken as perversion by anyone he walked in on without warning. A guy walking
behind a tree next to the interstate to piss is generally not a shock to
society. And I don’t give a fuck about which restroom anyone uses. There
are plenty of one person bathrooms marked by sex, and that is probably what
all those poll responders are thinking about. I use ladies rooms all the time
if I have to piss, and the men’s room is being used. But I lock the fucking
door.

> Being naked in a locker room - which is not a public
> place where nudity alone is considered indecent exposure - is not a crime
> unless it is accompanied by lewd behavior and/or purposefully done in front
> of minors.
>
> IF the person being complained about was deliberately parading about and
> trying to shock or offend the (other) women, I’d fully support them being
> expelled from the spa and/or subject to arrest.

The other patrons get to decide if they are offended, and they are clearly
not expecting a guy in the women’s spa. They are going to interpret a guy
walking around naked as shocking and offensive, and why shouldn’t they? A
transgender “woman” is a fucking guy. If the facility wants to allow
that, then all they have to do is make it clear that it’s going to happen,
and the other patrons can choose to go there, or not go there.

> But someone who ignorantly
> claims that there is no such thing as trans women

What does that even mean? Of course there are humans that are described as
“trans women”. But they are still fucking guys.

[Bill Vanek]

On Jul 1, 2021, BillB wrote

(in article<5864b0dc-ec3d-4d70...@googlegroups.com>):

Didn’t I say exactly that in another post? You are heading for derailment.
Slow down. Read more carefully. Try to grasp things.

[BillB]

I'm am trying to grasp your confused statements. So it doesn't exist today, or it does?

[Bill Vanek]

On Jul 1, 2021, BillB wrote

(in article<47ad3487-7aa8-4675...@googlegroups.com>):

Are you really asking me if a progressive utopia exists today? Really? The
actual utopia, in the real world? You know, that 115 IQ of yours is nothing
to brag about, but it’s really nothing to be ashamed of, and it’s above
average. So why are you so stupid? Developmental issues? I don’t mean to be
indelicate, but Down’s Syndrome? Run of the mill retardation? You know
we’re all your friends here, so if you want to talk about it, I just want
to make you comfortable with the issue. So go ahead, just let it all out.

[BillB]

The only one who is confused is you. You profess to understand what "progressives" believe, and you are wrong every fucking time.

A guy
> walking into a women only spa naked with his dick hanging out is going to be
> taken as perversion by anyone he walked in on without warning. A guy walking
> behind a tree next to the interstate to piss is generally not a shock to
> society. And I don’t give a fuck about which restroom anyone uses. There
> are plenty of one person bathrooms marked by sex, and that is probably what
> all those poll responders are thinking about. I use ladies rooms all the time
> if I have to piss, and the men’s room is being used. But I lock the fucking
> door.
>
> > Being naked in a locker room - which is not a public
> > place where nudity alone is considered indecent exposure - is not a crime
> > unless it is accompanied by lewd behavior and/or purposefully done in front
> > of minors.
> >
> > IF the person being complained about was deliberately parading about and
> > trying to shock or offend the (other) women, I’d fully support them being
> > expelled from the spa and/or subject to arrest.
>
> The other patrons get to decide if they are offended, and they are clearly
> not expecting a guy in the women’s spa. They are going to interpret a guy
> walking around naked as shocking and offensive, and why shouldn’t they? A
> transgender “woman” is a fucking guy. If the facility wants to allow
> that, then all they have to do is make it clear that it’s going to happen,
> and the other patrons can choose to go there, or not go there.

LOL...vanek wants every business to post a sign that says "Non-bigoted Establishment" just so people like him can go elsewhere. I don't think I need a sign to understand that I might encounter a tanssexual in a public bathroom, as if I give a fuck.

> > But someone who ignorantly
> > claims that there is no such thing as trans women
>
> What does that even mean? Of course there are humans that are described as
> “trans women”. But they are still fucking guys.

You don't understand the difference between gender and natal sex. But then again, what DO you understand??

[BillB]

Still dancing around the question with a lampshade on his head. Our town clown.
It was a simple yes or no question.

[risky biz]

On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 6:48:55 PM UTC-7, BillB wrote:
> On Thursday, July 1, 2021 at 4:42:52 PM UTC-7, risky biz wrote:

> > The author said, 'The vast majority of transgender individuals typically STRUGGLE with gender dysphoria..'

> Yes, if you struggle with a disorder you have that disorder.

> > The author DIDN'T say, 'The vast majority of transgender individuals typically IDENTIFY as gender dysphoric.'

~ You fucking twit. "Identify" has nothing to do with it. It's a DISORDER. It's a diagnoses.

If hadn't already tied yourself into the narrative of calling me stupid because I know enough about the subject to know that gender dysphoria and transgenderism overlap and are not two distinct and separate conditions you wouldn't have to keep making yourself look ever more stupid.

~ "Gender dysphoria is a diagnosis listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), a manual published by the American Psychiatric Association to diagnose mental conditions."

From your own reference above:

"This report utilizes data from the CDC’s Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) to estimate the percentage and number of adults who identify as transgender nationally and in all 50 states. We find that 0.6% of U.S. adults identify as transgender."

See the part that says, "We find that 0.6% of U.S. adults identify as transgender." So are you saying that identifying as 'transgender' PRECLUDES being gender dysphoric? Alternative question: Do you have any idea what you're saying?

You're a babbling idiot and the professional I quoted makes that abundantly clear. Once again, you're trying to keep up with your runaway mouth and failing.