Nice analogy, comparing those that have a increased likelyhood to commit murder to those that have genetic predisposition towards a sexuality THIS IS WHY I SAID YOU WERE GETTING TOO REPUBLICAN
Just perhaps, you might have noticed that I did say that it was "intentionally ridiculous". I'm taking the most extreme and ridiculous thing I can think of to make the point that people are restricted on things that they want or are even genetically compelled to do. Society is a balancing act.
If I'm filling the role of "TOO REPUBLICAN" here, you are definitely fitting the role of "TOO DEMOCRAT" (meaning the party). EVERYTHING must be taken as offensive, because any disagreement is clearly in bad faith... I can't have possibly done my absolute best to find the best data available and then looked at it honestly, because my conclusion is one that you don't like.
I accept that I may be wrong on things, which is why I put a lot of effort into actually CHECKING to see if I am right or wrong (and changing my position on things when I AM wrong, which happens less as time goes by with that attitude, but only "less" not "never").
Really because not all child molestation is done out of attraction and not only that but there are more heterosexual male pedophiles about 1:4 gay to hetero if you consider all male molestation gay from what I have read....this does increase the likelyhood amoungst homosexuals (not by much however) but it just wouldn't be practical to introduce a law with prejudice against close to 5% of the population (I have reformed my opinion a bit but not by much you still phrased it like a dick)
I didn't suggest or support any law on the subject. It was incidental to our discussion about other things here.
As to phrasing... I've given up on phrasing. Someone will take offense however I phrase it, often because they don't like the content but don't have the data or knowledge to challenge the content, so "phrasing" can be substituted. That said, I don't AIM to be a "dick", so if that offense is genuine, then I apologize.
I am sorry but IN WHAT FUCKING WAY is this bill practical or even minimalizing those affected, barely any of the standard population would even know if a transgender was enabled to take a piss ?????, transgenders would be 0.001% of the population but the number of those with pedophilic attraction one would imagine would be in the 3-1% of that (Of which 35-50% of which attempt suicide so......oh and ftm tgs would be forced into female bathrooms which I can imagine going well x))
I never said this particular bill was practical or even good. In fact, I pointed out that bills in REACTION to something are often fairly poor in actual execution.
The point is that, as you mentioned, for years, a true transgender person could use whichever bathroom they wanted, and nobody would know the difference
... no intrusion from the federal government was NEEDED!
Now, a rapist or other sexual abuser can throw on a wig, claim they identify as a woman (at least for the moment), and go into the women's bathroom. THAT kind of crap is what this is in response to.
Much of society is a (fairly difficult) balancing act, trying to produce the fewest bad outcomes. A giant shove in any particular direction tends to throw MANY things badly out of balance for a significant period of time, producing many MORE bad outcomes than the claimed problem ever did. Only the most extreme situations warrant such behaviour, and honestly, I can't think of the last time such action was warranted by the government when the government itself was not part of the problem.
Most recent example: the Civil Rights movement. The actions of some state governments were indeed terrible, and action on the part of the federal government to correct it were indeed justified... but even then, they went WAY WAY too far, taking on phenomenal powers over private individuals that we still suffer from today. THAT is the sort of bad side effects we get when taking such strong and immediate actions, even for a justified cause.
This bathroom thing? It doesn't get anywhere CLOSE - it was entirely political grandstanding and virtue signaling, and the actual real-world results were irrelevant to the people doing it. The right and proper response of sane state governments is to tell them to go away.
Sadly, but realistically, that response will not well-designed and carefully thought through... it will, by the very nature of it, be rushed and almost certainly done poorly. I hate that - bad bills need to be replaced by good bills, preferably before being enacted, but honestly, it usually comes later in cases like this (from either side), meaning that sometimes, bad bills get left in place for significant periods of time (again, both sides do this in "reaction" situations).
That doesn't mean I think the bad bills are a good idea, but I do place the blame for them primarily in those who unreasonably created the situation being reacted to.
For another fairly extreme example, if someone breaks into my home in the night and I shoot and kill them, well, I don't like that, and if they were just at the wrong house and drunk, then it's even more of a tragedy... but that doesn't mean that I am to blame, or even I did anything morally wrong - my response was justified, even if imperfect.
Where that particular analogy fails is that, in the case of the person breaking into my house, they bear the primary consequences, with me only bearing secondary ones (like feeling some level of guilt, even if it was fully justified). In the case of laws/regulations and counter-laws/regulations, the people inflicting both sets (initial and response) are seldom the ones who bear the consequences of the laws/regulations in question, so they tend to not take nearly enough care (again, on either side of the aisle, and as either instigator or response).
As such, I place the primary blame for such situations, even the primary blame for the lousy bills in response (and they often are), on the party that instigated the mess.