Trumppers… huge win for Walker?

TOP said:
you don't have childre
Click to expand...

So I can't be concerned about Conservative perverts stripping kids naked to stare at their genitals?

It's weird that you aren't concerned about that...maybe because those perverts are your friends.
 
LV426 said:
So I can't be concerned about Conservative perverts stripping kids naked to stare at their genitals?

It's weird that you aren't concerned about that...maybe because those perverts are your friends.
Click to expand...
You can be concerned about anything you want... but if it's not a real issue why would you?
 
TOP said:
if you want to continue crying for no reason I'll be happy to continue to remind you... that this isn't an issue...
Click to expand...

Of course it's an issue because it's the state mandating that children be stripped naked in front of perverts.

And you support that.
 
LV426 said:
I'm concerned about pervert Conservatives using transphobia as an excuse to look at naked kids since so many Conservatives get busted for looking at naked kids all the fucking time.
Click to expand...
But they're not...
 
LV426 said:
If it's not a real issue, then why is it in the bill?
Click to expand...

Why are you worried? You can't give me a single real life example of why you would or should be worried... your reasons are strictly personal ....you have a right to feel that way.... many people have issues with things that don't exist and that is their choice and yours...
 
TOP said:
That's incorrect
Click to expand...

Nope.

The law is quite clear.

It doesn't say a birth certificate is an acceptable form of proof to resolve a dispute about a child's sex based on an anonymous accusation.


so it's not an issue is it?
Click to expand...

If it's not an issue, then why is it in the bill?

One of your pervert pals thought it was an issue, which is why they made a point to make the inspections a REQUIREMENT in the bill you support.
 
TOP said:
You can't give me a single real life example of why you would or should be worried.
Click to expand...

I have given you that example...several times.

You just refused to accept it because it ruins your argument entirely.

So why are genital inspections in the bill if they're not necessary?
 
LV426 said:
I have given you that example...several times.

You just refused to accept it because it ruins your argument entirely.

So why are genital inspections in the bill if they're not necessary?
Click to expand...

You have never given a real life example only your lifetime movie soccer mom scenario which you really should repeat again and see if anyone agrees that that's has ever happened... or is a possibility.... the movies don't even want that silly story though..
 
TOP said:
your reasons are strictly personal
Click to expand...

The whole thing is personal because a mandatory and required genital inspection is personal.

So at least now you're admitting that the law can be used maliciously.

So since the law can be used maliciously, now do you understand why these inspections are in it?
 
LV426 said:
Wrong. In fact, it is the ONLY acceptable form of proof according to the law:

2 An act relating to sex-specific student athletic teams
3 or sports; creating s. 1006.205, F.S.; providing a
4 short title; providing legislative intent; requiring
5 that certain athletic teams or sports sponsored by
6 certain educational institutions be designated on the
7 basis of students' biological sex; prohibiting
8 athletic teams or sports designated for female
9 students to be open to male students; requiring that a
10 student's school or institution, as applicable,
11 resolve disputes regarding the student's sex;
12 requiring the school or institution to request a
13 certain health examination and consent form or other
14 statement from the student's health care provider to
15 verify the student's biological sex under certain
16 circumstances
Click to expand...

That's not correct... a birth certificate or DNA test is going to resolve everything prior to the need for any kind of examination...but if a psycho mom wants to push it which she would not the inspection option is there.. it won't be necessary... moms aren't that psycho...
 
TOP said:
You have never given a real life example only your lifetime movie soccer mom scenario
Click to expand...

That IS a real life example.

At least now you're admitting that the law can be used maliciously...that's a big step for you.

So since the law can be used maliciously, it now makes sense that mandatory genital inspections of children are in the bill because those are inherently harmful to the child.
 
I think I know of one case where there was a question about one of the players involved and it was easily resolved without the need for any kind of physical examination...
 
Birth records, previous medical records, and school records work great...
 
LV426 said:
That IS a real life example.

At least now you're admitting that the law can be used maliciously...that's a big step for you.

So since the law can be used maliciously, it now makes sense that mandatory genital inspections of children are in the bill because those are inherently harmful to the child.
Click to expand...

What you gave was not a real life example...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top