Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
If you read the rest of my post instead of diving into your frothing-at-the-mouth rant against political correctness, you would’ve had your answer.
Again, a cake is a cake, you can’t say a cake is for someone and not for someone else, that’s discriminatory. It’s a cake. Comparing it to this situation is wrong. If you wax vaginas, you wax vaginas. If you don’t wax testicles, you don’t wax testicles. The gender of the person should be irrelevant, and idiots like Yaniv can take a hike and fight a battle that actually matters.
And if you want to categorise a human rights battle between a potentially-racist sexual predator and immigrant workers as “a bit of lighthearted weekend fun” then go wild. If it’s just “transgender fun stuff” then do your thing. Just don’t throw yourself a little pity party when someone goes “hey look at this guy over here, what’s he thinking?” because it’s a little hard to figure out.
I already know you don’t give a #### about transgender issues and the whole thing is a lark to you, which is fine. But if you’re going to start getting laughs around the actions of a sexual predator, I’m going to raise an eyebrow.
|
Again, you are diverting. See, regardless of what you think that I do and don't give about transgender issues, my point was different. I think that there will come time, soon, when women-only service providers will be
required by law to provide services to people with male genitalia. Ridiculous cases like this one support my assumption. My original post was to see what others think about this possibility. As usual, you've managed to turn what could have been an interesting (and funny) discussion into another one of your little wars, where either I have to keep defending myself, instead of my arguments, or just say f...k it . Good job. Oh, and please, not the eyebrow!