Aside from all the ridiculous and seemingly evidence free rhetoric of bogeymen in dresses attacking girls in bathrooms, I'm curious to know how they handle the locker room/shower situation.

Am I mistaken to assume they're saying a trans girl with a boys body would be accepted by girls in the locker room, and its just old prejudices holding that up?

While this is a nice idea, it's completely ass backwards.

I approve of the sentiment, but most of what's said here is fundamentally untrue.

First up, your body is not just "your body", it's "you". There isn't "you" and "your body". YOU are your body. No more, no less. At least until we find a way to digitise consciousness, you (as in the thoughts, memories, attitudes, personality) are inextricably linked to the body you inhabit, and even if you could remove your consciousness from your body somehow, would that even be "you"? Or just a reasonable copy?

Second, part of who you are is your background. Not race, that's bullshit, but your culture. The environment you grow up helps define your values. That's not to say you a prisoner of those values, but it's naive in the extreme to believe that they aren't a massive part of who you are (even if it's a part you might not like or agree with).

Finally, sadly, yes... babies are racist. They will inherently show a bias towards others who look similar to them.

We are not "all the same, but divided by societal labels". It's the other way round. Left alone, humans will naturally tend towards conflict, fear of the other, prejudice and heaps of other horrible traits that actually turned out to be useful (if morally wrong) in an evolutionary sense.

It is society that brings us together.

Terry Pratchett said it best:
"Individuals aren’t naturally paid-up members of the human race, except biologically. They need to be bounced around by the Brownian motion of society, which is a mechanism by which human beings constantly remind one another that they are . . . well . . . human beings."

Close.
I believe they are nearly all liars because they themselves have clearly said that all police officers are liars. They will and have admitted publicly and repeatedly that this is the case, they are trained that lying is acceptable to gain information or compliance. I also believe that they are incapable of finding it acceptable to lie in some circumstances with impunity but at the same time NOT lying about their own bad actions...and time and time again that has proven to be correct. (once a liar, always a liar) It's not >50% that are liars, it's closer to >98%.
That said, I don't think a large percentage of them are actually intentional murderers, likely <1%, but I do think that >98% will support, lie for, falsify evidence for, threaten retaliation for, and actually retaliate for that <1%. That's also been proven by their actions repeatedly. That makes them all (>98%) accessories after the fact...so maybe not murderers, but murderer adjacent.

This admitted bias is borne from decades of repeated and consistent confirmation that it's correct, both from media and personal experience. Yes, it's unfair for that <2% of 'honest cops', but not as unfair as the >98% of dishonest cops are to them by far.

I think it's a sad state of affairs when my position, that those charged with and paid to protect and serve should maybe TRY to protect, is considered prejudice. Any officer that didn't TRY would be guilty with me on the jury. (of course, lucky for them, I am honest and admit I have a bias against police and think they are all liars and completely untrustworthy, so I never serve on a jury)

EDIT: I find it hypocritical that officers demand better pay and legal leeway because they have a 'dangerous job', but when presented with MINOR danger (like water) they cry and whine that 'they shouldn't have to put themselves in danger just to save citizen's lives'. I'm sure glad we had a completely different class of officer in 2001 or hundreds more would have died in the twin towers...but it makes one question, what would they do today in the same circumstance?

Your prejudice is showing, I'm gonna give up on what is clearly a lost cause on this subject with you.

I get it, you believe, by default, that all police officers, not just this incident, are greater than 50% made up of liars and murderers who will kill people for slighting them and their authority. Just so you know, you are long, long past the point of confirmation bias in the degree which you've entrenched your train of thought in stone.

Wait, this is super awkward.
This a dupe and Eric3579 pointed out to me.
So, I tried to "isdupe" my own posting and he told me how to kill it.

So I did.
And here it is on the first page.

Not even sure how; so---people are enjoying this unworthy clone--should I leave it or kill it with extreme prejudice (and how did it even escape that fate with a clone???).

Perhaps Sifters will speak and I will follow their wishes.

@ChaosEngine

i think we agree more than we disagree.

example:
me:
"freedom of speech is the right to speak freely.
to espouse our opinions,philosophy and yes,our bigotry and prejudice,with legal immunity,but NOT social impunity."

you:
"As I've said before, the "dangers of PC" are vastly outweighed by the dangers of people using the so-called dangers of PC as an excuse for racist, sexist bullshit. This is how it works. They get to say their shit and we get to call them on it."

i was not accusing you of holding an extreme left ideology.i was simply pointing to the dangers of controlling speech.

in fact,just so you know i was paying attention,one of my favorite lines from you in regards to PC is "don't be a dick".

short and to the point.

the fault in our exchange may reside with me.
i am not "anti PC".
i am against those who hold a far more radical view than you do in regards to language,words,safe spaces,trigger warnings etc etc.who seek to demand,through political machinations,the legal impositions of certain words having legal consequences.

which is censorship.

i realize you are not part of this small (but growing) radical band of merry offendees,and you have stated so publicly and often.

my guilt lies in the fact that i will tag you to make a larger point.i basically used your comment to expand on the growing dangers of a small cadre of radical lefties who seek to control how we interact.

the reason i did this,and have in the past,is due to my perceptions of you being far more thicker skinned than most.when we are talking about people being offended easily,i need someone with a thicker skin to interact with to further my point.

that and i think you are decent dude.who is reasonable and rational.so even if there is a bit of assumption and presumption,you wont go full blown rage machine on me,and allow for a decent conversation.

so my apologies my man.
i tend to use your comments on PC to expand on a point that i find concerning.

@ChaosEngine

i do not see anyone here defending anything.

now maybe we can view stephen's commentary "dismissive and belittling" as @entr0py pointed out,but i think the deeper issue was prefaced quite succinctly by stephen in his characterization of american,and western societies,as being "infantilized".

where words have become the final bastion of totality in communication and are judged strictly on a word by word basis.so much so that some on the left have been pushing harder and harder to have certain words removed from our lexicon,because they represent negative thoughts/feelings/actions or they may represent a trauma,or horrific violent memory for some people.

but this is the wrong approach.
excising words will not erase those feelings/thoughts/emotions.this will just force people to come up or use different terminology to express those feelings/thoughts.actions that once had words to at least to attempt to express those horrors and/or offenses.

which will just equate to a whole new slew of verbiage being found offensive and in dire need of being castrated from our collective vocabulary.

yet the left (extreme left i grant) appears hell bent on not only attempting to control speech but to also judge those who DO use speech that they find offensive.

this is censorship with prejudice and to claim otherwise is the lie.

just look at your first comment.
you "used" to like stephen fry's opinion,until he became callous and dismissive with what?

words.

but do you REALLY think his attitude and compassion towards those who have suffered emotional trauma is truly dismissive?

well..i do not think so.i have spoken to you enough times to have a modicum of understandings in regards to you,as a person,that you have far more depth of character.

yet it is the WORDS that have hung you up.

look man,words are inert.they are things that are only given life,meaning and context when we add our own subjectivity to them.

words are inadequate.they will ALWAYS be inadequate.
which is why we admire and praise those of us who have a command of words that can reach into our own understandings and extract meaning in a way that blossoms like a spring flower and can create worlds in which we can play,and even share with other people.

i am intimately aware of this deficiency.i do not have an economy of words,and only on rare occasions can i relay,convey and express with ANY form of reductionism.

i struggle to express not only my opinion,but the intent,humanity and compassion of my opinion.

if the extreme left gets their way,the tools we have to express ourselves becomes lesser.

and in the process,WE become lesser.because the tools for dissent,debate,discussion and even..ironically..to expose the more venal and bigoted of our society,will have been reduced to words that offend nobody.

there is danger here,and no good will come from it.no matter if the intent sounds just and the goal compassionate.

freedom of speech is the right to speak freely.
to espouse our opinions,philosophy and yes,our bigotry and prejudice,with legal immunity,but NOT social impunity.

so while we have a right to free speech.
we do not have a right to not be offended,and maybe we need to be offended sometimes.to shake us from our own self-induced apathy and our adoration of digital hallucinations.

so when the westboro baptist church says the most hateful,vitriolic and disgusting admonishments,all in the name of god.
we can be offended by them,and then ridicule them relentlessly.

would stripping words from the english language prevent this group from espousing their own brand of hate?

of course not.they would just find new words.

so what do we do then?
make words illegal?
criminally libel?

so don't judge mr fry too harshly.
he is just pointing to the dangers of controlling speech and the new trend of the perpetually offended.

the extreme right attempts to control morality,and there is serious danger in that practice.
the extreme left attempts to control how we communicate,and hence how we interact,and there is great danger in that as well.

Yeah, fuck that interview.
The implied message that he can't get elected...journalists need to be a little more self aware so they don't let their prejudices leak out through their mouths.

Racism describes a system of disadvantage based on race. Black people can't be racist since they don't benefit from that system. Prejudice, sure, but not racist.

People of color are allowed to be angry about racism. We have to accept that anger is a natural response to being systematically oppressed. To expect every minority to react to racial/social inequality without a hint of emotion is some bullshit white privilege.

I'm not defending this woman's words, but rather taking issue with why and how they are being presented. bobknight33, you've had a terrible track record posting your racist bullshit on here, how about stop now.

I don't think my idea would end Daesh overnight, or end prejudice against Muslims or Arabs, but it could certainly help offer useful, badly needed ammunition in both fights.

I dunno about that, the M-E is such an immense cluster-fuck and a lack of manpower is hardly the only cause of ISIS or reason for its continued existence. Prejudice against *insert nationality here* migrants certainly isn't going anywhere any time soon.

Your video, PRIDE AND PREJUDICE AND ZOMBIES - Official UK Trailer, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 56 Badge!

I'm not sure which dictionary you're using, but I just looked it up in two (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism?s=t and http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism) and both disagree with you while agreeing with Dawkins.
I agree that prejudice and discrimination are a problem. But conflating criticism with prejudice is a problem too.

Huh? I usually agree with most of what Dawkins says, but he's off the mark here. Firstly, he hasn't looked up the definition of racism, it doesn't just apply to 'race'. Secondly, it's not about (in his words) "criticism", it's about prejudice, discrimination etc.

I'd like to apologize for generalizing you into the admittedly small group of EVO and WRX drivers I've encountered over the years. You're honestly the first person that doesn't fit my particular prejudice.