cabiness42

Telling women not to go to parties where there will be alcohol is NOT victim blaming. Telling women they shouldn't have gone to a party where there was alcohol is victim blaming. I was a math major, maybe a liberal arts major can come along and elaborate on the difference.

Which has nothing to do with what Kasich said. Just because other people are victim-blaming doesn't mean Kasich is. Saying it to a specific victim is very different than answering a general hypothetical question.

Not in the first round I wouldn't. Too many good OL, DL and LB available to spend the 1st pick on a RB.

It's not victim-blaming, it's giving advice to people on how to best avoid becoming victims. I will tell my daughter 1000 times not to get herself into those situations, but if she does, I'm going to insist on full prosecution of the offender and not tell my daughter, "See, I told you."

Legally, I don't know how you separate this, but I see restrooms and locker rooms differently. In a restroom, with just toilets and sinks and no showers, you can pretty much use the restroom anonymously. I don't think you need new laws that regulate anything. Locker rooms, where people take showers are different. It becomes obvious to everybody what biological gender you are. That's where I will fight for my daughter's right to not have people with penises in there with her, regardless of how they identify. Not all locker rooms have individual shower stalls with curtains. There can be some other way to accommodate people who aren't comfortable showering with their own gender. If not, I can just have my daughter claim to be Muslim and against her religion to see a male naked so they will have to accommodate her because we can't discriminate against Muslims.

I do think they have gone too far with that part, of course that's really unenforceable anyway. Nobody is checking birth certificates.

https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2015/10...college-campus/ But without laws barring people with penises from going into women's rooms, it's not illegal to go in there. Believe it or not, sometimes laws are a deterrent to bad behavior.

Not really increasing the cost. If your new building is going to have 6 restrooms, they just have to be 2 men, 2 women, 2 neutral instead of 3 men and 3 women. If your existing building has 3 men and 3 women, just take one of each and slap a neutral sign over the men/women sign.

If nobody is being forced to use gender-neutral bathrooms, I don't see why that would bother anybody.

In addition to or in place of regular bathrooms?

SI mock draft (done before the TEN-LA trade) has the Bears taking Ronnie Stanley in the 1st and Derrick Henry in the 2nd.

Despite what either side of the issue might lead you to believe, it is not an open and shut case. For pretty much ever, the standard was that if you have a penis, you use men's restrooms and locker rooms, and if you have a vagina, you use women's restrooms and locker rooms. This has always been a problem for transgendered people, some of whom dress in the style of the gender they identify with instead of the gender they actually are. M->F people often were ridiculed/bullied/attacked if they entered a men's room dressed as a woman. F->M people dressed as men are often mistakenly identified as sexual predators there to attack women. For transgendered people, the solution seemed simple: let them use restrooms and locker rooms of the gender they identify with instead of the gender they actually are. Seems simple but has two major complications: 1) There is nobody at the door of restrooms and locker rooms verifying that people with penises who are trying to use women's facilities are actually transgendered. There have already been cases of straight men taking advantage of this rule to expose themselves to and/or get a look at women. 2) Even if only transgendered people were to use the other restroom/locker room, there are still plenty of women who just don't want to see a penis while they are in a locker room, and certainly plenty of parents who don't want their teenage daughters exposed to that. While some of the people who favored bills like the one in North Carolina are bigoted, bigotry is clearly not the only reason one might have for supporting this bill. I would propose a compromise that ought to be good enough (but not necessarily ideal) for everybody: A) Any newly constructed buildings must have restrooms/locker rooms for men and women, as well as open/family facilities that can be used by anyone. B) Any existing buildings that have at or above a certain number of restrooms/locker rooms must convert some to open/family facilities. C) Any existing buildings with limited numbers of restrooms/locker rooms that are unable to convert some to open/family facilities must post notices at the entries that they do not have open/family facilities. Restrooms are clearly a much easier fix than places with locker rooms and showers. Also, PayPal and Bryan Adams (and probably most other musicians) = total hypocrites. Both do plenty of business in Muslim countries where transgendered people aren't accommodated and even worse it's actually illegal to be gay. But they needed to take a stand against North Carolina.

It was a dumb answer, but which of the following is he supposed to say instead? 1) Unconstitutionally castrate any males who look like they might be sexual predators 2) Unconstitutionally change the legal standard for conviction from "beyond reasonable doubt" to "he seems guilty" for sex crimes 3) Increase the deficit by $30 trillion in order to have a federal agent following every woman to keep her safe That's the problem with Americans. We think politicians are supposed to do everything for us instead of taking care of ourselves. If a sexual assault occurs, the government can prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, but that contributes far less to "a feeling of safety" than using common sense. When my daughter becomes a teenager, I'm sure as hell not going to tell her, "do whatever you want and rely on the government to keep you safe." Kasich has teenage daughters, and I'm guessing he doesn't tell his daughters that either.

Q (LHP) 1-0, 2.31 vs Matt Moore (LHP) 0-0, 3.00

I think the Nationals clinched their division last night.

Latos' ERA went up by infinity percent. Bum.

If I had a really good closer and the rest of the bullpen was trash, I'd consider using my closer before the 9th, but I have no problem letting Albers and Jones handle the high-leverage situations in the 7th and 8th.

So who pitches to Rosario and Mauer in the 8th: Duke, Jennings or Jones?

They're bad enough they don't really have to try THAT hard.

Especially with 0 outs. Maybe with 1 out you think about having the IF in but not with 0 outs.

Time to find a replacement for Latos.

16 straight scoreless. Sox pitching is good, but not THAT good. Twins lineup is just awful.

Isn't that what 90% of the thread is anyway?

Sox have that guy, he just won't be ready until next year.

They're 0-7. How did their closer get injured??