Maybethey were terrified because they were taught by a bigot to fear strangers who don't look as feminine as they would expect? 

Psyral Infection said
What I took from the article is that the former executive, who believed the ACLU to be an organization that was supposed to be balanced and open enough to discuss possible issues that may occur with decisions, was closed to any discussion that may suggest that the decision of transgender bathroom choice may not be as simple as presented.

I personally have absolutely no issue with what bathroom someone chooses to use. I choose to use a male bathroom when a choice is given. If people are ok with me being free to choose that, I am ok with their choice too. What I do have an issue with is when any discussion that suggests that there may be a conflict with some of the viewpoints on transgender rights is completely stifled. Free speech is abolished. I may not agree with what someone is saying, but I will fight for their right to say it. It is a dark road when we start restricting dissenting viewpoints from being vocalized just because someone may feel uncomfortable with what is being said.

There are numerous articles of issues on campuses where the administration has ruled that Trump support representation is a violation of safe space because it makes some students uncomfortable but it is ok to show Clinton or Sanders support. That kind of closed minded behavior makes me uncomfortable. It is approaching fascism and destroying freedom.  

The thing is, no one is stifling free speech. 

The ACLU is a company which protects civil liberties. It is a private company, not a government function, which defends the first amendment more than any other organization. It decided, as a company, that trans people have a right to use the restroom unhindered by other people's bigotry. That decision is one they made on the belief that transpeople are people and that civil liberties apply to everybody. 

This woman had a different opinion and chose to leave the organization because her kids were reportedly scared that a woman used the woman's restroom. Her job as a parent is to say that if anybody follows you into a stall to get help but that those women (who might look like men) have a right to use the public restroom just as they do. There is no -legal- argument, in the eyes of the ACLU, which can be made otherwise. Her opinion is invalid and not something they -as a private company- have to entertain. 

Also, safe spaces are dedicated spaces in public where people agree to certain rules are agreed to so that everybody's first amendment rights are protected. Example: if there is a group of undocumented students at a college and they want to meet to discuss whatever. A school might give them permission to use a room where nothing is going on. The students then invite everybody to the discussion hoping that more people will step forward as undocumented. It is their legal right to gather and discuss their status as undocumented.  So then say three people show up to this conversation with 15 undocumented students. One of them raises their hand and says, I support Bernie Sanders because he wants to protect your rights. And another says, yeah, so does Hillary! That's why I'm with her! Lastly, the third one says, "the trump is right, you should all be deported!" those undocumented students have the right to kick out the voice of decent to protect the rights of the group. All people have a right to congregate. 

Put another way, at the school i just graduated from, the Christian Club harassed the pagan and gsa clubs out of existence. Students didn't feel safe to identify as pagan or gay because the Christian Club would enter legally sanctioned club spaces and would verbally harass the members, would follow them around campus telling people they were going to hell if they talked to the pagans or the lgbt students. Had the school had a safe space policy at the time, those students first amendment rights could have been protected. 

Another way: If a Black lives matter protestor enters a trump really and starts harassing his supporters, trump has the legal right to eject him, silencing their criticism. Because the right to free speech isn't the right to harassment.

Psyral Infection said
I agree that "That decision is one they made on the belief that transpeople are people and that civil liberties apply to everybody." I have no issue with that. The article said she left the company because she was not allowed to entertain an opinion in opposition and that it was not up for discussion. I understand they are a private organization and as such do not have to allow her to voice any opposition. So if the line is drawn on public and private, then private companies should not be forced to allow transgender to choose their bathroom of choice. I am more willing to allow the free market to do it's job on the matter.  Again, I am with you completely on the transgender bathroom issues. I am against any restriction of speech in any way, but since the ACLU is private, I can't argue against it being their right to run their business as they wish.

And her Opinion is Invalid??? That seems like a very non-logical interpretation of argumentative science? Yes, I understand that the liberal arts teaches that this is possible but a non-liberal, scientific class on argumentative sciences and/or logic (which many of the non-technical universities no longer teach) the various definitions are distinctly clear. Only arguments can be invalid. Opinions are beliefs and cannot be invalid. They can be irrelevant or unfounded but not invalid. If you google about opinions being invalid, you'll find 100's of articles that say yes, opinions can be invalid. And you will find way more about opinions being invalid than opinions not having a quality of validity. But I have to go with the articles that stand by the classical definitions of logic and reasonable augment discourse. I am not going to go with articles that have thrown these definitions out the window. That is the reasoning behind the derogatory term "regressive" that is being applied to some people on the political left. A regression to a way of argument and logic that preceded the age of reason. They still use terms borrowed from that discipline but have chosen to redefine the terms without re-analyzing the logical structure to determine if their new definitions still have logical soundness.

I get the concept of "safe space" in terms of having a place to have discussions without harassment. That makes sense. What I don't understand is when people are getting upset because during the course of the day they witnessed an opinion that was against their own and complain to university administrations that the expression of those opinions should be stopped. AND the university complies. Some opinions are allowed when others are not even when relating to the same subject. This IS against free speech.

I will only ever support liberty and freedom. People have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is not the right to happiness. That is the right to pursue it. 

Anyway, I am not sure if I am making myself clear. Probably not. I am trying to explain my thoughts in a way that the liberal mind can understand. That is not an attack on liberals. I just think we speak a different language. Just as it is hard for liberals to explain something to conservatives in a way that conservatives understand, the same is true the other way around.  

Companies lost the right to violate people's civil liberties in the 60s. They need to get over it. A company can hold a belief and argue on behalf of that belief but they need to follow the law. Laws that strip people of their civil liberties are illegal and are not germaine to the discussion. There is no valid legal argument for stopping trans people from using the restroom. 

I'll concede that irrelevant would have been a better word choice than invalid. I simply meant her opinion was not on legal grounds and was incompatible to the companies belief that trans people have civil rights. 

Again, regressive left refers to the people on the left who say things like "we have to honor everybody's traditions" when the traditions are violating people's civil rightsm, ie when a Muslim country has a history of burning women with acid for not wearing hijab. 

Please show me a university that is denying people the right to free speech. Universities have a tough job of balancing the rights of thousands of people at once. Students are allowed to express their beliefs when those beliefs don't impede another students right to do the same. Backing a racist candidate like Donald Trump is fine; using his racist talking points is not because they create a hostile environment that makes it unsafe for Muslim or Latino students. Supporting Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton is fine; but if they start talking about rounding people up, expelling them from the country and/or banning religious practices it would be against policy to repeat those kinds of talking points on campus because it would violate people's rights.

Also liberal arts just means you have to study a little bit of everything not that they teach you liberalism. You can be a fascist and go to a liberal arts college and still be fascist when you're done. You can even major inn the humanities. The school can't stop you from holding backwards ass beliefs, it can only provide examples of why those beliefs are harmful. It's when you express a belief that demeans, excludes, harms, or otherwise interferes with other students that it becomes a problem. 

scruffy said

Nyro said  
They are valid to the person who has the opinion. Which is all that matters.    

if the world is flat, will the kings word make it round?  and if it is round, will the kings word flatten it?..   
 

Since certain fields are currently accused of not being subjected to actual peer review (i.e. Gender Studies) signs point to yes. I suspect in an ice age their textbooks would be the first ones to get thrown on the fire. Right after the fascists.

scruffy said

Nyro said  
They are valid to the person who has the opinion. Which is all that matters.    

if the world is flat, will the kings word make it round?  and if it is round, will the kings word flatten it? 

 

opinions and beliefs only 'matter' as motivations.  beyond that, they are ultimately irrelevant.   

Agreed, but motivations can drive men and women to great deeds and terrible ones. Are those deeds then relevant?

The holocaust, all wars, riots and murders....all deeds based on opinions of beliefs.

Red Cross, homeless shelters, manners and many good things are all deeds based on personal beliefs.

All acts are directed by an individual or individuals belief or opinion. All manifest from those beliefs and opinions directly. Opinions and beliefs are the ultimate powers that drive the human psyche. 

Surely you at least see a direct connection.