Nex Benedict died one day after a fight in a school bathroom. Their mother Sue Benedict tells Bevan Hurley that the gender fluid teenager endured more than a year of abuse simply for being who they were
Nex outwardly appeared like a boy, but was forced the use the girls bathroom.
Okay? I supposed if they used the boys’ bathroom they would have been fine? Because teenage boys are known for their kind nature and never physically bully anyone? And they totally wouldn’t have been even more susceptible to bullying?
And I suppose teenage boys would never abuse this new law to be granted access and harass girls in the girls’ bathroom?
Again, this is speculation. I think the article correctly refuses to identify Nex’s apparent and “legal” gender.
I supposed if they used the boys’ bathroom they would have been fine?
Yes, probably. The 3 older girls probably would not have assaulted Nex in the boys bathroom.
Because teenage boys are known for their kind nature and never physically bully anyone?
Empty rhetorical question with no relevancy to the problem at hand.
And they totally wouldn’t have been even more susceptible to bullying?
More empty rehtoric. Disregarding.
And I suppose teenage boys would never abuse this new law to be granted access and harass girls in the girls’ bathroom?
Mostly empty rhetoric here, but the data does not support the argument that boys are temporarily claiming to be girls so they can hang out in the girls bathroom. It’s not like there is some kind of physical barrier preventing people of the incorrect gender from entering a bathroom, you can just walk right in. If a woman goes into the women’s bathroom, and peeps on other women who are just trying to shit in peace, she would get reported, and should suffer the same consequences as man that goes in the women’s bathroom to peep.
Yes, probably. The 3 older girls probably would not have assaulted Nex in the boys bathroom.
LOL you’re intentionally reframing the question and ignoring the new potential issue you know exists, and examining the situation with a pinhole POV. You’re obviously not interested in an honest discussion.
Empty rhetorical question with no relevancy to the problem at hand.
LOL of course it’s relevant. Your assertion (and the author’s) is that Nex would have somehow been safer in a boys’ bathroom, because of their physical appearance. As if boys are somehow less likely to beat on a trans kid.
More empty rehtoric. Disregarding.
Why am I not surprised that you’re “disregarding” pressing questions about your narrative.
the data does not support the argument that boys are temporarily claiming to be girls so they can hang out in the girls bathroom.
Right, and what “data” supports the idea that genderless bathrooms are safer for trans people?
We are speculating on Nex’s apparent and “legal” gender. We are speculating on the situation under which the assault occured, since there aren’t concrete facts available due to (most likely) representation and privacy concerns for Nex.
Whether or not Nex would have been assaulted or bullied in the boys restroom is a pointless deviation from your original question that I answered. Roughly paraphrased to “What does this assault have to do with bathroom laws in the US” Nex was, based on the context, mostly likely assaulted and bullied due to a law forcing them to use a bathroom that did not match their apparent gender. Yes, the assault could have occured in the boys restroom, but it didn’t. We can’t focus on what could have happened in the other restroom because then we bring in to question whether or not the assault could have happened anywhere, like the cafeteria, hallways, classroom, etc… its an empty unrelated argument to say that assault could have happen somewhere else. That is why I am disregarding those statements.
Right, and what “data” supports the idea that genderless bathrooms are safer for trans people?
You must have misunderstood the statement. My point is that men are not claiming to be women in order to circumvent bathroom privacy and peep on people taking a shit, and if they did, they would suffer the same legal consequences as a woman peeping on other women in the bathroom.
We are speculating on Nex’s apparent and “legal” gender.
No we are not. Maybe you are. I don’t care because it doesn’t matter.
Whether or not Nex would have been assaulted or bullied in the boys restroom is a pointless deviation from your original question that I answered.
No, that literally is my original question. The only question that matters in a discussion about bathroom laws.
We can’t focus on what could have happened in the other restroom
We absolutely can. Once again, that’s the only thing that matters. When you oppose bathroom laws, you are speculating that they will cause abuse. The author is speculating that this assault occurred as a direct result of bathroom laws. Not me.
They weren’t killed at all because of the laws, which the title of this article is obviously implying.
Why does no one cares that the author is intentionally spreading disinformation?
Let me ask you some things
The author is speculating that this assault occurred as a direct result of bathroom laws. Not me.
Why did this assault occur?
Next question.
What would be the required evidence to convince you that this assault was related to the bathroom legislation in OK, and the bathroom policies in Nex’s school district?
Last question.
Where in the article does the author assert that Nex died directly due to bathroom laws? In quotes please.
I don’t know. The author is the only one speculating about that answer.
What would be the required evidence to convince you that this assault was related to the bathroom legislation in OK, and the bathroom policies in Nex’s school district?
I don’t know. But the answer is not “it happened in a bathroom” like it is for the author.
Where in the article does the author assert that Nex died directly due to bathroom laws? In quotes please.
Seriously? It’s in the title of the article.
And if you’re going to reply that that doesn’t qualify as an “assertion”, my follow-up question to you would be why you think they decided to include that bit of information in the title at all in an article about a trans kid being beaten in a bathroom? Because it seems incredibly obvious to me.
I don’t know. The author is the only one speculating about that answer.
Perfect, you don’t know why Nex was a assaulted.
I don’t know. But the answer is not “it happened in a bathroom” like it is for the author.
Now here, you are admitting that you don’t have any standards to measure how true the authors claims are about Nex’s assault being related to bathroom bills.
Seriously? It’s in the title of the article.
Quote from the article please, otherwise, it’s Hitchen’s Razor for your assertion.
why you think they decided to include that bit of information in the title at all in an article about a trans kid being beaten in a bathroom?
They included the info because a non-binary student was assaulted in the restroom after a pattern of increasingly frequent bullying started shortly after a bathroom bill targeting transgender and non-binary people was signed in to law. It’s important to context to the event.
you are admitting that you don’t have any standards to measure how true the authors claims are about Nex’s assault being related to bathroom bills.
LOL this is not an “admission”. This is just basic logic. And what happened to pretending like that’s not what the author was saying? It was literally 1 comment ago.
Quote from the article please
Ope, and not we’re back to pretending that’s not what they were saying. Brilliant.
Like I said, it’s in the title. If you are illiterate, that’s not something I can help you with without telling you what it says, which I’ve done.
They included the info because a non-binary student was assaulted in the restroom
Yes I also read the article, thank you.
It’s important to context to the event.
It’s only important if you want to imply that it was a cause of the event.
Okay? I supposed if they used the boys’ bathroom they would have been fine? Because teenage boys are known for their kind nature and never physically bully anyone? And they totally wouldn’t have been even more susceptible to bullying?
And I suppose teenage boys would never abuse this new law to be granted access and harass girls in the girls’ bathroom?
Again, this is speculation. I think the article correctly refuses to identify Nex’s apparent and “legal” gender.
Yes, probably. The 3 older girls probably would not have assaulted Nex in the boys bathroom.
Empty rhetorical question with no relevancy to the problem at hand.
More empty rehtoric. Disregarding.
Mostly empty rhetoric here, but the data does not support the argument that boys are temporarily claiming to be girls so they can hang out in the girls bathroom. It’s not like there is some kind of physical barrier preventing people of the incorrect gender from entering a bathroom, you can just walk right in. If a woman goes into the women’s bathroom, and peeps on other women who are just trying to shit in peace, she would get reported, and should suffer the same consequences as man that goes in the women’s bathroom to peep.
…what is?
LOL you’re intentionally reframing the question and ignoring the new potential issue you know exists, and examining the situation with a pinhole POV. You’re obviously not interested in an honest discussion.
LOL of course it’s relevant. Your assertion (and the author’s) is that Nex would have somehow been safer in a boys’ bathroom, because of their physical appearance. As if boys are somehow less likely to beat on a trans kid.
Why am I not surprised that you’re “disregarding” pressing questions about your narrative.
Right, and what “data” supports the idea that genderless bathrooms are safer for trans people?
We are speculating on Nex’s apparent and “legal” gender. We are speculating on the situation under which the assault occured, since there aren’t concrete facts available due to (most likely) representation and privacy concerns for Nex.
Whether or not Nex would have been assaulted or bullied in the boys restroom is a pointless deviation from your original question that I answered. Roughly paraphrased to “What does this assault have to do with bathroom laws in the US” Nex was, based on the context, mostly likely assaulted and bullied due to a law forcing them to use a bathroom that did not match their apparent gender. Yes, the assault could have occured in the boys restroom, but it didn’t. We can’t focus on what could have happened in the other restroom because then we bring in to question whether or not the assault could have happened anywhere, like the cafeteria, hallways, classroom, etc… its an empty unrelated argument to say that assault could have happen somewhere else. That is why I am disregarding those statements.
You must have misunderstood the statement. My point is that men are not claiming to be women in order to circumvent bathroom privacy and peep on people taking a shit, and if they did, they would suffer the same legal consequences as a woman peeping on other women in the bathroom.
No we are not. Maybe you are. I don’t care because it doesn’t matter.
No, that literally is my original question. The only question that matters in a discussion about bathroom laws.
We absolutely can. Once again, that’s the only thing that matters. When you oppose bathroom laws, you are speculating that they will cause abuse. The author is speculating that this assault occurred as a direct result of bathroom laws. Not me.
Your original question, that I answered…
Let me ask you some things
Why did this assault occur?
Next question.
What would be the required evidence to convince you that this assault was related to the bathroom legislation in OK, and the bathroom policies in Nex’s school district?
Last question.
Where in the article does the author assert that Nex died directly due to bathroom laws? In quotes please.
I don’t know. The author is the only one speculating about that answer.
I don’t know. But the answer is not “it happened in a bathroom” like it is for the author.
Seriously? It’s in the title of the article.
And if you’re going to reply that that doesn’t qualify as an “assertion”, my follow-up question to you would be why you think they decided to include that bit of information in the title at all in an article about a trans kid being beaten in a bathroom? Because it seems incredibly obvious to me.
Perfect, you don’t know why Nex was a assaulted.
Now here, you are admitting that you don’t have any standards to measure how true the authors claims are about Nex’s assault being related to bathroom bills.
Quote from the article please, otherwise, it’s Hitchen’s Razor for your assertion.
They included the info because a non-binary student was assaulted in the restroom after a pattern of increasingly frequent bullying started shortly after a bathroom bill targeting transgender and non-binary people was signed in to law. It’s important to context to the event.
And I suppose you do?
LOL this is not an “admission”. This is just basic logic. And what happened to pretending like that’s not what the author was saying? It was literally 1 comment ago.
Ope, and not we’re back to pretending that’s not what they were saying. Brilliant.
Like I said, it’s in the title. If you are illiterate, that’s not something I can help you with without telling you what it says, which I’ve done.
Yes I also read the article, thank you.
It’s only important if you want to imply that it was a cause of the event.