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
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.
Ope, and not we’re back to pretending that’s not what they were saying. Brilliant.
Hitchen’s Razor cuts deep. You can’t quote it because it wasn’t in the article. You’re standing up a strawman, and a bad strawman you can’t even defend at that.
Sorry, I checked, but couldn’t find “see no evil” or “your side” in the article. Are you sure that you read and understood the piece before you decried it?
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.
Hitchen’s Razor cuts deep. You can’t quote it because it wasn’t in the article. You’re standing up a strawman, and a bad strawman you can’t even defend at that.
LOOOOLOLOL just cover your eyes and “see no evil”, right? 🙈
My God, the mental gymnastics people will do to defend someone on “your side” being dishonest.
Sorry, I checked, but couldn’t find “see no evil” or “your side” in the article. Are you sure that you read and understood the piece before you decried it?