This is going to be difficult: the NFL in your restroom

[SkinBasket]

This will be difficult, but I think you savages can handle it, because it is an interesting topic. The NFL has threatened Texas, insomuch that if they pass a law that allows businesses to decide their own restroom policies, they will punish the state by refusing to host future events there. I'm assuming they mean the Superbowl, since no one cares about anything else.

So - this is not a discussion of how you feel about the recent rise in restroom sociopolitical theory.

This is a discussion of whether the NFL has any business inserting itself into any state's political process, no matter what issue might be in the process of legislation in said state. Furthermore, what possible benefit does the NFL expect to derive from taking such a position - or again ANY position on ANY social or political topic?

I would think that the NFL would have learned an important lesson from the treasure troll kneeling fool this season, and the resulting "protests" that became the new cinnamon challenge across the league, which has been cited by many as a major factor in reduced viewership of the NFL this season.

Here's one report on the story: http://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas-legislature/2017/02/10/post-super-bowl-nfl-warns-texas-discriminatory-laws

For a bit of background for those of you who have trouble reading things that inform your opinions: The bill would "ban cities from requiring private businesses to allow transgender Texans to use the bathroom of their choice. It would also prohibit trans Texans from using the bathroom that matches their gender identity in public schools and government buildings." In other words, the relevant portion to this discussion states that private businesses can decide their own "restroom policies."

The NFL is claiming this would violate their pledge to inclusiveness, or something. "We want all fans to feel welcomed at our events and NFL policies prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard," NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said in a prepared statement, which was first reported by the Houston Chronicle. "If a proposal that is discriminatory or inconsistent with our values were to become law there, that would certainly be a factor considered when thinking about awarding future events."

So, either the NFL knows that the owners of the Texas franchises would set policies that would disallow transgenders or other mentally disabled people from using the facilities of their choice, or they are trying to make a political statement. Either way, it would seem the proper course would be to have this discussion with the actual owners of those franchises, not to insert your brand into the political process of an entire state. This season illustrated that mixing football and sociopolitical issues is bad business.

[Guiness]

This will be difficult, but I think you savages can handle it, because it is an interesting topic. The NFL has threatened Texas, insomuch that if they pass a law that allows businesses to decide their own restroom policies, they will punish the state by refusing to host future events there. I'm assuming they mean the Superbowl, since no one cares about anything else.

So - this is not a discussion of how you feel about the recent rise in restroom sociopolitical theory.

This is a discussion of whether the NFL has any business inserting itself into any state's political process, no matter what issue might be in the process of legislation in said state. Furthermore, what possible benefit does the NFL expect to derive from taking such a position - or again ANY position on ANY social or political topic?

I would think that the NFL would have learned an important lesson from the treasure troll kneeling fool this season, and the resulting "protests" that became the new cinnamon challenge across the league, which has been cited by many as a major factor in reduced viewership of the NFL this season.

Here's one report on the story: http://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas-legislature/2017/02/10/post-super-bowl-nfl-warns-texas-discriminatory-laws

For a bit of background for those of you who have trouble reading things that inform your opinions: The bill would "ban cities from requiring private businesses to allow transgender Texans to use the bathroom of their choice. It would also prohibit trans Texans from using the bathroom that matches their gender identity in public schools and government buildings." In other words, the relevant portion to this discussion states that private businesses can decide their own "restroom policies."

The NFL is claiming this would violate their pledge to inclusiveness, or something. "We want all fans to feel welcomed at our events and NFL policies prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard," NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said in a prepared statement, which was first reported by the Houston Chronicle. "If a proposal that is discriminatory or inconsistent with our values were to become law there, that would certainly be a factor considered when thinking about awarding future events."

So, either the NFL knows that the owners of the Texas franchises would set policies that would disallow transgenders or other mentally disabled people from using the facilities of their choice, or they are trying to make a political statement. Either way, it would seem the proper course would be to have this discussion with the actual owners of those franchises, not to insert your brand into the political process of an entire state. This season illustrated that mixing football and sociopolitical issues is bad business.

So I plowed through your post to uncover the highlighted gem...transgenders and other mentally disabled? Want to clarify that statement?

[pbmax]

This is a discussion of whether the NFL has any business inserting itself into any state's political process, no matter what issue might be in the process of legislation in said state. Furthermore, what possible benefit does the NFL expect to derive from taking such a position - or again ANY position on ANY social or political topic?

You mean like workers compensation policy? http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-nfl-claims-20140201-dto-htmlstory.html

You mean like stadium funding? http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2017/01/24/raiders-move-to-las-vegas-bucks-trend-in-nfl-stadium-financing/#a8ead405533b

The answer is money. Money and who controls it, taxes it, collects it, and the people willing to pony it up.

If Texas passes that law, there will be fewer sponsors for the NFL and TV to get to bid on the event. That threatens to reduce the NFL's take on the event. That is bad for a business that wants to increase its bottom line. The press release and political giving will be cheap in comparison.

BTW, that is a lovely edit of the bill's effect, naming it the "Let Businesses Decide" their policy. When the same proposal makes a firm decision for public facilities.

[gbgary]

the nfl will buckle if it passes imo. jerrah will see to it.

[SkinBasket]

So I plowed through your post to uncover the highlighted gem...transgenders and other mentally disabled? Want to clarify that statement?

The transgender "condition," or gender dysphoria, is classified as a mental disorder. You're seeing an attempt to move away from that in recent years, but not as a result of any kind of science or study, but solely due to social and political pressures. Medical professionals are concerned by this move, fearing we are indulging a disorder based on assumption, not reality, which in any other disorder, would be considered not only reckless, but in most cases highly dangerous.

There is also evidence that people experiencing gender dysphoria are at a much higher risk to also suffer from other mental illnesses, suggesting gender dysphoria is the result of the same causes of eating disorders and suicidal tendencies, which is generally considered to be a combination of biological, psychological,and/or environmental abnormalities.

[SkinBasket]

If Texas passes that law, there will be fewer sponsors for the NFL and TV to get to bid on the event.

There is no evidence of this, and I'm not sure I can even devise a correlation between letting private businesses rather than government set their restroom policy and a reduction in available sponsors for a nationally televised NFL event, but if you believe one exists, I'm listening.


That threatens to reduce the NFL's take on the event. That is bad for a business that wants to increase its bottom line.

Which assumes your first position is true. Whereas we have a direct correlation between the NFL getting involved in a contemporary sociopolitical issue and steep decline in viewership, which is a much greater harm to potential sponsorship and therefore decreased revenue. So if we accept your answer of "money," I would argue that your reasoning runs entirely counter to that answer.


BTW, that is a lovely edit of the bill's effect, naming it the "Let Businesses Decide" their policy. When the same proposal makes a firm decision for public facilities.

Not really an edit. Government is not a private business. Just as private business is not a function of government. A distinction that seems to be lost on some.

[pbmax]

There is no evidence of this, and I'm not sure I can even devise a correlation between letting private businesses rather than government set their restroom policy and a reduction in available sponsors for a nationally televised NFL event, but if you believe one exists, I'm listening.

North Carolina's experience: http://www.businessinsider.com/north-carolina-hb2-economic-impact-2016-9

Wired ran the numbers: https://www.wired.com/2016/09/guess-much-anti-lgbtq-law-costing-north-carolina/

[pbmax]

Not really an edit. Government is not a private business. Just as private business is not a function of government. A distinction that seems to be lost on some.

It is precisely an edit. You have reduced the effect of the law to one particular, when it has multiple effects.

[Guiness]

The transgender "condition," or gender dysphoria, is classified as a mental disorder. You're seeing an attempt to move away from that in recent years, but not as a result of any kind of science or study, but solely due to social and political pressures. Medical professionals are concerned by this move, fearing we are indulging a disorder based on assumption, not reality, which in any other disorder, would be considered not only reckless, but in most cases highly dangerous.

There is also evidence that people experiencing gender dysphoria are at a much higher risk to also suffer from other mental illnesses, suggesting gender dysphoria is the result of the same causes of eating disorders and suicidal tendencies, which is generally considered to be a combination of biological, psychological,and/or environmental abnormalities.

To my knowledge, the diagnosis of this condition is purely psychiatric, and well, that branch of the medical profession has had its share of mis-steps.

A statement like the one in the OP reminds me an awful lot of a statement made to me by the parent of a kid I was coaching about why they were removing their child from a school. They were concerned the (openly gay male) teacher was a pedophile. Why? Well, because they obviously had one mental defect, so good chance they had another.

down the rabbit hole we go...

[bobblehead]

If Texas passes that law, there will be fewer sponsors for the NFL and TV to get to bid on the event. That threatens to reduce the NFL's take on the event. That is bad for a business that wants to increase its bottom line. The press release and political giving will be cheap in comparison.
.

Wouldn't it make more sense to not actually give a presser, and take care of it behind closed doors? If texas passes a law that you believe will reduce revenue of any super bowl venue held there wouldn't it make sense to simply ignore it, don't stick your neck out and don't schedule any superbowls there until you deem it the right business move?

[bobblehead]

North Carolina's experience: http://www.businessinsider.com/north-carolina-hb2-economic-impact-2016-9

Wired ran the numbers: https://www.wired.com/2016/09/guess-much-anti-lgbtq-law-costing-north-carolina/

http://www.politifact.com/north-carolina/statements/2016/apr/29/pat-mccrory/mccrory-north-carolina-has-had-countrys-fastest-gr/

North carolina is a horrible example. Governor McCrory is a rockstar when it comes to growth. The very few "protests" that pulled their show or basketball game from NC pales in comparison to the BOOM that has occurred under his watch.

NOW....NC ran a very crooked election with a ton of voter fraud and put Roy Cooper in charge. The man is way over his head and I fully expect the state to begin faltering very rapidly. This will no doubt be blamed on not letting grown men pee with little girls, but the actual reason will be economic policy.

Final note...anyone who expects this topic NOT to devolve into politics is a damn fool.

[pbmax]

Wouldn't it make more sense to not actually give a presser, and take care of it behind closed doors? If texas passes a law that you believe will reduce revenue of any super bowl venue held there wouldn't it make sense to simply ignore it, don't stick your neck out and don't schedule any superbowls there until you deem it the right business move?

Competition among Super Bowl cities helps drive revenue. The sites are put up one against the other to add amenities: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/02/13/the-squeeze-to-upgrade-nrg-stadium-commences/

So to eliminate a potential site is putting aside leverage.

As for private negotiations, I have doubts that the NFL has a preferred course of action on legislation. They might favor protections like Houston voted on (and defeated I think), but I suspect not. They would prefer status quo and generic statements of support.

[bobblehead]

To my knowledge, the diagnosis of this condition is purely psychiatric, and well, that branch of the medical profession has had its share of mis-steps.

A statement like the one in the OP reminds me an awful lot of a statement made to me by the parent of a kid I was coaching about why they were removing their child from a school. They were concerned the (openly gay male) teacher was a pedophile. Why? Well, because they obviously had one mental defect, so good chance they had another.

down the rabbit hole we go...

I really hate to paint with a broad brush. Some might not believe that I actually hate to type what I'm about to because its very unfair to all the homosexuals it DOESN'T apply to but....Statistics show that the 3% of the population that is homosexual commits approximately 1/3 of the cases of pedophilia. So, those parents actually have a valid concern.

[pbmax]

http://www.politifact.com/north-carolina/statements/2016/apr/29/pat-mccrory/mccrory-north-carolina-has-had-countrys-fastest-gr/

North carolina is a horrible example. Governor McCrory is a rockstar when it comes to growth. The very few "protests" that pulled their show or basketball game from NC pales in comparison to the BOOM that has occurred under his watch.


I am glad we agree that the legislation caused people to pull out of NC and cost the state some money (Pay Pal for one). As for your contention that the state's GDP still grew, I am not sure how that affects the NFL's sponsors.

[bobblehead]

So to eliminate a potential site is putting aside leverage.


Yes, but to make a broad stand on allowing grown men to pee beside little girls hurts them much more IMO.

[pbmax]

I really hate to paint with a broad brush. Some might not believe that I actually hate to type what I'm about to because its very unfair to all the homosexuals it DOESN'T apply to but....Statistics show that the 3% of the population that is homosexual commits approximately 1/3 of the cases of pedophilia. So, those parents actually have a valid concern.

You need to do a to more math to get to valid concern.

[bobblehead]

I am glad we agree that the legislation caused people to pull out of NC and cost the state some money (Pay Pal for one). As for your contention that the state's GDP still grew, I am not sure how that affects the NFL's sponsors.

Certainly it caused some people to pull out of NC, but I disagree that it cost the state some money. The state is thriving in large part BECAUSE it is taking stands against foolishness. Just because Springstein pulled out doesn't mean they didn't book a more lucrative deal in his place.

[bobblehead]

You need to do a to more math to get to valid concern.

It depends. In my hometown of shawano one of the only 2 openly gay teachers molested young men for about 20 years. Is that math enough for you?

[bobblehead]

You need to do a to more math to get to valid concern.

I'll give you math. If 3% of the population is committing 33% of said crime then 97% is committing the other 67%. That means a member of the 3% is more than 12x more likely to commit said crime.

If there is 1 homosexual teacher in a school and 12 non homosexual teachers and there is a case of pedophilia then its more than 50% likely the homosexual committed the act.

[pbmax]

I'll give you math. If 3% of the population is committing 33% of said crime then 97% is committing the other 67%. That means a member of the 3% is more than 12x more likely to commit said crime.

If there is 1 homosexual teacher in a school and 12 non homosexual teachers and there is a case of pedophilia then its more than 50% likely the homosexual committed the act.

And what is the incidence rate of pedophilia in a single school?

[bobblehead]

As expected this thread is off topic already. And no, its not my fault. I didn't bring up NC or the psychiatric definition of gender dysphoria. I merely corrected the inaccurate assertions put forth.

[bobblehead]

And what is the incidence rate of pedophilia in a single school?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/02/is_sexual_abuse_in_schools_very_common_.html

pretty damn high apparently. Is your google broke?

Edit: I am open to the argument that liberal media blow this topic way out of proportion as it is a "pet subject" to them. Much like every woman who ever attended college has been raped.

[pbmax]

It depends. In my hometown of shawano one of the only 2 openly gay teachers molested young men for about 20 years. Is that math enough for you?

Nope. Terrible as those incidents were, the conclusion you want to draw largely depends on the overall incidence of pedophilia in Shawano and the number of closeted gay men.

[pbmax]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/02/is_sexual_abuse_in_schools_very_common_.html

pretty damn high apparently. Is your google broke?

Edit: I am open to the argument that liberal media blow this topic way out of proportion as it is a "pet subject" to them. Much like every woman who ever attended college has been raped.

I have enough to do without doing your research for you. But that one study does not distinguish between pedophilia (your original point) and inappropriate conduct between people above the age of consent.

[bobblehead]

Nope. Terrible as those incidents were, the conclusion you want to draw largely depends on the overall incidence of pedophilia in Shawano and the number of closeted gay men.

I can't remember a single event being reported to authorities. I did know personally 2 people who were targeted and resisted and one who did not.

[bobblehead]

I have enough to do without doing your research for you. But that one study does not distinguish between pedophilia (your original point) and inappropriate conduct between people above the age of consent.

The article defines that as pedophilia. I understand your point, and I also understand your tactic. A typical liberal defense involves deflecting every point of every argument and questioning its validity. In the meantime the original point is never actually debated and the person is kept on constant defense. As I have pointed out, studies prove that homosexuals are 12x more likely to commit acts of pedophilia than non homosexuals. 10% of all high school kids are inappropriately touched by adults which would make the incidence at any school with more than 100 students nearly 100% (99.7% if you like bell curves). So, the concern a parent has that a homosexual teacher at a school makes their child more susceptible to the crime is valid.

I personally don't agree with it, and I am much better at formulating an argument against it than you have been, but my point wasn't to criticize a parent with a valid concern.

[texaspackerbacker]

Gosh, I ignore Packerrats for a half day, and this breaks out hahahahaha. I wonder how long before it all ends up in FYI - where it probably belongs.

Skinbasket, I commend you on the original post - ESPECIALLY that line that Guiness has a problem with.

Bobblehead, I commend you on your astute math.

Where I read the title, my first thought was it was gonna be about the Jerry Sandusky like-father-like-son thing - apparently the wrong kind of liking hahahahaha.

Getting to the topic itself, it's disgusting to me that the NFL shills for sick causes like this transgender crap. I seriously doubt that any more than a tiny tiny fraction of players or fans side with the perverted bullshit that politically correct assholes push in this country. Somebody, however, is promoting policies like this. Whoever that is should be weeded out and removed.

As for Texas, this law is not even considered controversial down here, and it absolutely reflects the wishes of the huge huge majority of the people/voters. I really don't think that makes Texas any different, though, from pretty much any other state. As for any effect of this NFL stupidity, there obviously just was a Super Bowl in Texas; The only other suitable venue just had one what? 6 or 7 years ago. Neither would likely have one for a while. By the time their turn comes up again, undoubtedly the all out idiocy of this catering to perverts will have blown over - based on recent elections, the trend in the country seems to be moving away from such weirdness and from the disease of political correctness in general.

[pbmax]

The article defines that as pedophilia. I understand your point, and I also understand your tactic. A typical liberal defense involves deflecting every point of every argument and questioning its validity. In the meantime the original point is never actually debated and the person is kept on constant defense. As I have pointed out, studies prove that homosexuals are 12x more likely to commit acts of pedophilia than non homosexuals. 10% of all high school kids are inappropriately touched by adults which would make the incidence at any school with more than 100 students nearly 100% (99.7% if you like bell curves). So, the concern a parent has that a homosexual teacher at a school makes their child more susceptible to the crime is valid.

I personally don't agree with it, and I am much better at formulating an argument against it than you have been, but my point wasn't to criticize a parent with a valid concern.

Bobble, I don't know exactly who you are arguing with, but its not me.

Your original post said pedophilia, I did not. Pedophilia is defined as a perversion that makes an object of sexual desire out of pre-pubescent children.

The article describes the study's results as including "lewd comments, exposure to pornography, peeping in the locker room, and sexual touching or grabbing" The study covered students from eighth to eleventh grade (likely from 13 to 17 years old). Only a certain number of these students will be pre-pubescent*. Only a certain number will have had that unwelcome encounter while prepubescent (its unclear to me, but I am assuming the study asked for any encounter no matter the age of the student). So this story and link do not give us the number your calculation needs.


* None of the behavior should be excused on this basis, but the conversation started about a specific type of assault

[Joemailman]

This will be difficult, but I think you savages can handle it, because it is an interesting topic. The NFL has threatened Texas, insomuch that if they pass a law that allows businesses to decide their own restroom policies, they will punish the state by refusing to host future events there. I'm assuming they mean the Superbowl, since no one cares about anything else.

So - this is not a discussion of how you feel about the recent rise in restroom sociopolitical theory.

Seems Skin was a little too optimistic.

[SkinBasket]

It is precisely an edit. You have reduced the effect of the law to one particular, when it has multiple effects.

I was attempting to limit this discussion to the portion of the law that pertains to this discussion. Just as you limit your examples of what happened in NC to the negative ramifications of similar laws being enacted.

The main point being: if the NFL's interest in this is monetary, why would they threaten the entire state instead of handling this in-house with the franchise owners? I hate to state it for the 3rd time, but the NFL's engagement in sociopolitical appeasement cost them unprecedented viewership this season. The crux of this post wasn't about who is using which restroom, it was about the NFL attempting to become a political entity and the ramifications of that. I kind of feel like you're proving that point. They may be winning in certain sociopolitical arenas, in this case, very limited ones, but they're losing with their viewer, and economic, base.

[SkinBasket]

To my knowledge, the diagnosis of this condition is purely psychiatric, and well, that branch of the medical profession has had its share of mis-steps.

A statement like the one in the OP reminds me an awful lot of a statement made to me by the parent of a kid I was coaching about why they were removing their child from a school. They were concerned the (openly gay male) teacher was a pedophile. Why? Well, because they obviously had one mental defect, so good chance they had another.

down the rabbit hole we go...

Listen, I'm no doctor, but you seem to be at odds with them. From what I can tell, however, you are conflating gender dysphoria with homosexuality, which are two entirely different things, neither of which is relevant to the conversation, outside of the fact that the NFL, in my opinion, as a business should have no business in trying to affect legislation debated by elected representatives through economic coercion.

[SkinBasket]

Wired ran the numbers: https://www.wired.com/2016/09/guess-much-anti-lgbtq-law-costing-north-carolina/

I promised this wouldn't be a political discussion, but this "article" made me LOL, as the kids say. Thanks PB.

[texaspackerbacker]

Anybody here want to hazard a guess why a seemingly Good Normal American organization like the NFL would get behind support for perversion and bullshit like this whole mess? Does anybody really think anything more than an extremely minuscule minority of players or fans support weird shit like the whole transgender thing?

[Guiness]

Wouldn't it make more sense to not actually give a presser, and take care of it behind closed doors? If texas passes a law that you believe will reduce revenue of any super bowl venue held there wouldn't it make sense to simply ignore it, don't stick your neck out and don't schedule any superbowls there until you deem it the right business move?

Easy to say, difficult to carry out. While voting with their feet sounds appealing, Jerrah, with his billion dollar baby, would be apoplectic and make it very public, very quickly. If the NFL (ignore for a moment what their reasons are) has decided they will not do business in a state with laws like this, better to make that clear from the outset.

[Guiness]

Yes, but to make a broad stand on allowing grown men to pee beside little girls hurts them much more IMO.

And you accuse others of throwing up false arguments to keep people on the defensive while using the 'think of the children' line yourself?

[SkinBasket]

Anybody here want to hazard a guess why a seemingly Good Normal American organization like the NFL would get behind support for perversion and bullshit like this whole mess? Does anybody really think anything more than an extremely minuscule minority of players or fans support weird shit like the whole transgender thing?

That is the point I was originally making. PB stated it was for monetary reasons, but recent evidence demonstrates such sociopolitical stands to be counterproductive to that end. The main reason I find their actions of value to discussion is not because I feel strongly about the transgender issue, but because I'm starting to find myself growing weary of the trend. Unlike others, I wasn't particularly turned off by the kneeling "demonstrations" this season. I felt they were entirely misguided and based on a mountain of social media falsehoods, but I understand the players aren't necessarily the sharpest tools in the shed, and it was, for the most part, a player activity. When the league as a whole, however, starts lecturing on these issues, and then attempts economic coercion to affect a political end, I find myself less entertained by a league that is supposed to do just that - entertain.

[SkinBasket]

If the NFL (ignore for a moment what their reasons are) has decided they will not do business in a state with laws like this, better to make that clear from the outset.

That's not what they're doing though. They are fine doing business there. They aren't threatening to pull franchises or stop collecting money from fans in Texas. It's not a business decision. It's a political one, where they're threatening economic retaliation if they don't get their way.

[RashanGary]

It's not about business. It's about social control and mind control. The companies at the top don't compete. By manipulating the politicians, businesses and banks legislate competition away. With that, a few very sinister people at the very top of several organizations are responsible for spreading the continuous mind control message that you see in media, entertainment, education and in several other areas.

People, for the most part, are just a bunch of mindless sheep. This is like the sheep dog rounding you up, skinbasket, and distrating you while they corral you where they want you.

[RashanGary]

Top companies don't collapse, they get bailed out. Same with banks. Govt is no better. These big companies being greedy and trying to profit is a lie. The reality of huge business is it doesn't really profit that much. It controls. Huge corps, banks and govt work hand in hand to leach from the public. Those at the top look at us like mindless idiots while they skim from our hard work as if we were work horses or donkeys for their usage. And for the most part people are dumb enough to do it, so why not really.

[texaspackerbacker]

That is the point I was originally making. PB stated it was for monetary reasons, but recent evidence demonstrates such sociopolitical stands to be counterproductive to that end. The main reason I find their actions of value to discussion is not because I feel strongly about the transgender issue, but because I'm starting to find myself growing weary of the trend. Unlike others, I wasn't particularly turned off by the kneeling "demonstrations" this season. I felt they were entirely misguided and based on a mountain of social media falsehoods, but I understand the players aren't necessarily the sharpest tools in the shed, and it was, for the most part, a player activity. When the league as a whole, however, starts lecturing on these issues, and then attempts economic coercion to affect a political end, I find myself less entertained by a league that is supposed to do just that - entertain.

Yes, you would certainly think it would come back to bite them in the ass. Getting on the wrong side of decency, wholesomeness, and normalcy may be ok for TV networks, movie studios, even educational institutions, but why the NFL? No matter how much they get in bed with perversion, I'm not gonna stop watching games and being a fan, and I suppose that's the case for just about anybody, but WHY? And better yet WHO in the organization thinks this disgusting shit is worth promoting? Fire his ass!

The anti-American shit of Kaepernick and others was bad enough, but vile as it was, it was at least a position probably a bigger (although still small) segment of players and fans identify with. But this sick transgender and homosexuality shit? Sheeeesh!

(I'm still waiting for somebody in here to come out and defend that crap - thereby labeling themselves hahahahahahaha. No takers? Good.

[Deputy Nutz]

That's not what they're doing though. They are fine doing business there. They aren't threatening to pull franchises or stop collecting money from fans in Texas. It's not a business decision. It's a political one, where they're threatening economic retaliation if they don't get their way.

I understand this is football related and you are expressing you opinions and concerns about football and not trying to venture much further from that, but this is big business in America. Whatever you want to call it, it is business trying to extort their will on government, and the people of this country. Usually when businesses do this and it fits our own agenda we don't say much about it, but when big business makes a stand or delivers an ultimatum that we don't agree with we freak out and condemn the current system. The NFL has to make decision based on their projected growth numbers and predictions. I sincerely doubt the NFL brass gives more than one fuck about the bathroom usage in America. They are looking at their bottom line dollars and do not want to get targeted for supporting discrimination in any capacity, the NFL apparently feels that this is the best direction for their business to grow.

I think you are stretching the kneeling, or the refusal to stand for the National Anthem has major reason that the NFL has been stagnate in growth over the past couple of years. The NFL has had several major rule changes and enforcement of rules that have changed the game dramatically and although they are trying to make the game safer for players it has damaged the overall product on the field. I can list them out for you if you want, but I really don't feel like it.

[SkinBasket]

I'm not solely blaming Kapernick for the decline, but it was a factor. However, we can also look at Target's same "business decision" and how it cost them, and continues to cost them for 3 quarters running now, to see that opposition to this issue is not passive. I don't know if companies like this have overestimated support for these social and political issues, or if their ownership/leadership truly believe in them and are willing to take a hit for it, but unless something changes pretty dramatically, it appears that this isn't going to bring them economic returns.

[bobblehead]

And you accuse others of throwing up false arguments to keep people on the defensive while using the 'think of the children' line yourself?

I use exactly this. I don't think there was ever a big problem with true transgenders who dressed their identified sex walking into a public RR, doing the business and leaving. Doubt very highly it was an issue at all. I live in vegas where I see it all the time and we NEVER had security escort them out.

The left, in their further attempt at identity politics, decided to drop a decree from on high that basically said anyone can use any bathroom they want at any time....depending on how they self identified that day and businesses would be sued out of business if they stopped them.

The effect of such a decree is that if some grown pervert decides he wants to use the women's room (and hang out for 30 minutes doing so) a business has to look the other way or risk said perv saying "I'm a woman damn you" and then suing.

So yes, I am thinking of the children when I say a business has to be able to stop this behavior on its premises or else its lose/lose.

[bobblehead]

I don't buy that its an economic decision. Here is my reasoning. Whenever ANY company takes a stand on ANY political issue I generally dump the stock and ignore it for awhile. The reason is that no matter which side of any issue you stand on publicly you alienate some people. Its never a winner. Bottom line when people get butthurt over your stance on something not related to your business they do things to hurt your business. I can't think of anyone saying "hey, I hate coffee, but starbucks is forcing uncomfortable race relation discussions on their customers and I suppport this so I'm buying a macchiato today." What happens lies between "meh" and "fuck them, I'm not going in this week, I'll try seattles best". It pretty much can only hurt you. (and it goes both ways. If they tried to say "black lives don't matter" they would suffer from the other side, but benefit nothing)

[ThunderDan]

Have any of you been in a restroom during an NFL game. No kid is going to get molested at an NFL game without 20 people jumping in.

[Deputy Nutz]

Have any of you been in a restroom during an NFL game. No kid is going to get molested at an NFL game without 20 people jumping in.


Gross

[Zool]

You know the great thing about twenty eight ear olds? There's 20 of them.

As anyone with a brain has said before, criminals will commit crimes no matter the law. Saying that letting a transgender person use a specific bathroom will cause child rape makes no sense. They're called criminals for a reason. Pedos don't really care about laws.

As usual people are trying to fix a symptom instead of a problem. People are the problem.

As to why the NFL is flexing their peen, hard to say. I doubt that's a big factor in the decline in popularity. Over saturation and mediocre product has more to do with it than that IMO. Maybe the heads of the NFL feel strongly about he issue?

[bobblehead]

Have any of you been in a restroom during an NFL game. No kid is going to get molested at an NFL game without 20 people jumping in.

And the transgender crowd are HUGE football fans. at least 75% of the crowd is trannies. Seriously, this is a very important issue for them to make a stand on.

I am not suggesting anything of the sort, I am saying the law Texas is proposing says the NFL can do whatever they please with r/to restroom policy. What the NFL is advocating however is that those bathrooms way in the back of Wal mart that very few people use must allow grown men to use the womens room if they simply say "I'm a woman today".

So your point is...that you haven't read anything about the actual facts and the debate we are having yet you put your 2 cents in anyway and proved you have no idea what you are talking about or even arguing in favor of.

[bobblehead]

As anyone with a brain has said before, criminals will commit crimes no matter the law. Saying that letting a transgender person use a specific bathroom will cause child rape makes no sense. They're called criminals for a reason. Pedos don't really care about laws.

As usual people are trying to fix a symptom instead of a problem. People are the problem.


I would love to make a gun control analogy, but I don't want to banish the thread so...I agree. Its going to happen anyway, BUT if a business is allowed to kick the man in the womens room out of the store without being sued, its making it a bit harder and less likely to happen. Also, we aren't talking about something without a better solution. The solution is simple. Use your own restroom.

And I'll agree twice...sort of. What we are really trying to do is find a solution where there is no actual problem in the name of identity politics.

[Freak Out]

The NFL has the right to do it if they desire....whether it's a smart move economically remains to be seen. Interestingly Texas has the distinction of electing the nations first Trans mayor.