International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Social Issues & Current Events (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=82)
-   -   Girls protesting boys who identify as girl using their restrooms and showers. (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=337773)

Cainkane1 24th July 2019 02:28 PM

Girls protesting boys who identify as girl using their restrooms and showers.
 
I don't blame them. Having to see male private prats is not something a young girl should have to experience.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/t...WlzsZ-E9gFZT8g

Thor 2 24th July 2019 02:49 PM

I have known some females that could be described as prats also.

plague311 24th July 2019 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cainkane1 (Post 12765225)
I don't blame them. Having to see male private prats is not something a young girl should have to experience.

Seeing a prat in general would be horrifying, whatever it is.

On the other hand, what in the **** are you talking about?

ETA: It is technically qualified as a person's buttocks (I just learned). This does change my outlook. I am extremely pleased to hear they are seeing the males PRIVATE prats, rather than their public prats.

Arcade22 24th July 2019 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cainkane1 (Post 12765225)
I don't blame them. Having to see male private prats is not something a young girl should have to experience.

You will now become utterly traumatized when i inform you that male parents often take their young daughters, who are too young to go change on their own, into the male changing rooms (with naked adult men potentially present) when they go public swimming pools and such.

Little girls (potentially) seeing a bunch fat and jolly old men and their PENISES! You now have the right to consider yourself triggered.

Thor 2 24th July 2019 03:13 PM

I think there may be some here who appreciate that we have a difficult problem today, when it is recognised a number of people do not fit the perfect mould of male or female. The sensitive among us feel we should try to find ways to accomodate those not fitting. It may not be easy but there's justice in it. Those who just join the shrill cry of outrage are not helpful.

Meadmaker 24th July 2019 03:15 PM

Having participated in a lot of threads on related subjects, my opinions on the subject are well known.

My opinion on this thread in particular is that it is pure trolling.

Thor 2 24th July 2019 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcade22 (Post 12765253)
You will now become utterly traumatized when i inform you that male parents often take their young daughters, who are too young to go change on their own, into the male changing rooms (with naked adult men potentially present) when they go public swimming pools and such.

Little girls (potentially) seeing a bunch fat and jolly old and their PENISES! You now have the right to consider yourself triggered.


Hej Arcade, I am Swedish by birth also.

The Swedish are a little ahead of the rest of the World in dealing with gender diversity with the gender neutral "hen" term - relatively recently I believe.

psionl0 24th July 2019 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plague311 (Post 12765242)
I am extremely pleased to hear they are seeing the males PRIVATE prats, rather than their public prats.

It could be worse. They could be seeing their pubic parts.

gerdbonk 24th July 2019 03:32 PM

I am not a prat and so's my wife!

Cainkane1 24th July 2019 03:36 PM

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/t...WlzsZ-E9gFZT8g

Edited by jsfisher:  Edited to remove much of the disruptive post formatting.



Girls and boys deserve privacy.

Cainkane1 24th July 2019 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcade22 (Post 12765253)
You will now become utterly traumatized when i inform you that male parents often take their young daughters, who are too young to go change on their own, into the male changing rooms (with naked adult men potentially present) when they go public swimming pools and such.

Little girls (potentially) seeing a bunch fat and jolly old and their PENISES! You now have the right to consider yourself triggered.

If by little you mean infants then there's no harm. Perhaps in your culture its ok for little girls and teens to see male private areas but in most parts of America that would be considered indecent exposure.

Venom 24th July 2019 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cainkane1 (Post 12765225)
I don't blame them. Having to see male private prats is not something a young girl should have to experience.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/t...WlzsZ-E9gFZT8g

We're talking high schoolers here.

Just a thought.

I don't think elementary schoolers on the other hand would entertain M-F transitioned little kids. But this student might have a case.

Meadmaker 24th July 2019 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cainkane1 (Post 12765284)

Ok. The news story is a bit stale, but at least there's an associated news story. That makes it not quite so trollish.


I think if you were to interview the protestors, you would find that their objection was not that they might see male naughty bits, but that someone who is known to the girls as a male might see the protestors' female bits. In other words, the issue is about protecting their own privacy, not about what they might see.

casebro 24th July 2019 04:21 PM

I assumed he meant PARTS, as in "Total noodle frontity" (Archie Bunker)

Seems to me the real problem is American prudery. My parents did not suffer from that. Changing clothes, or my 10 year old sister giving me (6 yo) and my younger bro our baths.

And in 1965 the gym coach explaining that "everybody's plumbing is a little different, but they all work the same. Now 100 boys, get neked in the communal shower". They don't do that anymore either. How about skinny dipping? Co-ed?

Personally, I draw the line at surgery- or you ain't transsexual. Meantime, use the facility for your bio-sex. After surgery, nobody would know.

Meantime we have tyranny by the minority- a very, very small minority. Umm, 1/300? And the only known biological difference for most of those is an imbalance of mental chemicals. How far should 297 people have to go to accommodate 3?

These kinds of issues are what makes me amenable to the idea that the Commies instigated divisiveness since the 50s at least. I just can't believe real people would get their panties in a bunch of such a petty problem without some outside fomenting.

Arcade22 24th July 2019 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cainkane1 (Post 12765284)

Note that this is a far-right and reactionary website run by Canadian evangelical Christians for the sole purpose of disseminating propaganda that is anti-abortion, anti-LGBT, anti-women's rights or otherwise supports their views and is against everything they consider to be contrary to their religious beliefs.

It's not a credible source of information and anything found there is liable to be erroneous or otherwise colored by their bias.

cullennz 24th July 2019 04:44 PM

The school actually has a gender neutral bathroom

Tell the person with the dangly bits to use it. Problem solved

https://www.omaha.com/news/metro/cou...eb3b3cfc1.html

Quote:

Counselors are also available to speak with students regarding their gender identity, among other subjects. The high school has a gender-neutral restroom anyone can use.

Sideroxylon 24th July 2019 05:14 PM

Reactionary Chicken Little declares sky is falling. Mass hysteria ensues.

Meadmaker 24th July 2019 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcade22 (Post 12765339)
Note that this is a far-right and reactionary website run by Canadian evangelical Christians for the sole purpose of disseminating propaganda that is anti-abortion, anti-LGBT, anti-women's rights or otherwise supports their views and is against everything they consider to be contrary to their religious beliefs.

It's not a credible source of information and anything found there is liable to be erroneous or otherwise colored by their bias.

If you go to google news and type in Council Bluffs transgender, you'll see the same news story from several sources, mainstream, right wing, and otherwise. The mainstream ones obviously won't have the editorializing that was found in the right wing source, but the basics are there, and the quotes are word for word consistent

BobTheCoward 24th July 2019 07:00 PM

What is wrong with seeing genitalia of both sexes? I can't think of a reason why it would bother someone. A penis isn't great looking, but that seems like it would lend itself to indifference.

Mycroft 24th July 2019 07:26 PM

"The backlash against the relentless assault on nearly every civilizational institution by transgender activists seems to be slowly increasing as ordinary men and women realize the implications of the transgender agenda and the abolition of gender."

My God that sentence is packed with bull excrement.

Those transgender activists, how can they oppose every civilizational institution? Every single one! The courts, governments, public libraries, the internet, the rule of law, schools, international treaties, the Freemasons...they're assaulting them all and just won't stop!!1!

And how are we going to procreate once gender is abolished?

How will people be trans-gender without gender?

It's all so very confusing.

Myles 24th July 2019 07:26 PM

I am a male. Canít remember the last time Iíve blundered into a ladies room, but are they not equipped with stalls with doors? I donít recall seeing anything resembling the urinal row in the menís room. If my memory is correct and if the state of the art is the same, how will the girls observe those naughty bits without being some sort of nosy parker?

arthwollipot 24th July 2019 07:29 PM

For once, and yes I'm shocked, I'm in agreement with BobTheCoward. Seeing perfectly natural body parts should not be a source of shame. Children should be taught that penises (and vulvas) exist from an early age.

Sherman Bay 24th July 2019 07:38 PM

Maybe Robert Rimmer's Harrad Experiment was ahead of its time. At this college, there was one mandatory class for all students -- a swimming pool with no suits allowed for either sex.

In this fictional universe, it seemed to work.

Cainkane1 24th July 2019 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arthwollipot (Post 12765458)
For once, and yes I'm shocked, I'm in agreement with BobTheCoward. Seeing perfectly natural body parts should not be a source of shame. Children should be taught that penises (and vulvas) exist from an early age.

Its not me protesting its the girls.

applecorped 24th July 2019 07:47 PM

Yes girls shouldn't have the right to protest, good job adults

BobTheCoward 24th July 2019 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cainkane1 (Post 12765468)
Its not me protesting its the girls.

Their offense is misplaced.

arthwollipot 24th July 2019 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cainkane1 (Post 12765468)
Its not me protesting its the girls.

I realise that. In a better world, they should have no reason to protest.

Meadmaker 24th July 2019 08:40 PM

Sigh.


It's always the same old stuff. Same, same, same. I just wish people would not pretend that they don't understand, and wouldn't repeat the same old straw men. That phrase "straw man" is way overused on ISF, but here, it is a perfect example. To be a true straw man, the arguer has to take a real argument, and substitute a similar argument, and then attack the substitute argument.

Here's an example:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob, but others have said and will continue to say the same thing
What is wrong with seeing genitalia of both sexes? I can't think of a reason why it would bother someone. A penis isn't great looking, but that seems like it would lend itself to indifference.

Why is that a straw man? Because the actual argument made by the girls who wish for privacy is that they want some control over who sees them in a state of complete or partial undress. The issue is that the girls might be undressed and, while undressed, be seen by a male. What Bob (et. al.) has done above is to substitute that actual argument for a different argument. In the substitute argument, Bob (et. al.) has said that the girls object to what they might see, i.e. the substitute argument is that the girls do not want to see the male's penis. Now, Bob (et. al.) can criticize the girls for their prudery and make fun of them for fearing that they might see a penis, and that sounds kind of childish. However, that isn't their argument, so all Bob (et. al.) has done is knock down the straw man.


(ETA: Bob correctly noted in subsequent posts that the OP did in fact say that the issue was young girls seeing a penis. God only knows what Cainkane1 was really thinking, but the girls who actually protest about the invasion of female only spaces by males rarely if ever complain about the possibility that they might see a penis. They actually complain about privacy, by which they mean that they are concerned about who might see their bodies, rather than whose bodies they might see.)


Now comes the next straw man.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Myles, but others have said and will continue to say the same thing
I am a male. Can’t remember the last time I’ve blundered into a ladies room, but are they not equipped with stalls with doors? I don’t recall seeing anything resembling the urinal row in the men’s room. If my memory is correct and if the state of the art is the same, how will the girls observe those naughty bits without being some sort of nosy parker?

So, Myles repeats the previous straw man about girls seeing naughty bits, but he adds the second straw man which is so common in these discussions. This one is routinely repeated by the news media who reports it as well, but it's a straw man. The actual argument made by the girls is that they might be seen while undressed, which, one must admit, is not all that common in a ladies' room. On the other hand, it is extremely common in a locker room, which is what the ladies complain about far more often than with rest rooms. So, Myles (et. al.) takes the actual argument, which is that the girls will be seen undressed if males are allowed into female only spaces where full or partial nudity is common, and substitutes a much more restricted argument, limiting the space in question to restrooms. He then proceeds to demolish the straw man argument by noting that the stall doors preserve privacy, so there is no need to worry. Unfortunately, it does nothing to address the girls' real complaint, which extends beyond bathrooms and into places where being seen undressed is in fact quite common.


But, carry on. I know you will. Heaven forbid anyone should address the actual complaint when the straw men can be demolished so easily.


Oh, and for the next step, some people will go on and insult the desire for modesty that the girls express. It will be said that we ought to be perfectly happy to run about with no clothes regardless of who is watching, or at the very least the sex of the watcher should not be a factor in deciding if they ought to see us undressed. To that I simply say that the argument has the virtue of being honest, i.e. not inherently a straw man, but if you are going to go that way, make sure to go all the way with that argument. By going all the way with that argument, what I mean is that you have to apply it to the trans person as well. In that case, you have to acknowledge that the trans person ought also to be comfortable in either sex's facilities, because no one, including the trans person, ought to care who sees them undressed, or is seen by them while undressed. It shouldn't matter to anyone, including the transperson.

And when you acknowledge that last part, it is revealed that that argument, too, is often a straw man, because it is clear that the real argument is not about modesty and whether it makes sense at all. The real problem with having the transperson use the facilities of their own sex is that to do so would be to assert that the person's self identification is in some sense not "real". i.e. if a transgirl is told to use the boys' room, the real problem is that in doing so the authorities are saying, "You aren't really a girl."


And, they aren't. At least, I and a whole lot of other people don't think that they are. So, if you disagree, then argue about that. Saying, "trans girls are really girls" is not a straw man.

Myles 24th July 2019 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meadmaker (Post 12765508)
Sigh.


It's always the same old stuff. Same, same, same. I just wish people would not pretend that they don't understand, and wouldn't repeat the same old straw men. That phrase "straw man" is way overused on ISF, but here, it is a perfect example. To be a true straw man, the arguer has to take a real argument, and substitute a similar argument, and then attack the substitute argument.

Here's an example:



Why is that a straw man? Because the actual argument made by the girls who wish for privacy is that they want some control over who sees them in a state of complete or partial undress. The issue is that the girls might be undressed and, while undressed, be seen by a male. What Bob (et. al.) has done above is to substitute that actual argument for a different argument. In the substitute argument, Bob (et. al.) has said that the girls object to what they might see, i.e. the substitute argument is that the girls do not want to see the male's penis. Now, Bob (et. al.) can criticize the girls for their prudery and make fun of them for fearing that they might see a penis, and that sounds kind of childish. However, that isn't their argument, so all Bob (et. al.) has done is knock down the straw man.


Now comes the next straw man.



So, Myles repeats the previous straw man about girls seeing naughty bits, but he adds the second straw man which is so common in these discussions. This one is routinely repeated by the news media who reports it as well, but it's a straw man. The actual argument made by the girls is that they might be seen while undressed, which, one must admit, is not all that common in a ladies' room. On the other hand, it is extremely common in a locker room, which is what the ladies complain about far more often than with rest rooms. So, Myles (et. al.) takes the actual argument, which is that the girls will be seen undressed if males are allowed into female only spaces where full or partial nudity is common, and substitutes a much more restricted argument, limiting the space in question to restrooms. He then proceeds to demolish the straw man argument by noting that the stall doors preserve privacy, so there is no need to worry. Unfortunately, it does nothing to address the girls' real complaint, which extends beyond bathrooms and into places where being seen undressed is in fact quite common.


But, carry on. I know you will. Heaven forbid anyone should address the actual complaint when the straw men can be demolished so easily.


Oh, and for the next step, some people will go on and insult the desire for modesty that the girls express. It will be said that we ought to be perfectly happy to run about with no clothes regardless of who is watching, or at the very least the sex of the watcher should not be a factor in deciding if they ought to see us undressed. To that I simply say that the argument has the virtue of being honest, i.e. not inherently a straw man, but if you are going to go that way, make sure to go all the way with that argument. By going all the way with that argument, what I mean is that you have to apply it to the trans person as well. In that case, you have to acknowledge that the trans person ought also to be comfortable in either sex's facilities, because no one, including the trans person, ought to care who sees them undressed, or is seen by them while undressed. It shouldn't matter to anyone, including the transperson.

And when you acknowledge that last part, it is revealed that that argument, too, is often a straw man, because it is clear that the real argument is not about modesty and whether it makes sense at all. The real problem with having the transperson use the facilities of their own sex is that to do so would be to assert that the person's self identification is in some sense not "real". i.e. if a transgirl is told to use the boys' room, the real problem is that in doing so the authorities are saying, "You aren't really a girl."


And, they aren't. At least, I and a whole lot of other people don't think that they are. So, if you disagree, then argue about that. Saying, "trans girls are really girls" is not a straw man.

I take your question.

BobTheCoward 24th July 2019 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meadmaker (Post 12765508)
Sigh.


It's always the same old stuff. Same, same, same. I just wish people would not pretend that they don't understand, and wouldn't repeat the same old straw men. That phrase "straw man" is way overused on ISF, but here, it is a perfect example. To be a true straw man, the arguer has to take a real argument, and substitute a similar argument, and then attack the substitute argument.

Here's an example:



Why is that a straw man? Because the actual argument made by the girls who wish for privacy is that they want some control over who sees them in a state of complete or partial undress. The issue is that the girls might be undressed and, while undressed, be seen by a male. What Bob (et. al.) has done above is to substitute that actual argument for a different argument. In the substitute argument, Bob (et. al.) has said that the girls object to what they might see, i.e. the substitute argument is that the girls do not want to see the male's penis.

Reread the OP. The OP posits that the issue is viewing male genitalia. I will even quote it for you.

Quote:

I don't blame them. Having to see male private prats is not something a young girl should have to experience.

Meadmaker 24th July 2019 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12765552)
Reread the OP. The OP posits that the issue is viewing male genitalia. I will even quote it for you.

Fine. The OP also got caught up in the straw man. It's still a straw man. That makes Cainkaine1 part of "et. al.".

And maybe you weren't really part of the strawman at all, because in a true straw man, the person who presents the substitute argument is also the person who knocks it down. So, what you have done is fallen for the straw man and done the dirty work of knocking it down.

Who knows? Maybe Cainkane1 actually thinks that young girls should not see penises, although since they are high school girls, I'm not sure what that has to do with the story.


Regardless of who says it and who repeats it, the issue is that anyone who argues about seeing penises in the girls' restroom is arguing against at least two, and maybe more, straw men.

BobTheCoward 24th July 2019 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meadmaker (Post 12765566)
Fine. The OP also got caught up in the straw man. It's still a straw man. That makes Cainkaine1 part of "et. al.".

And maybe you weren't really part of the strawman at all, because in a true straw man, the person who presents the substitute argument is also the person who knocks it down. So, what you have done is fallen for the straw man and done the dirty work of knocking it down.

Who knows? Maybe Cainkane1 actually thinks that young girls should not see penises, although since they are high school girls, I'm not sure what that has to do with the story.


Regardless of who says it and who repeats it, the issue is that anyone who argues about seeing penises in the girls' restroom is arguing against at least two, and maybe more, straw men.

It would be a strawman if I made an argument against the OP's claim that wasn't actually their claim. They have a poorly supported.position, but it is still their position. The article is support for that position, not the position itself.

Silly Green Monkey 24th July 2019 10:31 PM

Why are kids getting naked in schools? I never did.

Meadmaker 24th July 2019 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12765568)
It would be a strawman if I made an argument against the OP's claim that wasn't actually their claim. They have a poorly supported.position, but it is still their position. The article is support for that position, not the position itself.

Fine. You, personally, are not guilty of a straw man argument because you were arguing against an actual argument that was put forward in the OP.

Plenty of other people are, and they will continue to be. This thread will follow the same pattern that the other threads devoted to the same topic have followed.


ETA: And my post that you quoted was sufficiently recent that I could correct the record. You are absolved of straw-manning. Instead, you have responded to an argument made by someone who apparently did not understand why the protestors to which he referred were actually protesting.

Don't worry, though. Plenty of others will carry on the straw man, because they will not be so focused on the words of the OP, but rather on the general issue of whether or not transgirls ought to use female facilities in high schools, and in doing so, they will say that those girls shouldn't worry about seeing penises in rest rooms.

Meadmaker 24th July 2019 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey (Post 12765570)
Why are kids getting naked in schools? I never did.

I did. Everyone I grew up with did. People still do it at the gyms where I work out, although the young guys go more out of the way to keep at least partially covered up for as much time as they can. Damned if I can figure out kids these days.

Did you ever walk around in your underwear? I'm pretty sure that's still fairly common even today. And if not, then there's no need to have segregated locker rooms at all, and the question is moot.

arthwollipot 24th July 2019 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meadmaker (Post 12765577)
Did you ever walk around in your underwear?

Not at school, I didn't.

ArchSas 24th July 2019 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey (Post 12765570)
Why are kids getting naked in schools? I never did.

Same. During P.E. classes, everyone would generally get dressed and undressed as quickly as possible, while keeping underwear on, and not looking around at anything. In general, there was actually a stigma against getting naked or showering, and the idea of being naked in a locker room was dismissed as being "gay," because it meant that someone wanted to be naked around the other guys. The only people I remember actually doing it were the ultra jocks everyone want too scared to make fun of, and even then, it only happened maybe twice throughout all of junior high and high school for me. Having worked at a summer camp and been in charge of groups of 10-12 teenaged boys living together, it seems like that kind of attitude is still present, without the gay panic. At least, they always avoided being naked around each other, even during shower times. It wasn't even uncommon for kids to refuse to change clothes without a completely private space, or at least avoid it as much as they could.

Granted, in hindsight, my school experience was incredibly homophobic and oppressive; I don't condone that kind of attitude, but I also think most of it came more from people just feeling uncomfortable with being naked around other people than actual homophobia. My campers certainly framed it as entirely a privacy issue. Because of that stuff, it's hard for me to see being naked in a school as actually necessary. Or a locker room in general, really. For a while, I worked in a gym, exercised five days a week, and used the locker room all the time; the only people I ever saw naked were old guys that would just walk around nude for no reason (maybe this whole issue is raised by older people that had to get naked in school and are projecting?). Everyone else either stayed in their underwear or used a towel to cover up. The transphobia around this issue is, as always, unwarranted, and doesn't really present any kind of valid point. In general, I just think no one wants to be naked unnecessarily around strangers, which is understandable.

Meadmaker 24th July 2019 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arthwollipot (Post 12765585)
Not at school, I didn't.

If that's true for everyone, then there's no need for locker rooms at all.

Meadmaker 25th July 2019 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey (Post 12765570)
Why are kids getting naked in schools? I never did.

I realized that I didn't actually answer the question.

The reason that we got naked in school was because, sometimes, we were drenched in sweat at the end of gym class and we wanted to shower before we went into a classroom with girls.


Seriously. It happened. Badminton was the worst. Don't laugh. If you've ever played it to win, you know what I mean. If we didn't shower after playing badminton in gym class, we would have made life very unpleasant for our fellow students.


But that's really just an aside. If people don't take off their clothes in locker rooms these days, then there is no need for any locker room, and no need to decide who uses which one.

dann 25th July 2019 12:11 AM

Girls protesting boys who identify as girl using their restrooms and showers.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cainkane1 (Post 12765284)


Where does it say showers?!
Where does it say that they actually get to see penises (or "male private prats")?

Quote:

the relentless assault on nearly every civilizational institution by transgender activists
Teen girls stage school walkout to protest boys in their bathroom who claim to be ‘girls’ (LifeSite, April 15, 2019)

Really?! A "relentless assault"?! And "on nearly every civilizational institution"?!!! Will they be allowed to visit museums and libraries and use public transport next? The horror!


Don't go to Denmark!!! EVER!!! Or STAY INSIDE!!! Don't leave your hotel room!!!
Question about Denmark’s law regarding nudity on beaches (Reddit, 2018)

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12765435)
A penis isn't great looking


Speak for yourself, Bob! :)


ETA: For that matter, don't go to Scandinavia at all. Or Germany: Nudity in German hotel spas (Flyertalk.com)
Stay at home in the USA! The country seems to be made by prudes for prudes.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:32 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.